{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_45002/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_45002","id":"gutenberg_45002","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/45002","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Economics","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Economics"],"text":"TRANSCRIBER\u2019S NOTE\n\nOriginal printed spelling and grammar is generally retained.\nFootnotes were renumbered and relocated to the end of the book, into\na new Notes section, ahead of the Index. Original small caps font is\nindicated \u00abHerein Thus\u00bb. Original \u2039italics, thus\u203a. The carot symbol\n\"^\" means superscript. See ENDNOTE for more details.\n\n\n\n\n HARMONIES\n OF\n POLITICAL ECONOMY.\n\n BY\n FR\u00c9D\u00c9RIC BASTIAT.\n\n\n TRANSLATED FROM THE THIRD EDITION OF THE FRENCH,\n WITH A\n NOTICE OF THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF THE AUTHOR,\n\n BY\n PATRICK JAMES STIRLING, LL.D., F.R.S.E.,\n\n AUTHOR OF \u201cTHE PHILOSOPHY OF TRADE,\u201d \u201cTHE GOLD DISCOVERIES AND THEIR\n PROBABLE CONSEQUENCES,\u201d ETC.\n\n\n Second Edition.\n\n\n EDINBURGH:\n OLIVER AND BOYD, TWEEDDALE COURT.\n LONDON: SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, AND CO.\n\n\n\n\n EDINBURGH: PRINTED BY OLIVER AND BOYD, TWEEDDALE COURT.\n\n\n\n\n TRANSLATOR\u2019S PREFACE.\n\n\nThe favour with which the English public has received the First\nEdition of this translation of Bastiat\u2019s \u2039Harmonies \u00c9conomiques\u203a,\npublished originally in separate parts, has induced me to have the\nwhole reprinted in a cheaper and more accessible form, in the hope of\ngiving the work a wider circulation, and rendering it more generally\nuseful.\n\nThe first ten chapters were all that appeared in the lifetime of the\ngifted author, or that had the benefit of his finishing touch. It\nwas Bastiat\u2019s intention, had he lived, to recast the work, and to\ngive it a wider and more comprehensive scope; embracing in his design\nnot only the principles of Political Economy, but their applications\nto Social Philosophy. Prior to his departure for Italy, on what he\nforesaw might be his last journey, he had communicated to his friends\nMM. de Fontenay and Paillottet a list of the new chapters in the\norder in which they will be found in the subjoined Notice of his\nLife.[1] To the same friends, in his last moments, he entrusted the\nmanuscripts intended for the continuation of the work. The duty thus\ncommitted to them they discharged very judiciously, by arranging the\nnew portions in the order pointed out, without altering the text,\nand, except in a very few instances, without additions of their own,\ncontenting themselves with adding some explanatory notes, consisting\nchiefly of references to the author\u2019s other works. [p004]\n\nSome of the chapters thus added are unfortunately mere fragments,\nbut most of the others indicate very clearly Bastiat\u2019s opinions on\nthe subjects to which they relate, and several of them display a\nbreadth, a vigour, and an originality worthy of the best days of\ntheir lamented author.\n\nMany of the questions purely economical which are discussed in the\nposthumous portions of the work,\u2014such, for instance, as those of\nWages, Population, and the relations of Labour and Capital, etc.,\u2014are\nstill deeply engaging public attention in England, as well as on the\nother side of the Channel; and on subjects of such vast practical\nimportance it is surely desirable that the opinions of so profound\nand fearless a thinker as Bastiat should be as widely disseminated as\npossible.\n\nIn conclusion, I may perhaps be permitted to refer to the great\ninterest taken in this translation by the late Mr Cobden, who was the\ncorrespondent and personal friend of Bastiat, and was, I need not\nsay, so eminently qualified to form and pronounce an opinion on the\nmerits of his last great work. A short time after the appearance of\nthe first ten chapters (26th March 1860), writing from Paris, where\nhe was then engaged in negotiating the Commercial Treaty, Mr Cobden\nsays, \u201cMy enthusiasm for Bastiat, founded as much on a love of his\npersonal qualities as on an admiration for his genius, dates back\nnearly twenty years. I need not, therefore, express any astonishment\nat the warmth with which you speak of his productions. They are doing\ntheir work silently but effectually. M. Guillaumin [the eminent\npublisher] tells me the sale of the last edition has been steady and\ncontinuous, and a new one is now in hand. The works of Bastiat, which\nare selling not only in France, but throughout Europe, are gradually\nteaching those who, by their commanding talents, are capable of\nbecoming the teachers of others; for Bastiat speaks with the greatest\nforce to the highest order of intellects. At the same time, he is\nalmost the only political economist whose style is brilliant and\nfascinating, whilst his irresistible logic is [p005] relieved by\nsallies of wit and humour which make his \u2039Sophismes\u203a as amusing as\na novel. No critic who has read Bastiat will dare to apply again to\nPolitical Economy the sarcastic epithet of the \u2018dreary science.\u2019 His\nfame is so well established, that I think it would be presumptuous\nto do anything to increase it by any other means than the silent but\ncertain dissemination of his works by the force of their own great\nmerits.\u201d\n\nA word as to my mode of rendering Bastiat. I have not aimed at\ngiving a literal translation. Indeed, the language often employed by\nBastiat hardly admits of literal translation. But the more important\nobject, I trust, has been attained of conveying fully, plainly, and\nintelligibly the author\u2019s precise meaning.\n\nThe materials of the following notice of the life and writings of\nBastiat have been borrowed partly from a short account of him in\nthe \u2039Dictionnaire de l\u2019\u00c9conomie Politique\u203a, partly from the Memoir\nand Correspondence prefixed to the author\u2019s \u2039\u0152uvres Compl\u00e8tes\u203a, and\npartly from an able article in the \u2039Revue des Deux Mondes\u203a from the\npen of M. Louis Reybaud.\n\n P. J. S.\n\n\n\n\n CONTENTS.\n\n\n                                                            Page\n Notice of the Life and Writings of Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Bastiat,          9\n To the Youth of France,                                      33\n \u00abChapter I.\u00bb Natural and Artificial Organization,            47\n         II. Wants, Efforts, Satisfactions,                   63\n        III. Wants of Man,                                    75\n         IV. Exchange,                                        97\n          V. Of Value,                                       131\n         VI. Wealth,                                         180\n        VII. Capital,                                        196\n       VIII. Property\u2014Community,                             218\n         IX. Landed Property,                                249\n          X. Competition,                                    288\n         XI. Producer\u2014Consumer,                              323\n        XII. The Two Aphorisms,                              339\n       XIII. Rent,                                           347\n        XIV. Wages,                                          352\n         XV. Saving,                                         393\n        XVI. Population,                                     397\n       XVII. Private and Public Services,                    425\n      XVIII. Disturbing Causes,                              446\n        XIX. War,                                            454\n         XX. Responsibility,                                 465\n        XXI. Solidarity,                                     488\n       XXII. Social Motive Force,                            495\n      XXIII. Existence of Evil,                              504\n       XXIV. Perfectibility,                                 508\n        XXV. Relations of Political Economy with Religion,   513\n             Index,                                          518\n\n\n\n\n NOTICE OF THE\n LIFE AND WRITINGS OF FR\u00c9D\u00c9RIC BASTIAT.\n\n\n\u00abFr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Bastiat\u00bb, whose last and greatest, though, alas! unfinished\nwork\u2014the \u2039Harmonies \u00c9conomiques\u203a\u2014I now venture to introduce to the\nEnglish public, was born at Bayonne, on the 19th of June 1801. His\nfather, an eminent merchant of Bayonne, died young, and his wife\nhaving died before him, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric, their only child, was left an\norphan at the early age of nine years.\n\nThe care of his education devolved on his paternal grandfather, who\nwas proprietor of a land estate near Mugron, in the arrondissement of\nSaint-Sever. His aunt, Mademoiselle Justine Bastiat, acted towards\nhim the part of a mother, and her affection was warmly reciprocated\nby Bastiat, who, to the day of his death, never ceased to regard her\nwith filial love and reverence.\n\nBastiat\u2019s education was begun at Bayonne, continued at Saint-Sever,\nand finished at the College of Sor\u00e8ze. Here his course of study was\noccasionally interrupted by indisposition; but, on his recovery,\nhis quick parts and steady application soon enabled him to overtake\nand keep pace with his fellow-students. At Sor\u00e8ze. Bastiat formed\na boyish friendship with M. Calm\u00e8tes, to whom his earliest letters\nare addressed. The attachment of the youths was so remarkable, that\nthe masters permitted them to prepare their exercises together, and\nsign them with their joint names. In this way they gained a prize for\npoetry. The prize was a gold medal, which, of course, could not be\ndivided. \u201cKeep it,\u201d said Bastiat to his friend: \u201cI am an orphan; you\nhave both father and mother, and the medal of right falls to them.\u201d\n\nIn 1818, Bastiat left College, and, in compliance with the wishes\nof his family, entered his uncle\u2019s counting-house at Bayonne. His\n[p010] tastes, however, were for study rather than for business,\nand while at Bayonne he devoted his leisure hours by turns to\nFrench, English, and Italian literature. \u201cI aim at nothing less,\u201d he\nsaid, \u201cthan to become acquainted with politics, history, geography,\nmathematics, mechanics, natural history, botany, and four or five\nlanguages.\u201d He was fond of music, sang agreeably, and played well on\nthe violoncello.\n\nIn 1824, he began to study the works of the leading Economists of\nFrance and England\u2014Adam Smith, Jean Baptiste Say, and Destutt de\nTracy; and even at this early period he took an interest in the\nEnglish free-trade measures of Mr Huskisson. From this time he may be\nsaid to have devoted his life to his favourite science.\n\nOn the death of his grandfather, in 1825, he gave up commerce as\na profession, and took up his residence on his paternal estate\nat Mugron, in the cultivation of which he was at first induced\nto engage, but without much success, and he soon relinquished\nagriculture, as he had before abandoned trade. Business, in truth,\nwas not his vocation; he had no turn for details; he cared little\nfor money; his wants were few and simple; and he had no intention,\nas he says in one of his letters, to undergo irksome labour for\nthree-fourths of his life to ensure for the remainder a useless\nsuperfluity.\n\nIt was at this period, and at Mugron, that he formed his lifelong\nfriendship with M. Felix Coudroy, to whom so much of his\ncorrespondence is addressed, and to whom, a short time before his\ndeath, he had thought of committing the task of finishing the\nsecond volume of the \u2039Harmonies\u203a. The two friends, whose tastes and\npursuits were the same, were constantly together,\u2014reading, walking,\nor conversing. If Bastiat, whose ardent nature was impatient of\nplodding and systematic application, received a new book from Paris,\nhe immediately carried it to Coudroy, who examined it, and noted the\nremarkable passages, which he read afterwards to his friend. Bastiat\nwould often content himself with such fragments; and it was only when\nthe book interested him deeply, that he would carry it off to read it\ncarefully by himself. On these days, says his biographer, music was\nlaid aside, and the violoncello was mute. It was thus, he continues,\nthat the two friends passed their lives together, lodging a few paces\nfrom each other, seeing one another three times a-day, sometimes in\ntheir chambers, sometimes in long walks, sauntering together, book\nin hand. Works of philosophy, history, politics, religion, poetry,\ntravels, biography, political economy, socialist [p011] works of\nthe day,\u2014all passed under the ordeal of this double intelligence. It\nwas in these conversations that the ideas of Bastiat were developed,\nand his thoughts matured. When anything struck him particularly, he\nwould set to work of a morning and put it into shape without effort.\nIn this way he wrote his \u2039Sophismes\u203a, his article on the French\nand English tariffs, etc. It was this literary friendship, which\nlasted for more than twenty years, without being once clouded by the\nslightest disagreement, which prepared the mind of Bastiat for the\ngigantic efforts he was destined afterwards to make, and enabled him,\nduring the last five years of his life, amid disease and distraction,\nto give to the world that mass of original and varied ideas which\ncompose the six volumes of his collected works.[2]\n\nIn the events to which the expulsion of the elder branch of the\nBourbons gave rise in 1830, Bastiat took an active interest. Bayonne\nhad pronounced in favour of the new order of things. The citadel\nalone held out, and continued to display the white flag; and a\nconcentration of Spanish troops on the frontier was spoken of.\nBastiat did not hesitate. Quitting Mugron, he hurried to Bayonne to\ntake part in the movement. In conjunction with some of his friends,\nhe prepared a proclamation, formed an association of six hundred\ndetermined young men, and did not despair of reducing the citadel by\na \u2039coup de main\u203a. Happily their martial ardour was not put to the\nproof. Before the march of events all resistance gave way, and that\nsame day the citadel opened its gates. In place of a battle, there\nwas a feast;\u2014punch, wine, and B\u00e9ranger enlivened the evening;\u2014and\nthe officers, like horses just let loose from the stable, were the\nmerriest of the party.[3] Such was the beginning and the end of\nBastiat\u2019s military career.\n\nIn 1831, he became \u2039Juge de Paix\u203a of the Canton of Mugron, and, in\n1832, a Member of the Council-General of the Landes. The confidence\nand esteem of his neighbourhood would have invested him with a trust\nstill more important, by sending him as a representative to the\nChamber of Deputies; but in this, after three fruitless attempts,\nhis friends were defeated, and Bastiat did not succeed in becoming a\nlegislator until after the Revolution of February 1848.\n\nHe published, in 1834, \u2039R\u00e9flexions sur les P\u00e9titions de Bordeaux, le\nHavre et Lyon, concernant les douanes\u203a,\u2014a brochure of great vigour,\nand which contains the germ of the theory of Value developed fifteen\nyears afterwards in the \u2039Harmonies\u203a. [p012]\n\nIn 1840, Bastiat visited Spain and Portugal; and after a sojourn of\nsome months at Madrid, and afterwards at Lisbon, with great benefit\nto his health, he sailed thence for England, and spent a few weeks\nin London. On his return to Mugron, he wrote his pamphlet, \u2039Le Fisc\net la Vigne\u203a, in which he protests against certain new duties with\nwhich the wine-trade of his native province was threatened. In this\nbrochure[4] he gives a characteristic anecdote of Napoleon. At the\noutset, the duties imposed were so moderate that the receipts would\nscarcely defray the cost of collection. The Minister of Finance\nremonstrated, and represented that these imposts were making the\nGovernment unpopular, without any benefit to the revenue. \u201cYou are a\nnoodle, Monsieur Maret,\u201d said the Emperor; \u201csince the nation grumbles\nat some light burdens, what would have been the consequence had I\nadded heavy taxes? Accustom them, first of all, to the exercise; and\nthen we can reform the tariff.\u201d The great captain, adds Bastiat, was\nalso a skilful financier. Begin by inserting the thin end of the\nwedge\u2014accustom them to the exercise\u2014such is the history of all taxes.\n\nIn 1843, appeared another pamphlet, entitled \u2039M\u00e9moire sur la\nquestion vinicole\u203a; and in 1844, \u2039M\u00e9moire sur la r\u00e9partition de\nl\u2019imp\u00f4t foncier dans le D\u00e9partement des Landes\u203a,\u2014both productions of\nextraordinary ability, but having reference principally to questions\nof local interest and importance. The great subject of Free Trade, to\nwhich he was afterwards to devote his vast powers, had then assumed\nin his mind rather the form of a vague dream of what might perchance\nbe realized under favourable circumstances at some far distant day,\nthan of a thing in sober reality to be expected or hoped for. It was\nan accidental circumstance which first directed his attention to what\nwas then passing in England under the auspices of the Anti-corn-law\nLeague.\n\nAmong the circle which Bastiat frequented at Mugron there prevailed\na strong prejudice, or rather an inveterate hatred, against England;\nand Bastiat, who had cultivated English literature, and imbibed\nEnglish ideas, had often to break a lance with his acquaintances on\nthe subject of this unfounded dislike. One of these \u2039Anglophobes\u203a,\naccosting him one day, handed him a newspaper. \u201cRead that,\u201d said\nhe with bitterness, \u201cand see how your friends are treating us!\u201d It\nwas a translation of a speech of Sir Robert Peel in the House of\nCommons, which concluded with the words\u2014\u201cIf we adopt this course,\nwe shall fall, \u2039like France\u203a, to the lowest rank among nations.\u201d\nHis country was insulted, and Bastiat had not a word to say. On\nreflection, however, it did [p013] appear strange to him that the\nPrime Minister of England should entertain such an opinion of France,\nand still more so, that, entertaining it, he should express it openly\nand offensively in his place in Parliament. To clear up the matter,\nBastiat wrote instantly to Paris, and became a subscriber to an\nEnglish newspaper, requesting that all the numbers for the preceding\nmonth might be sent to him. In a few days the \u2039Globe and Traveller\u203a\nmade its appearance at Mugron, containing Sir Robert Peel\u2019s speech,\nwhen it was discovered that the words \u201clike France,\u201d maliciously\nintroduced into the French version of it, were \u2039not\u203a there, and, in\nfact, had never been uttered.\n\nBastiat continued to read the \u2039Globe\u203a, and soon made the more\nimportant discovery that a formidable agitation was at that time\ngoing on in England to which the French newspapers never once\nalluded. The Anti-corn-law League was shaking the basis of the\nold commercial legislation of England. For two years Bastiat was\nthus enabled to watch the progress of the movement, and at length\nbegan to entertain the idea of making known to his countrymen\u2014and,\nperhaps, of inducing them to imitate\u2014the important reform about to be\naccomplished on the other side of the channel.\n\nIt was this feeling which prompted him to send to the \u2039Journal des\n\u00c9conomistes\u203a his first contribution, \u2039Sur l\u2019influence des tarifs\nAnglais et Fran\u00e7ais\u203a. This article, bearing a signature till then\nunknown, and coming from the remote Department of the Landes, was at\nonce accepted, and created a profound impression. Like Lord Byron,\nafter the publication of \u2039Childe Harold\u203a, Bastiat \u201cawoke one morning\nand found himself famous.\u201d Compliments and encouragements showered in\nupon him from every side. Further contributions were solicited, and\nwere sent. The ice was broken, and he was fairly afloat as an author.\nWhilst contributing various articles to the \u2039Journal\u203a\u2014among others,\nthe first series of the \u2039Sophismes \u00c9conomiques\u203a\u2014Bastiat began to\nwrite the history of the English Anti-corn-law League; and, in order\nto obtain fuller information and more copious materials, he opened\na correspondence with Mr Cobden, with whom he continued to exchange\nletters at frequent intervals during the remainder of his life.\n\nIt was in 1845 that Bastiat went to Paris to superintend the printing\nof this work, which he entitled \u2039Cobden et la Ligue, o\u00f9 l\u2019agitation\nAnglaise pour la libert\u00e9 des \u00c9changes\u203a. A luminous and spirited\nintroduction, giving an account of the economical and political state\nof England prior to the Anti-corn-law agitation, and describing the\norigin, objects, and progress of the league, is [p014] followed by\nextracts from the more prominent speeches of Cobden, Bright, Fox,\nThompson, and the other leaders. All this was new in France,\u2014to the\npopular mind of that country it might almost be called a revelation.\n\u201cI have distributed a hundred copies in Paris,\u201d writes Bastiat to\nCobden, \u201cand they have produced the best impression. Men who, by\ntheir position and pursuits, ought to know what is going on in\nEngland have been surprised on reading it. They could not believe\ntheir eyes.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. If I had combated directly their prejudices,\nI should not have succeeded; but, by allowing the free-traders to\nspeak and act for themselves\u2014in a word, by simply \u2039translating\u203a\nyou\u2014I hope to have given these prejudices a blow which they cannot\nrecover\u2014if the book be read.\u201d In a subsequent letter, he says,\u2014\u201cSince\nmy last letter an unexpected movement has manifested itself in the\nFrench press. All the Parisian, and many of the provincial journals,\nin reviewing my book, have given an account of the Anti-corn-law\nagitation. They do not, it is true, perceive all its bearings, but\npublic opinion is awakened, which is the essential point.\u201d\n\nTo this work, and the service which it rendered to the cause of Free\nTrade, and of sound economic ideas, Bastiat some months afterwards\nowed his nomination as a Corresponding Member of the Institute. \u201cI\nbelieve this nomination to be in itself of little importance,\u201d he\nwrites to M. Calm\u00e8tes, \u201cand I fear many mediocrities have boasted\nof the title; but the peculiar circumstances which preceded my\nnomination do not permit me to reject your friendly felicitations. I\nhave published only one book, and of that book the preface alone is\nmy work. Having returned to seclusion, that preface has worked for\nme, and unknown to me; for the same letter which apprized me of my\ncandidature announced my election. I had never in my life dreamt of\nthis honour. The book is entitled \u2039Cobden et la Ligue\u203a. I now send it\nto you, which will save my saying more about it. In 1842 and 1843 I\nendeavoured to attract attention to the subject of which it treats.\nI addressed articles to the \u2039Presse\u203a, to the \u2039M\u00e9morial Bordelais\u203a,\nand other journals. They were rejected. I saw that my cause was\nabout to break down under this \u2039conspiracy of silence\u203a, and I had no\nresource but to write a book. You see, then, why I have become an\nauthor. And now, engaged in that career, I regret it extremely; for\nalthough always fond of Political Economy, I am reluctant to devote\nmy attention exclusively to that science, and would rather wander\nfreely over the whole field of human knowledge. Yet in this science\na single question\u2014freedom of international relations\u2014fascinates and\nis about to absorb me,\u2014for, perhaps, you may [p015] have seen that\nI have been assigned a place in the association which has just been\nformed at Bordeaux. Such is the age; you can take no part in public\nlife without being garrotted in a speciality.\u201d\n\nAt Paris, Bastiat had been introduced to all the leading\nEconomists, and he was delighted with his reception. \u201cNot one of\nthese gentlemen,\u201d he says to M. Coudroy, \u201cbut had read, re-read,\nand perfectly understood my three articles. I might have written\na thousand years in the \u2039Chalosse\u203a, the \u2039Sentinelle\u203a, and the\n\u2039M\u00e9morial\u203a, without finding a single true reader but yourself. Here\none is read, studied, and understood.\u201d By the whole circle Bastiat\nwas welcomed and feasted. A desire was expressed that he should\nbecome conductor of the \u2039Journal des \u00c9conomistes\u203a, and there was a\nproposal to find him a chair of Political Economy.\n\nFrom Paris he passed over to England, where, in July 1845, he met\nwith Mr Cobden, Mr Bright, and the other chiefs of the Anti-corn-law\nLeague. In a letter to his friend Coudroy, he thus describes his\nreception in London:\u2014\u201cHaving installed myself at the hotel (at 10s.\na-day), I sat down to write six letters, to Cobden, Bright, Fox,\nThompson, Wilson, and the Secretary of the League. Then I wrote six\ninscriptions on as many copies of my book, and went to bed. This\nmorning I carried my six volumes to the apartments of the League,\ndesiring that they might be sent to the parties for whom they were\nintended. I was told that Mr Cobden was in town, and was to leave\nLondon to-day for Manchester, and that I should find him in the\nmidst of preparations for his journey. (An Englishman\u2019s preparations\nconsist in swallowing a beef-steak, and stuffing a couple of shirts\ninto a carpet-bag.) I hastened to Cobden\u2019s residence, where I met\nhim, and had two hours\u2019 talk. He knows French very well, speaks it a\nlittle, and, moreover, I understood his English. I explained to him\nthe state of opinion in France, the effects I expected from my work,\netc. He was sorry to leave London, and was on the point of giving up\nhis intended journey. Then he remarked, \u2018The League is free-masonry,\nexcept that everything is public. We have a house here, which we have\nhired to accommodate our friends during the bazaar; it is empty at\npresent, and we must instal you there.\u2019 I made some difficulty about\nthis; and he rejoined, \u2018This arrangement may not be agreeable to you,\nbut it will be of use to the cause, for Messrs Bright, Moore, and\nother members of the League pass their evenings there, and we must\nhave you always in the midst of them.\u2019 However, as I am to join him\nat Manchester the day after to-morrow, I thought it [p016] hardly\nworth while to shift my quarters for a couple of days. He took me\nafterwards to the Reform Club, a magnificent establishment, and left\nme in the library while he took a bath. He afterwards wrote letters\nto Bright and Moore, and I accompanied him to the railway. In the\nevening I called on Mr Bright.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. Obliged to speak slowly,\nin order to make myself understood, and upon subjects which were\nfamiliar to me, and with men who had all our ideas, I found myself\nplaced in the most favourable circumstances. He took me afterwards to\nthe Parliament,\u201d etc.\n\nOn his return from England, Bastiat again took refuge in his retreat\nat Mugron, where he had his time entirely at his own disposal; but\nhe was not long suffered to enjoy his literary leisure. In February\n1846, he assisted in organizing a Free-Trade Association at Bordeaux,\nand afterwards went to Paris with a similar object. In this he was\ndestined to experience innumerable difficulties, not the least of\nwhich arose from his supposed attachment to English opinions. He\nimagined the reform of the English tariff might be the means of\nfurthering a similar reform in France, but in this he soon found that\nhe was greatly mistaken.\n\n\u201cOf all the prejudices which reign among us,\u201d says M. Louis Reybaud,\nin his admirable notice of Bastiat in the \u2039Revue des Deux Mondes\u203a,[5]\n\u201cthere is none more deeply rooted than distrust of England. It is\nenough that England leans to one side to induce us to incline to the\nother. Everything which England proposes is suspected by us, and we\nnot unwillingly detect an ambush in all her measures. In matters of\ntrade this disposition is especially manifested. In vain we imagine\nthat England in her reforms has only her own interest in view,\u2014her\ntrue object is only to mislead and ruin us by her seductions! If we\ngive way we shall be fools or dupes. Such is the language of national\nopinion; and although enlightened men resist it, that opinion does\nnot the less prevail and exhibit itself on all occasions. Better\ninformed in regard to this bias of public opinion, Bastiat would have\nseen that the moment was not opportune, and that in the face of the\nEnglish agitation he would have done better to delay, than to hasten,\nany agitation in France which might seem to be inspired by the spirit\nor example of England.\u201d\n\nIn fact, it was upon this rock mainly that Bastiat\u2019s Free-trade\nenterprise ultimately foundered, and he soon became convinced of the\nintensity of the prejudice against which he had to struggle. In a\nletter to Mr Cobden, written in December 1846, he says,\u2014\u201cThis cry\nagainst England stifles us, and gives rise to formidable [p017]\nobstacles. If this hatred to \u2039perfidious Albion\u203a were only the\nfashion of the day, I should wait patiently until it passed away.\nBut it has deep root in men\u2019s hearts. It is universal, and I believe\nI told you that my friends dare no longer talk of me in my own\nvillage, but \u2039en famille\u203a. This blind passion, moreover, is found so\nconvenient by protected interests and political parties, that they\navail themselves of it in the most shameless manner.\u201d\n\nOther circumstances contributed to discourage Bastiat: \u201cI suffer from\nmy poverty,\u201d he tells Mr Cobden. \u201cIf, instead of running from one to\nanother on foot, splashed and bespattered to the back, in order to\nmeet only one or two people a-day, and obtain evasive and dilatory\nanswers, I could assemble them at my table in a rich \u2039salon\u203a, how\nmany difficulties would be removed! I want neither head nor heart,\nbut I feel that this superb Babylon is not the place for me, and I\nmust hasten back to my solitude.\u201d His heart was constantly reverting\nto the happy and peaceful days he had passed at Mugron. \u201cI suffer,\u201d\nhe says in a letter to Coudroy, \u201cfrom leaving Mugron, and my old\nhabits, my desultory labours, and our nice little chats. It is a\nfrightful \u2039d\u00e9chirement\u203a; but can I recede?\u201d \u201cParis and I are not made\nfor each other.\u201d \u201cOften I think of Mugron, its philosophic calm, and\nits fruitful leisure. Here life is wasted in doing nothing, or at\nleast in producing nothing.\u201d\n\nBastiat\u2019s appearance in Paris at this epoch is thus described by one\nof his friends. \u201cHe had not had time to call in the assistance of a\nParisian hatter and tailor,\u201d says M. de Molinari; \u201cand with his long\nhair, his tiny hat, his ample frock-coat, and his family umbrella,\nyou would have been apt to mistake him for an honest peasant, who had\ncome to town for the first time to see the wonders of the metropolis.\nBut the physiognomy of this apparent clown was arch and spiritual;\nhis large black eye was luminous, and his square well-proportioned\nforehead bore the impress of thought.\u201d\n\n\u201cI remember, as if it were yesterday,\u201d says M. Louis Reybaud, \u201cthe\nimpression which he produced. It was impossible to see a more\ncharacteristic specimen of a provincial scholar, simple in his\nmanner, and plain in his attire. But, under that homely garb, and\nthat air of \u2039bonhomie\u203a, there were flashes of intelligence, and a\nnative dignity of deportment; and you were not long in discovering an\nhonest heart and a generous soul. The eye, above all, was lighted up\nwith singular brightness and fire. His emaciated features and livid\ncomplexion betrayed already the ravages of that disease which, in\na few years, was destined to carry him off. His [p018] voice was\nhollow, and formed a contrast with the vivacity of his ideas and\nthe briskness of his gestures. When the conversation was animated,\nhis voice became feebler, and his lungs performed their office with\ndifficulty. Better taken care of, his constitution, feeble as it was,\nmight have lasted a long time. But Bastiat took counsel only of his\nenergy. He never thought of how many days he had to live, but how he\nmight employ them well.\u201d[6]\n\n\u201cI accept resolutely the hard life on which I am about to enter,\u201d he\nsays in one of his letters. \u201cWhat gives me courage is not the \u2039non\nomnis moriar\u203a of Horace, but the thought that, perhaps, my life may\nnot have been useless to mankind.\u201d[7]\n\nDuring the eighteen months that the Free-trade Association lasted,\nBastiat\u2019s life was one of feverish activity and incessant unremitting\ntoil. Before the doors of the Association could be opened to the\npublic, a Government \u2039autorisation\u203a had to be obtained; and it was\nobtained at length with much difficulty and after long delay. On\nBastiat, as secretary, the care of all the arrangements devolved.\nHe had to communicate with journalists, wait upon ministers, issue\nmanifestoes, organize committees, obtain subscriptions, correspond\nwith branch associations, undertake journeys to Lyons, to Marseilles,\nto Havre, attend meetings, make speeches, besides conducting a\nweekly newspaper, called the \u2039Libre-\u00c9change\u203a\u2014the organ of the\nAssociation\u2014and contributing numerous articles to other newspapers,\nand to the \u2039Journal des \u00c9conomistes\u203a. \u201cIf at daybreak he observed a\nProtectionist sophism appear in a newspaper of any reputation,\u201d says\nM. de Molinari, \u201che would immediately seize his pen, demolish the\nsophism before breakfast, and our language counted one \u2039chef-d\u2019\u0153uvre\u203a\nthe more.\u201d\n\nIt is to the marvellous exertions of this period that we owe the\n\u2039Sophismes \u00c9conomiques\u203a,\u2014a work which arose out of the circumstances\nin which Bastiat found himself placed; and which, although written\nfrom day to day, amid the distractions we have described, exhibits\nhis genius in its most brilliant light. \u201cAs examples of dialectical\nskill in reducing an opponent to absurdity,\u201d says Professor Cairnes,\n\u201cof simple and felicitous illustration, of delicate and polished\nraillery, attaining occasionally the pitch of a refined irony,\nthe \u2039Sophismes \u00c9conomiques\u203a may almost claim a place beside the\n\u2039Provincial Letters\u203a.\u201d Sprightly, lucid, and conclusive, full of\nfire and irony, playfulness and wit, these two little volumes afford\nthe most unanswerable reply ever given to the [p019] fallacies of\nthe Protectionist school; and, had Bastiat written nothing else,\nthey would have conferred on him a just title to be regarded as the\nmost distinguished economist of his day. The \u2039Sophismes\u203a have been\ntranslated into four languages, and are the best known, if not the\nmost original, of all the works of their lamented author.\n\nThe success of the work was instant and complete. Bastiat at first\ncomplained that \u201cthree or four pleasantries had made the fortune of\nthe book, while the serious parts were neglected;\u201d but he afterwards\nconfessed that \u201cparables and pleasantries had more success, and\neffected more good, than the best treatises.\u201d Of these pleasantries,\n\u2039The Candlemakers\u2019 Petition\u203a, in the first series of the \u2039Sophismes\u203a,\nis perhaps the happiest, and I cannot forbear presenting the reader\nwith a translation of this choice morsel:\u2014\n\n   \u00abPetition\u00bb of the Manufacturers of Candles, Wax-Lights, Lamps,\n   Candlesticks, Street Lamps, Snuffers, Extinguishers, and of the\n   Producers of Oil, Tallow, Rosin, Alcohol, and, generally, of\n   everything connected with Lighting,\n\n   \u00abTo Messieurs the Members of the Chamber of Deputies.\u00bb\n\n \u00abGentlemen\u00bb,\u2014You are on the right road. You reject abstract\n theories, and have little consideration for cheapness and plenty.\n Your chief care is the interest of the producer. You desire to\n emancipate him from external competition, and reserve the \u2039national\n market\u203a for \u2039national industry\u203a.\n\n We are about to offer you an admirable opportunity of applying\n your\u2014what shall we call it? your theory? No; nothing is more\n deceptive than theory; your doctrine? your system? your\n principle?\u2014but you dislike doctrines, you abhor systems, and as for\n principles, you deny that there are any in Social Economy: we shall\n say, then, your practice, your practice without theory and without\n principle.\n\n We are suffering from the intolerable competition of a foreign\n rival, placed, it would seem, in a condition so far superior to ours\n for the production of light, that he absolutely \u2039inundates\u203a our\n \u2039national market\u203a with it at a price fabulously reduced. The moment\n he shows himself, our trade leaves us\u2014all consumers apply to him;\n and a branch of native industry, having countless ramifications,\n is all at once rendered completely stagnant. This rival, who is\n no other than the Sun, wages war to the knife against us, and we\n suspect he has been raised up by \u2039perfidious Albion\u203a (good policy\n as times go); inasmuch as he displays towards that haughty island a\n circumspection with which he dispenses in our case.\n\n What we pray for is, that it may please you to pass a law ordering\n the shutting up of all Windows, Sky-lights, Dormer-windows, Outside\n and Inside Shutters, Curtains, Blinds, Bull\u2019s-eyes; in a word, of\n all Openings, Holes, Chinks, Clefts, and Fissures, by or through\n which the light of the Sun has been allowed to enter houses, to the\n prejudice of the meritorious manufactures with which we flatter\n ourselves we have accommodated our country,\u2014a country which, in\n gratitude, ought not to abandon us now to a strife so unequal.\n\n We trust, Gentlemen, that you will not regard this our request as a\n satire, or refuse it without at least previously hearing the reasons\n which we have to urge in its support.\n\n And, first, if you shut up as much as possible all access to natural\n light, and create a demand for artificial light, which of our French\n manufactures will not be encouraged by it?\n\n If more tallow is consumed, then there must be more oxen and sheep;\n and, consequently, we shall behold the increase of artificial\n meadows, meat, wool, hides, and, above all, manure, which is the\n basis and foundation of all agricultural wealth.\n\n If more oil is consumed, then we shall have an extended cultivation\n of the poppy, of the olive, and of rape. These rich and exhausting\n plants will come at the right [p020] time to enable us to avail\n ourselves of the increased fertility which the rearing of additional\n cattle will impart to our lands.\n\n Our heaths will be covered with resinous trees. Numerous swarms of\n bees will, on the mountains, gather perfumed treasures, now wasting\n their fragrance on the desert air, like the flowers from which\n they are derived. No branch of agriculture but will then exhibit a\n cheering development.\n\n The same remark applies to navigation. Thousands of vessels will\n proceed to the whale fishery; and, in a short time, we shall possess\n a navy capable of maintaining the honour of France, and gratifying\n the patriotic aspirations of your petitioners, the undersigned\n Candlemakers and others.\n\n But what shall we say of the manufacture of \u2039articles de Paris\u203a?\n Henceforth you will behold gildings, bronzes, crystals, in\n candlesticks, in lamps, in lustres, in candelabra, shining forth, in\n spacious warerooms, compared with which those of the present day can\n be regarded but as mere shops.\n\n No poor \u2039Resinier\u203a from his heights on the sea-coast, no Coal-miner\n from the depth of his sable gallery, but will rejoice in higher\n wages and increased prosperity.\n\n Only have the goodness to reflect, Gentlemen, and you will be\n convinced that there is, perhaps, no Frenchman, from the wealthy\n coal-master to the humblest vender of lucifer matches, whose lot\n will not be ameliorated by the success of this our Petition.\n\n We foresee your objections, Gentlemen, but we know that you can\n oppose to us none but such as you have picked up from the effete\n works of the partisans of Free Trade. We defy you to utter a single\n word against us which will not instantly rebound against yourselves\n and your entire policy.\n\n You will tell us that, if we gain by the protection which we seek,\n the country will lose by it, because the consumer must bear the loss.\n\n We answer:\n\n You have ceased to have any right to invoke the interest of the\n consumer; for, whenever his interest is found opposed to that of the\n producer, you sacrifice the former. You have done so for the purpose\n of \u2039encouraging labour\u203a and \u2039increasing employment\u203a. For the same\n reason, you should do so again.\n\n You have yourselves obviated this objection. When you are told\n that the consumer is interested in the free importation of iron,\n coal, corn, textile fabrics,\u2014yes, you reply, but the producer is\n interested in their exclusion. Well, be it so;\u2014if consumers are\n interested in the free admission of natural light, the producers of\n artificial light are equally interested in its prohibition.\n\n But, again, you may say that the producer and consumer are\n identical. If the manufacturer gain by protection, he will make the\n agriculturist also a gainer; and, if agriculture prospers, it will\n open a vent to manufactures. Very well; if you confer upon us the\n monopoly of furnishing light during the day,\u2014first of all, we shall\n purchase quantities of tallow, coals, oils, resinous substances,\n wax, alcohol,\u2014besides silver, iron, bronze, crystal\u2014to carry on\n our manufactures; and then we and those who furnish us with such\n commodities, having become rich, will consume a great deal, and\n impart prosperity to all the other branches of our national industry.\n\n If you urge that the light of the Sun is a gratuitous gift of\n nature, and that to reject such gifts is to reject wealth itself\n under pretence of encouraging the means of acquiring it, we would\n caution you against giving a death-blow to your own policy. Remember\n that hitherto you have always repelled foreign products, \u2039because\u203a\n they approximate more nearly than home products to the character of\n gratuitous gifts. To comply with the exactions of other monopolists,\n you have only \u2039half a motive\u203a; and to repulse us simply because\n we stand on a stronger vantage ground than others, would be to\n adopt the equation, +\u00a0\u00d7\u00a0+\u00a0=\u00a0-; in other words, it would be to heap\n \u2039absurdity\u203a upon \u2039absurdity\u203a.\n\n Nature and human labour co-operate in various proportions (depending\n on countries and climates) in the production of commodities. The\n part which nature executes is always gratuitous; it is the part\n executed by human labour which constitutes value, and is paid for.\n\n If a Lisbon orange sells for half the price of a Paris orange, it is\n because natural, and consequently gratuitous heat, does for the one,\n what artificial, and therefore expensive heat, must do for the other.\n\n When an orange comes to us from Portugal, we may conclude that\n it is furnished in part gratuitously, in part for an onerous\n consideration; in other words, it comes to us at \u2039half-price\u203a as\n compared with those of Paris.\n\n Now, it is precisely the \u2039gratuitous half\u203a (pardon the word) which\n we contend should be excluded. You say, how can national labour\n sustain competition with foreign labour, when the former has all the\n work to do, and the latter only does one-half,\u2014the Sun supplying\n the remainder? But if this \u2039half\u203a, being \u2039gratuitous\u203a, determines\n [p021] you to exclude competition, how should the \u2039whole\u203a,\n being \u2039gratuitous\u203a, induce you to admit competition? If you were\n consistent, you would, while excluding as hurtful to native industry\n what is half gratuitous, exclude, \u2039a fortiori\u203a and with double zeal,\n that which is altogether gratuitous.\n\n Once more, when products, such as coal, iron, corn, or textile\n fabrics, are sent us from abroad, and we can acquire them with less\n labour than if we made them ourselves, the difference is a free\n gift conferred upon us. The gift is more or less considerable in\n proportion as the difference is more or less great. It amounts to a\n quarter, a half, or three-quarters of the value of the product, when\n the foreigner only asks us for three-fourths, a half, or a quarter\n of the price we should otherwise pay. It is as perfect and complete\n as it can be, when the donor (like the Sun in furnishing us with\n light) asks us for nothing. The question, and we ask it formally,\n is this, Do you desire for our country the benefit of gratuitous\n consumption, or the pretended advantages of onerous production? Make\n your choice, but be logical; for as long as you exclude as you do,\n coal, iron, corn, foreign fabrics, \u2039in proportion\u203a as their price\n approximates to \u2039zero\u203a, what inconsistency would it be to admit the\n light of the Sun, the price of which is already at \u2039zero\u203a during the\n entire day!\n\nIn addition to his other engrossing avocations in Paris, Bastiat,\nin the end of 1847 and beginning of 1848, delivered a course of\nlectures to young men on the principles of Political Economy and\nthe Harmony of the Social Laws. He had no opportunity of committing\nthese lectures to writing, as he wished, but we have doubtless\nthe substance of them in his published works, especially in the\n\u2039Harmonies \u00c9conomiques\u203a. \u201cSomething tells me,\u201d he says in one of his\nletters to M. Coudroy, \u201cthat this course addressed to the young, who\nhave logic in their heads, and warmth and fervour in their hearts,\nwill not be useless.\u201d \u201cMy auditors,\u201d he says elsewhere, \u201care not very\nnumerous; but they attend assiduously, and take notes. The seed falls\ninto good ground.\u201d\n\nIt was in the midst of these harassing occupations and herculean\nexertions that the Revolution of February came to surprise\nBastiat,\u2014to put an end to the Free-trade Association,\u2014and to bring\na far more formidable set of agitators\u2014namely, the Socialists and\nCommunists\u2014to the surface of society. Bastiat doubted if his country\nwas ripe for a Republic; but when it came, he gave in his adhesion\nto it, and was returned by his native Department of the Landes as\na Deputy to the Constituent, and afterwards to the Legislative\nAssembly. He took his seat on the left, says his accomplished\nfriend and biographer M. de Fontenay, in an attitude of moderation\nand firmness; and, whilst remaining somewhat isolated, he was\nsurrounded with the respect of all parties. A Member of the Committee\nof Finance, of which he was named Vice-President eight times in\nsuccession, he exercised a very marked influence on that department,\nalthough quietly and within doors. The increasing feebleness of his\nlungs prevented his often ascending the tribune or addressing the\nAssembly, although it was often a hard trial for him to be thus,\nas it were, nailed to his seat.[8] It is to this he alludes in the\nsecond chapter [p022] of the \u2039Harmonies\u203a:\u2014\u201cIf, when the much-loved\nvessel of the State is beaten by the tempest, I sometimes appear to\nabsent myself from my post in order to collect my scattered thoughts,\nit is because I feel my feeble hands unfitted for the work. Is it,\nbesides, to betray my mission to reflect upon the causes of the\ntempest itself, and endeavour to act upon these causes? And then,\nwhat I find I cannot do to-day, who knows but it may be given me to\naccomplish to-morrow?\u201d\n\nIn a letter to M. Coudroy, in June 1848, Bastiat thus describes his\ndaily occupations:\u2014\u201cI rise at six o\u2019clock, dress, shave, breakfast,\nand read the newspapers; this occupies me till seven, or half-past\nseven. About nine, I am obliged to go out, for at ten commences the\nsitting of the Committee of Finance, of which I am a member. It\ncontinues till one, and then the public sitting begins, and continues\ntill seven. I return to dinner, and it very rarely happens that there\nare not after-dinner meetings of Sub-Committees charged with special\nquestions. The only hour at my disposal is from eight to nine in the\nmorning, and it is at that hour that I receive visitors.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. I am\nprofoundly disgusted with this kind of life.\u201d\n\nBut the grand work of Bastiat in 1848 and 1849\u2014a work to which he\ndevoted the best energies of his mind and genius\u2014was the open and\nincessant war which he waged with the Socialist and Communist writers\nand agitators whom the Revolution had let loose on French society,\nand who were then shaking the social and political fabric to its\ncentre. Bastiat, like the porcupine, had a quill pointed against\nevery assailant. To each error he opposed a pamphlet. With Louis\nBlanc and the national workshops, he did battle in the brochure\nentitled \u2039Propri\u00e9t\u00e9 et Loi\u203a, in which he exposes the illusions\nwith which the public mind had been stuffed by the Socialists.\nThe doctrine of Concid\u00e9rant he attacked in another little volume,\nbearing the title, \u2039Propri\u00e9t\u00e9 et Spoliation\u203a. In another, \u2039Justice\net Fraternit\u00e9\u203a, he demolished the absurdities of Pierre Leroux\u2019s\ndemocratic and social constitution. Proudhon\u2019s doctrine he disposed\nof in \u2039Capital et Rente\u203a, where he refutes the foolish notions in\nvogue in 1848 on the subject of gratuitous loans\u2014a subject which he\nagain discussed in 1850, in the larger volume entitled \u2039Gratuit\u00e9 du\nCredit\u203a. In \u2039Protectionisme et Communisme\u203a, Bastiat demonstrated that\nwhat is called \u2039protection\u203a is nothing else than practical communism\nor spoliation. \u2039Paix et Libert\u00e9, ou le Budget R\u00e9publicain\u203a, another\nbrochure from his prolific pen, is a brilliant and vigorous onslaught\non the excessive taxation of that day, and the overgrown military and\nnaval armaments which gave [p023] rise to it. Many passages of this\nadmirable production, full of force and practical good sense, might\nbe read with benefit at the present day, as applicable not only to\nFrance as it was, but to France as it is, and not to France alone,\nbut to the other nations of Europe.\n\nIn the tract entitled \u2039L\u2019\u00c9tat\u203a, Bastiat maintains his favourite\ndoctrine that all which a Government owes to its subjects is\nsecurity; that, as it acts necessarily through the intervention of\nforce, it can equitably enforce nothing save Justice; and that its\nduty consists in holding the balance equal among various interests,\nby guarding the liberty of all, by protecting person and property,\nby enforcing covenants, and thereby upholding credit, but leaving\nDemand and Supply in all cases to perform their appropriate functions\nwithout restraint and without encouragement. He exposes the absurdity\nof men expecting everything from Government, and trusting to public\nemployments rather than to individual exertion. He shows that, since\nthe State is only an aggregate of individuals, it can give nothing\nto the people but what it has previously taken from them. \u2039Tout le\nmonde\u203a, as he says elsewhere, \u2039veut vivre aux d\u00e9pens de l\u2019\u00e9tat, et on\noublie que l\u2019\u00e9tat vit aux d\u00e9pens de tout le monde\u203a.\n\nTo this tract another is appended, to which he gives the quaint\ntitle of \u2039Maudit Argent!\u203a in which he exposes the popular errors\nwhich arise from confounding capital with money, and money with\ninconvertible paper. In this little work, Bastiat of course could\nnot treat the subject systematically and in detail, as M. Michel\nChevalier has since done in his philosophical treatise \u2039Sur la\nMonnaie\u203a;[9] but Bastiat\u2019s tract contains many excellent passages.\nThe effect of an enlargement of the volume of currency on the value\nof money, for instance, is thus happily illustrated:\u2014\n\n Ten men sat down to play a game, in which they agreed to stake\n 1000 francs. Each man was provided with ten counters\u2014each counter\n representing ten francs. When the game was finished, each received\n as many times ten francs as he happened to have counters. One of the\n party, who was more of an arithmetician than a logician, remarked\n that he always found at the end of the game that he was richer in\n proportion as he had a greater number of counters, and asked the\n others if they had observed the same thing. What holds in my case,\n said he, must hold in yours, for what is true of each must be true\n of all. He proposed, therefore, that each should have double the\n former number of counters. No sooner said than done. Double the\n number of counters were distributed; but, when the party finally\n rose from play they found themselves no richer than before. The\n stake had not been increased, and fell to be proportionally divided.\n Each man, no doubt, had double the number of counters, but each\n counter, instead of being worth ten francs, was found to be worth\n only five; and it was at length discovered that what is true of each\n is \u2039not\u203a always true of all.\n\nThe pamphlets, \u2039Baccalaur\u00e9at et Socialisme\u203a, and \u2039Ce qu\u2019on voit\net ce qu\u2019on ne voit pas\u203a, belong to the following year, 1850,\nthe last [p024] of the author\u2019s life. In the first of these,\nBastiat complains of the monopoly of university degrees, and\nthe too exclusive addiction of his countrymen to classical\nlearning\u2014especially Greek and Roman history\u2014to which he attributes\nmuch of that democratic and revolutionary fervour which was ever and\nanon breaking out in France.\n\nThe second, \u2039Ce qu\u2019on voit et ce qu\u2019on ne voit pas\u203a, is a masterpiece\nworthy of the author of the \u2039Sophismes\u203a, and well deserves its second\ntitle of \u201cPolitical Economy in One Lesson.\u201d The following extract\nfrom the first chapter of this admirable little work will give the\nreader some idea of the argument, and of Bastiat\u2019s lively manner of\ntreating a subject in itself so dry and uninviting:\u2014\n\n \u00abThe Broken Pane.\u00bb\n\n Have you ever had occasion to witness the fury of the honest\n burgess, Jacques Bonhomme, when his scapegrace son has broken a\n pane of glass? If you have, you cannot fail to have observed that\n all the bystanders, were there thirty of them, lay their heads\n together to offer the unfortunate proprietor this never-failing\n consolation,\u2014\u201cThere is some good in every misfortune\u2014such accidents\n give a fillip to trade. Everybody must live. If no windows were\n broken, what would become of the glaziers?\u201d\n\n Now, this formula of condolence contains a theory, which it is\n proper to lay hold of, \u2039flagrante delicto\u203a, in this very simple\n case, because it is exactly the same theory which unfortunately\n governs the greater part of our economic institutions.\n\n Assuming that it becomes necessary to expend six francs in repairing\n the damage, if you mean to say that the accident brings in six\n francs to the glazier, and to that extent encourages his trade, I\n grant it fairly and frankly, and allow that you reason justly. The\n glazier arrives, does his work, pockets his money, rubs his hands,\n and blesses the scapegrace son. This is \u2039what we see\u203a.\n\n But if, by way of deduction, you come to conclude, as is too often\n done, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it makes money\n circulate, and that encouragement to trade in general is the result,\n I am obliged to cry halt! Your theory stops at \u2039what we see\u203a, and\n takes no account of \u2039what we don\u2019t see\u203a.\n\n \u2039We don\u2019t see\u203a that, since our burgess has been obliged to spend his\n six francs on one thing, he can no longer spend them on another\u2014\u2039We\n don\u2019t see\u203a that, if he had not had this pane to replace, he would\n have replaced, for example, his shoes, which are down at the heels,\n or placed a new book on his shelf. In short, he would have employed\n his six francs in a way in which he cannot now employ them.\n\n Let us see, then, how the account stands with trade \u2039in general\u203a.\n\n The pane being broken, the glazier\u2019s trade is benefited to the\n extent of six francs. This is \u2039what we see\u203a.\n\n If the pane had not been broken, the shoemaker\u2019s (or some other)\n trade would have been encouraged to the extent of six francs. That\n is what \u2039we don\u2019t see\u203a.\n\n And if we take into account what \u2039we don\u2019t see\u203a, which is a\n negative fact, as well as what \u2039we do see\u203a, which is a positive\n fact, we shall discover that trade \u2039in general\u203a, or the aggregate\n of \u2039national industry\u203a, has no interest, one way or other, whether\n windows are broken or not.\n\n Let us see, again, how the account stands with Jacques Bonhomme.\n\n On the last hypothesis\u2014that of the pane being broken\u2014he spends six\n francs, and gets neither more nor less than he had before,\u2014namely,\n the use and enjoyment of a pane of glass.\n\n On the other hypothesis,\u2014namely, that the accident had not happened,\n he would have expended six francs on shoes, and would have had the\n use and enjoyment both of the shoes and of the pane of glass.\n\n Now, as the good burgess, Jacques Bonhomme constitutes a fraction of\n society at large, we are forced to conclude that society, taken in\n the aggregate, and after all accounts of labour and enjoyment have\n been squared, has lost the value of the pane which has been broken.\n\n Whence, on generalizing, we arrive at this unexpected conclusion,\n that \u201cSociety loses the value of things uselessly destroyed;\u201d and\n we arrive also at this aphorism, which will make the hair of the\n prohibitionists stand on end, that \u201cto smash, break, [p025] and\n dissipate is not to encourage national industry;\u201d or, more briefly,\n that \u201cthere is no profit in destruction.\u201d\n\n The reader will take notice that there are not two persons only, but\n three, in the little drama to which we have called his attention.\n One of them\u2014namely, Jacques Bonhomme\u2014represents the consumer,\n reduced by destruction to one enjoyment in place of two. The glazier\n represents the producer, whose trade is encouraged by the accident.\n The third is the shoemaker (or some other tradesman), whose trade is\n discouraged to the same extent by the same cause. It is this third\n personage who is always kept in the shade, and who, as representing\n \u2039what we don\u2019t see\u203a, is a necessary element in the problem. It is he\n who enables us to discover how absurd it is to try to find profit\n in destruction. It is he who will soon teach us that it is not less\n absurd to try to discover profit in restriction, which is, after\n all, only partial destruction. Go to the bottom of all the arguments\n which are urged in favour of restriction, and you will find only a\n paraphrase of the vulgar saying,\u2014\u201c\u2039If no windows were broken, what\n would the glaziers do?\u203a\u201d\n\nThe distinction thus established between immediate effects and\nultimate consequences, between surface appearances and substantial\nrealities, between \u2039what we see and what we don\u2019t see\u203a, the author\nproceeds, in the same happy vein, to apply to taxation, the proceeds\nof which are said to come back to the labour-market like refreshing\nshowers,\u2014to overgrown and unnecessary armaments, and extravagant\npublic works, which are defended as affording employment to the\nworking-classes,\u2014to industrial and commercial restrictions, which\nare justified on the same ground,\u2014to the questions of machinery, of\ncredit, of colonization, of luxury and unproductive consumption, etc.\nThe entire work does not extend to eighty pages, and in every one of\nits twelve short chapters Bastiat demolishes a specious fallacy or a\npernicious error.\n\nBut Bastiat had been for some time meditating a greater, more\nelaborate, and more systematic work than any of those of which\nwe have hitherto spoken; and it is curious to trace in his\ncorrespondence the progress of the ideas which were at length\ndeveloped in the \u2039Harmonies \u00c9conomiques\u203a. Writing to M. Coudroy\nin June 1845, he says\u2014\u201cIf my little treatise of the \u2039Sophismes\n\u00c9conomiques\u203a is successful, we may follow it up by another entitled\n\u2039Harmonies Sociales\u203a. It would be of the greatest utility; for it\nwould meet the desires of an age in search of artificial harmonies\nand organizations, by demonstrating the beauty, order, and\nprogressive principle of the natural and providential harmonies.\u201d In\nJune 1846, he writes to Mr Cobden, \u201cI must bring out a second edition\nof my \u2039Sophismes\u203a, and I should wish much to write a little book to\nbe entitled \u2039Harmonies \u00c9conomiques\u203a. It will be the counterpart of\nthe other\u2014the first pulls down, the second will build up.\u201d In another\nletter, written the year after, he exclaims\u2014\u201cOh, that the Divine\nGoodness would give me yet one year of strength, and permit me to\nexplain to my young fellow-citizens what I regard as the true social\ntheory, under the twelve following heads:\u2014\u2039Wants\u203a, \u2039production\u203a,\n\u2039property\u203a, \u2039competition\u203a, \u2039population\u203a, \u2039liberty\u203a, [p026]\n\u2039equality\u203a, \u2039responsibility\u203a, \u2039solidarity\u203a, \u2039fraternity\u203a, \u2039unity\u203a,\n\u2039province of public opinion\u203a. I should then without regret, with joy,\nresign my life into His hands!\u201d\n\nOn the eve of being elected a Deputy to the National Assembly in\n1848, he writes from Mugron, \u201cHere I am in my solitude. Would that\nI could bury myself here for ever, and work out peacefully this\nEconomic synthesis which I have in my head, and which will never\nleave it! For, unless there occur some sudden change in public\nopinion, I am about to be sent to Paris charged with the terrible\nmandate of a Representative of the People. If I had health and\nstrength, I should accept this mission with enthusiasm. But what can\nmy feeble voice, my sickly and nervous organization, accomplish in\nthe midst of revolutionary tempests? How much wiser it had been to\ndevote my last days to working out in silence the great problem of\nthe social destinies, for something tells me I should have arrived\nat a solution! Poor village, humble home of my fathers, I am about\nto bid you an eternal adieu; and I quit you with the presentiment\nthat my name and my life, lost amidst storms, will not have even that\nmodest utility for which you had prepared me!\u201d\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\nIn his letters to M. Coudroy at this period, we discover the same\nidea working and fermenting in the mind of Bastiat, and struggling\nfor vent and utterance. Amid the anxieties and distractions in which\nhis duties as a Deputy involved him, he writes\u2014\u201cI am still convinced\nthat the practice of affairs excludes the possibility of producing\na work truly scientific, and yet I cannot conceal from you that I\nalways retain that old chimera of my \u2039Social Harmonies\u203a; and I cannot\ndivest myself of the thought that, if I had remained with you, I\nshould have succeeded in imparting to the world a useful idea. I long\nmuch to make my retreat.\u201d In another letter to the same friend, after\ndescribing his feebleness, and intimating his intention to leave\nParis to try what effect a change to his native air might produce,\nhe adds\u2014\u201cI must renounce public life, and all my ambition now is to\nhave three or four months of tranquillity to write my poor \u2039Harmonies\n\u00c9conomiques\u203a. They are in my head, but I fear they will never leave\nit.\u201d \u201cThe crystal,\u201d he says elsewhere, \u201cis formed drop by drop in\nsilence and obscurity; but retirement, quiet, time, freedom from\ncare\u2014all are wanting to me.\u201d\n\nIn April 1849, he writes again to M. Coudroy, \u201cI have my theory to\nwork out, and powerful encouragements have reached me opportunely.\nI read those words yesterday in an English Review,\u2014\u2018In Political\nEconomy, the French school has had [p027] three phases, expressed by\nthe three names, Quesnay, Say, Bastiat.\u2019 They assign me this rank and\nthis part prematurely; but it is certain that I have in my head a new\nand suggestive idea, which I believe to be true. This idea I have\nnever developed methodically. It runs accidentally through some of my\narticles, and as that has been enough to attract the attention of the\n\u2039savants\u203a, and as it has already had the honour conferred on it of\nbeing considered as forming an \u2039epoch\u203a in the science, I am certain\nnow that, when I give that theory in its complete state to the world,\nit will at least be examined. Is not that all I could desire? With\nwhat ardour I am about to turn to account my retirement in order\nto elaborate that doctrine, certain as I am to have judges who can\nunderstand it, and who are waiting for it!\u201d\n\nThe three months of leisure, so long and so anxiously wished for,\ncame at last; and in the beginning of 1850 the \u2039Harmonies\u203a (or rather\nthe portions which the author had intended should form the first\nvolume of that work) made their appearance. The reception of the work\nwas not at first what might have been expected; and Bastiat, again\nin Paris, writes to his friend M. Coudroy, \u201cThe \u2039Harmonies\u203a pass\nunnoticed here, unless by some dozen connoisseurs. I expected this\u2014it\ncould not be otherwise. I have not even in my favour the wonted zeal\nof our own little circle, who accuse me of heterodoxy; but in spite\nof this, I am confident that the book will make its way by degrees.\nIn Germany it has been very differently received.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. I pray\nHeaven to vouchsafe me a year to write the second volume; after which\nI shall sing, \u2039Nunc dimittis\u203a.\u201d\n\nTo Mr Cobden, in August 1850, he writes\u2014\u201cI went to my native country\nto try to cure these unfortunate lungs, which are to me very\ncapricious servants. I have returned a little better, but afflicted\nwith a disease of the larynx, accompanied with a complete extinction\nof voice. The doctor enjoins absolute silence; and, in consequence, I\nam about to pass two months in the country, near Paris. There I shall\ntry to write the second volume of the \u2039Harmonies \u00c9conomiques\u203a. The\nfirst has been nearly unnoticed by the learned world. I should not be\nan \u2039author\u203a if I gave in to that judgment. I appeal to the future,\nfor I am conscious that that book contains an important idea, \u2039une\nid\u00e9e m\u00e8re\u203a, and time will come to my assistance.\u201d\n\nThis great work, the child of Bastiat\u2019s anxious hopes, the subject\nof his dying thoughts, although at first but coldly received, is\nperhaps the most important and the most original contribution which\nthe science of Political Economy has received since the days [p028]\nof Adam Smith. On that most abstruse and difficult subject, the first\nprinciples of Value, it opens up entirely new views; while on almost\nevery other branch of the subject, it either propounds a new theory,\nor corrects and improves the nomenclature of the science. Throughout,\nit treats Political Economy (and it is perhaps the only work which\ndoes so, at least systematically) in connexion with final causes, and\ndemonstrates the Wisdom and Goodness of God in the economy of civil\nsociety. On some questions we may venture to differ from Bastiat. On\nthe question of Rent, for instance, he would seem to have followed\ntoo implicitly the theory of Mr Carey, the able American Economist;\nbut Bastiat\u2019s work, as a whole, has a freshness, a vigour, and an\noriginality which all must admire. He writes like a man thoroughly\nin earnest,\u2014a devout believer in the doctrines which he teaches, and\nhe seldom fails to carry conviction to the mind of his readers. The\nleading idea of the work\u2014the harmony of the social laws\u2014is admirable,\nand is admirably worked out. The motto of the book, in fact, might\nhave been the well-known lines of Dryden,\u2014\n\n  From harmony, from heavenly harmony,\n        This universal frame began:\n        From harmony to harmony\n  Through all the compass of the notes it ran,\n  The diapason ending full in Man.\n\nBastiat undertakes to demonstrate the harmony of the Economic\nlaws,\u2014that is to say, their tendency towards a common design,\nwhich is the progressive improvement of the human race. He proves\nconvincingly that individual interests, taken in the aggregate, far\nfrom being antagonistic, aid each other mutually; and that, so far is\nit from being true that the gain of one is necessarily the loss of\nanother, each individual, each family, each country has an interest\nin the prosperity of all others. He shows that, between agriculturist\nand manufacturer, capitalist and labourer, producer and consumer,\nnative and foreigner, there is in reality no antagonism, but, on\nthe contrary, a community of interest; and that, in order that the\nnatural Economic laws should act constantly so as to produce this\nresult, one thing alone is necessary\u2014namely, respect for Liberty and\nProperty. His design is best explained in his own words: \u201cI undertake\nin this work,\u201d he says, \u201cto demonstrate the Harmony of those laws\nof Providence which govern human society. What makes these laws\nharmonious and not discordant is, that all principles, all motives,\nall springs of action, all interests, co-operate towards a grand\nfinal result, which humanity will never reach by reason of its native\n\u2039imperfection\u203a, [p029] but to which it will always approximate more\nand more by reason of its unlimited \u2039capability of improvement\u203a. And\nthat result is, the indefinite approximation of all classes towards a\nlevel, which is always rising; in other words, the \u2039equalization\u203a of\nindividuals in the general \u2039amelioration\u203a.\u201d\n\nBastiat was not one of those pessimists who persist in looking at the\nexisting fabric of Society as if it were some ill-made, ill-going\nclock, requiring constantly to be wound up, and to have its springs\nadjusted, its wheels lubricated, and its hands altered and set right.\nFar from this, he regarded Society as a self-acting, self-regulating\nmechanism, bearing the stamp of the Divine hand by which it was\nconstructed, and subject to laws and checks not less wise, not less\nimmutable, not less trustworthy, than the laws which govern the\ninanimate and material world.\n\n\u201cGod made the country, but man made the towns,\u201d was the exclamation\nof an amiable but a morbid poet. He might as well have said\u2014God made\nthe blossom, but bees make the comb. Reason asks, who then made the\nbees? Who made man, with all his noble instincts, and admirable\ninventive reasoning and reflective faculties?\n\nA manlier, because a juster, philosophy enabled Bastiat rather to say\nwith Edmund Burke, \u201cArt is man\u2019s nature.\u201d Looking at the existing\nfabric and mechanism of Society, and the beautiful harmony of the\nEconomic laws which regulate it, he could see nothing to warrant\nconstant legislative tampering with the affairs of trade. He had\nfaith in moral and material progress under the empire of Freedom.\nSweeping away all Socialist Utopias and artificial systems of social\norganization, he pointed to Society as it exists, and exclaimed,\n\u2039Digitus Dei est hic\u203a. Unlike the sickly poet, he believed that the\nsame Good and Wise Being who created both town and country, upholds\nand sustains them both; and that the laws of Value and Exchange, left\nto their own free and beneficent action, are as much His ordinance,\nas the laws of motion, attraction, or chemical affinity.[10]\n\nEngaged upon the second volume of the \u2039Harmonies\u203a, Bastiat found\nhis subject growing upon him, and discovered, as he thought, when\ntoo late, that he had not in the first instance perceived all its\nbearings. He felt, as he said, crushed by the mass [p030] of\nharmonies which presented themselves to him on every side; and\na posthumous note, found among his papers, informs us that this\nexpansion of his subject under his hand had led him to think of\nrecasting the entire work. \u201cI had thought at first,\u201d he says, \u201cto\nbegin with the exposition of \u2039Economic Harmonies\u203a, and, consequently,\nto treat only of subjects purely economical\u2014\u2039Value\u203a, \u2039Property\u203a,\n\u2039Wealth\u203a, \u2039Competition\u203a, \u2039Wages\u203a, \u2039Population\u203a, \u2039Money\u203a, \u2039Credit\u203a,\netc. Afterwards, if I had had time and strength, I should have\ndirected the attention of the reader to the larger subject of\n\u2039Social Harmonies\u203a, and treated of the \u2039Human Constitution\u203a, \u2039Social\nMotives\u203a, \u2039Responsibility\u203a, \u2039Solidarity\u203a, etc. The work thus\nconceived[11] had been begun, when I saw that it was better to mingle\ntogether than to separate these two classes of considerations. But\nthen logic required that the study of Man should precede the Economic\ninvestigations; and\u2014there was no longer time.\u201d\n\nAlas! the hours of Bastiat were numbered. He ran a desperate\nsteeple-chase with death, to use the expression of his biographer,\nand he lost the day. His mind, his genius, shone as brightly, worked\nas intensely, as ever; but the material frame-work was shattered\nand in ruins. By the advice of his physicians, after resorting to\nthe waters of the Pyrenees without benefit, he repaired to Italy\nin the autumn of 1850, and took up his residence at Pisa. Scarcely\nhad he arrived there, when he read in the newspapers a premature\nannouncement of his own death, and common-place expressions of regret\nfor the loss of the \u201cgreat Economist\u201d and \u201cillustrious author.\u201d He\nwrote immediately to a friend to contradict the report. \u201cThank God,\u201d\nhe says, \u201cI am not dead, or even much [p031] worse. And yet if the\nnews were true, I must just accept it and submit. I wish all my\nfriends could acquire in this respect the philosophy I have myself\nacquired. I assure you I should breathe my last without pain, and\nalmost with joy, if I were certain of leaving to the friends who\nlove me, not poignant regrets, but a gentle, affectionate, somewhat\nmelancholy remembrance of me.\u201d\n\nAfter lingering some time at Pisa without improvement, he went on to\nRome. From Rome he writes to M. Coudroy\u2014\u201cHere I am in the Eternal\nCity, but not much disposed to visit its marvels. I am infinitely\nbetter that I was at Pisa, surrounded as I am with excellent\nfriends.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. I should desire only one thing, to be relieved of\nthe acute pain which the disease of the windpipe occasions. This\ncontinuity of suffering torments me. Every meal is a punishment.\nTo eat, drink, speak, cough, are all painful operations. Walking\nfatigues me\u2014carriage airings irritate the throat\u2014I can no longer\nwork, or even read, seriously. You see to what I am reduced. I shall\nsoon be little better than a dead body, retaining only the faculty\nof suffering.\u201d\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. Even in this state of extreme debility he was\nthinking of his favourite but unfinished work. He adds, \u201cIf health\nis restored to me, and I am enabled to complete the second volume of\nthe \u2039Harmonies\u203a, I shall dedicate it to you. If not, I shall prefix a\nshort dedication to the second edition of the first volume. On this\nlast hypothesis, which implies the end of my career, I can explain my\nplan, and bequeath to you the task of fulfilling it.\u201d\n\nBastiat\u2019s career was in reality fast drawing to a close. His\nend was calm and serene. He seemed himself to regard it as an\nindifferent spectator, conversing with his friends on his favourite\ntopics,\u2014Political Economy, Philosophy, and Religion. He desired to\ndie as a Christian. To his cousin the Abb\u00e9 Monclar, and his friend M.\nPaillottet, who stood by, he said\u2014\u201cOn looking around me, I observe\nthat the most enlightened nations of the world have been of the\nChristian faith, and I am very happy to find myself in communion\nwith that portion of the human race.\u201d \u201cHis eye,\u201d says M. Paillottet,\n\u201csparkled with that peculiar expression which I had frequently\nnoticed in our conversations, and which intimated the solution of\na problem.\u201d He beckoned his friends to come near him, as if he had\nsomething to say to them\u2014he murmured twice the words \u2039La verit\u00e9\u203a\u2014and\npassed away.\n\nHis death took place at Rome, on the 24th of December 1850, in the\nfiftieth year of his age. His obsequies were celebrated in the church\nof Saint Louis des Fran\u00e7ais. It was in the year 1845 that he took up\nhis residence in Paris, so that his career as an [p032] Economist\nhad extended over little more than five years. He died a martyr to\nhis favourite science, and we may well apply to him the beautiful\nlines of Lord Byron,\u2014\n\n  Oh! what a noble heart was here undone,\n  When Science\u2019 self destroy\u2019d her favourite son!\n  Yes, she too much indulged his fond pursuit,\n  She sow\u2019d the seeds, but death has reap\u2019d the fruit.\n  \u2019Twas his own genius gave the final blow,\n  And help\u2019d to plant the wound that laid him low:\n  So the struck eagle, stretch\u2019d upon the plain,\n  No more through rolling clouds to soar again,\n  View\u2019d his own feather on the fatal dart,\n  And wing\u2019d the shaft that quiver\u2019d in his heart;\n  Keen were his pangs, but keener far to feel\n  He nursed the pinion which impell\u2019d the steel;\n  While the same plumage that had warm\u2019d his nest\n  Drank the last life-drop of his bleeding breast.\n\n\n\n\n TO THE YOUTH OF FRANCE.\n\n\nLove of study, and lack of fixed opinions,\u2014a mind free from\nprejudice, a heart devoid of hate, zeal for the propagation\nof truth,\u2014ardent sympathies, disinterestedness, devotion,\ncandour,\u2014enthusiasm for all that is good and fair, simple and great,\nhonest and religious,\u2014such are the precious attributes of youth. It\nis for this reason that I dedicate my work to you. And the seed must\nhave in it no principle of life if it fail to take root in a soil so\ngenerous.\n\nI had thought to offer you a picture, and all I have given you\nis a sketch; but you will pardon me; for who, in times like the\npresent,[12] can sit down to finish a grave and important work?\nMy hope is that some one among you, on seeing it, will be led to\nexclaim, with the great artist, \u2039Anch\u2019 io son pittore!\u203a and, seizing\nthe pencil, impart to my rude canvas colour and flesh, light and\nshade, sentiment and life.\n\nYou may think the title of the work somewhat ambitious; and assuredly\nI make no pretension to reveal the designs of Providence in the\nsocial order, and to explain the mechanism of all the forces with\nwhich God has endowed man for the realization of progress. All\nthat I have aimed at is to put you on the right track, and make\nyou acquainted with the truth, that \u2039all legitimate interests are\nin harmony\u203a. That is the predominant idea of my work, and it is\nimpossible not to recognise its importance.\n\nFor some time it has been the fashion to laugh at what has been\ncalled the \u2039social problem\u203a: and no doubt some of the solutions which\nhave been proposed afford but too much ground for raillery. But in\nthe problem itself there is nothing laughable. It is the ghost of\nBanquo at the feast of Macbeth\u2014and no dumb ghost either; for in\nformidable accents it calls out to terror-stricken society\u2014a solution\nor death! [p034]\n\nNow this solution, you will at once see, must be different according\nas men\u2019s interests are held to be naturally harmonious or naturally\nantagonistic.\n\nIn the one case, we must seek for the solution in Liberty\u2014in the\nother, in Constraint. In the one case, we have only to be passive\u2014in\nthe other, we must necessarily offer opposition.\n\nBut Liberty assumes only one shape. Once convinced that each of\nthe molecules which compose a fluid possesses in itself the force\nby which the general level is produced, we conclude that there is\nno surer or simpler way of seeing that level realized than not to\ninterfere with it. All, then, who set out with this fundamental\nprinciple, that \u2039men\u2019s interests are harmonious\u203a, will agree as\nto the practical solution of the social problem,\u2014to abstain from\ndisplacing or thwarting those interests.\n\nConstraint, on the other hand, may assume a thousand shapes,\naccording to the views which we take of it, and which are infinitely\nvaried. Those schools which set out with, the principle, that \u2039men\u2019s\ninterests are antagonistic\u203a, have done nothing yet towards the\nsolution of the problem, unless it be that they have thrust aside\nLiberty. Among the infinite forms of Constraint, they have still to\nchoose the one which they consider good, if indeed any of them be so.\nAnd then, as a crowning difficulty, they have to obtain universal\nacceptance, among men who are free agents, for the particular form of\nConstraint to which they have awarded the preference.\n\nBut, on this hypothesis, if human interests are, by their very\nnature, urged into fatal collision, and if this shock can be avoided\nonly by the accidental invention of an artificial social order, the\ndestiny of the human race becomes very hazardous, and we ask in\nterror,\n\n1st, If any man is to be found who has discovered a satisfactory form\nof Constraint?\n\n2d, Can this man bring to his way of thinking the innumerable schools\nwho give the preference to other forms?\n\n3d, Will mankind give in to that particular form which, by\nhypothesis, runs counter to all individual interests?\n\n4th, Assuming that men will allow themselves to be rigged out in this\nnew attire, what will happen if another inventor presents himself,\nwith a coat of a different and improved cut? Are we to persevere in a\nvicious organization, knowing it to be vicious; or must we resolve to\nchange that organization every morning according as the caprices of\nfashion and the fertility of inventors\u2019 brains may dictate? [p035]\n\n5th, Would not all the inventors whose plans have been rejected\nunite together against the particular organization which had been\nselected, and would not their success in disturbing society be in\nexact proportion to the degree in which that particular form of\norganization ran counter to all existing interests?\n\n6th, And, last of all, it may be asked, Does there exist any human\nforce capable of overcoming an antagonism which we presuppose to be\nitself the very essence of human force?\n\nI might multiply such questions \u2039ad infinitum\u203a, and propose, for\nexample, this difficulty:\n\nIf individual interest is opposed to the general interest, where are\nwe to place the active principle of Constraint? Where is the fulcrum\nof the lever to be placed? Beyond the limits of human society? It\nmust be so if we are to escape the consequences of your law. If we\nare to intrust some men with arbitrary power, prove first of all that\nthese men are formed of a different clay from other mortals; that\nthey in their turn will not be acted upon by the fatal principle of\nself-interest; and that, placed in a situation which excludes the\nidea of any curb, any effective opposition, their judgments will be\nexempt from error, their hands from rapacity, and their hearts from\ncovetousness.\n\nThe radical difference between the various Socialist schools (I\nmean here, those which seek the solution of the social problem in\nan artificial organization) and the Economist school, does not\nconsist in certain views of detail or of governmental combination. We\nencounter that difference at the starting point, in the preliminary\nand pressing question\u2014Are human interests, when left to themselves,\nantagonistic or harmonious?\n\nIt is evident that the Socialists have set out in quest of an\nartificial organization only because they judge the natural\norganization of society bad or insufficient; and they have judged\nthe latter bad and insufficient, only because they think they see in\nmen\u2019s interests a radical antagonism, for otherwise they would not\nhave had recourse to Constraint. It is not necessary to constrain\ninto harmony what is in itself harmonious.\n\nThus they have discovered antagonism everywhere:\n\n  Between the proprietor and the \u2039prol\u00e9taire\u203a;[13]\n  Between capital and labour;\n  Between the masses and the \u2039bourgeoisie\u203a;\n  Between agriculture and manufactures;\n  Between the rustic and the burgess;\n  Between the native and the foreigner;\n  Between the producer and the consumer;\n  Between civilisation and organization;\n        In a word,\n  Between Liberty and Harmony.\n\nAnd this explains why it happens that, although a certain kind of\nsentimental philanthropy finds a place in their hearts, gall and\nbitterness flow continually from their lips. Each reserves all his\nlove for the new state of society he has dreamt of; but as regards\nthe society in which we actually live and move, it cannot, in their\nopinion, be too soon crushed and overthrown, to make room for the New\nJerusalem they are to rear upon its ruins.\n\nI have said that the \u2039Economist\u203a school, setting out with the natural\nharmony of interests, is the advocate of Liberty.\n\nAnd yet I must allow that if Economists in general stand up for\nLiberty, it is unfortunately not equally true that their principles\nestablish solidly the foundation on which they build\u2014the harmony of\ninterests.\n\nBefore proceeding further, and to forewarn you against the\nconclusions which will no doubt be drawn from this avowal, I must\nsay a word on the situations which Socialism and Political Economy\nrespectively occupy.\n\nIt would be folly in me to assert that Socialism has never lighted\nupon a truth, and that Political Economy has never fallen into an\nerror.\n\nWhat separates, radically and profoundly, the two schools is their\ndifference of methods. The one school, like the astrologer and the\nalchemist, proceeds on hypothesis; the other, like the astronomer and\nthe chemist, proceeds on observation.\n\nTwo astronomers, observing the same fact, may not be able to arrive\nat the same result.\n\nIn spite of this transient disagreement, they feel themselves\nunited by the common process which sooner or later will cause\nthat disagreement to disappear. They recognise each other as of\nthe same communion. But between the astronomer, who observes, and\nthe astrologer, who imagines, the gulf is impassable, although\naccidentally they may sometimes approximate.\n\nThe same thing holds of Political Economy and Socialism.\n\nThe Economists observe man, the laws of his organization, and the\nsocial relations which result from those laws. The Socialists conjure\nup an imaginary society, and then create a human heart to suit that\nsociety. [p037]\n\nNow, if philosophy never errs, philosophers often do. I deny not that\nEconomists may make false observations; I will add, that they must\nnecessarily begin by doing so.\n\nBut, then, what happens? If men\u2019s interests are harmonious, it\nfollows that every incorrect observation will lead logically to\nantagonism. What, then, are the Socialist tactics? They gather from\nthe works of Economists certain incorrect observations, follow\nthem out to their consequences, and show those consequences to be\ndisastrous. Thus far they are right. Then they set to work upon the\nobserver, whom we may assume to be Malthus or Ricardo. Still they\nhave right on their side. But they do not stop there. They turn\nagainst the science of Political Economy itself, accusing it of being\nheartless, and leading to evil. Here they do violence to reason\nand justice, inasmuch as science is not responsible for incorrect\nobservation. At length they proceed another step. They lay the blame\non society itself:\u2014they threaten to overthrow it for the purpose\nof reconstructing the edifice:\u2014and why? Because, say they, it is\nproved by science that society as now constituted is urged onwards\nto destruction. In this they outrage good sense\u2014for either science\nis not mistaken, and then why attack it?\u2014or it is mistaken, and in\nthat case they should leave society in repose, since society is not\nmenaced.\n\nBut these tactics, illogical as they are, have not been the less\nfatal to economic science, especially when the cultivators of that\nscience have had the misfortune, from a chivalrous and not unnatural\nfeeling, to render themselves liable, \u2039singuli in solidum\u203a, for their\npredecessors and for one another. Science is a queen whose gait\nshould be frank and free:\u2014the atmosphere of the \u2039coterie\u203a stifles her.\n\nI have already said that in Political Economy every erroneous\nproposition must lead ultimately to antagonism. On the other hand,\nit is impossible that the voluminous works of even the most eminent\neconomists should not include some erroneous propositions. It is\nours to mark and to rectify them in the interest of science and of\nsociety. If we persist in maintaining them for the honour of the\nfraternity, we shall not only expose ourselves, which is of little\nconsequence, but we shall expose truth itself, which is a serious\naffair, to the attacks of Socialism.\n\nTo return: the conclusion of the Economists is for Liberty. But\nin order that this conclusion should take hold of men\u2019s minds and\nhearts, it must be solidly based on this fundamental principle, that\ninterests, left to themselves, tend to harmonious combinations, and\nto the progressive preponderance of the general good. [p038]\n\nNow many Economists, some of them writers of authority, have advanced\npropositions, which, step by step, lead logically to \u2039absolute evil\u203a,\nnecessary injustice, fatal and progressive inequality, and inevitable\npauperism, etc.\n\nThus, there are very few of them who, so far as I know, have not\nattributed \u2039value\u203a to natural agents, to the gifts which God has\nvouchsafed \u2039gratuitously\u203a to His creatures. The word \u2039value\u203a implies\nthat we do not give away the portion of it which we possess except\nfor an equivalent consideration. Here, then, we have men, especially\nproprietors of land, bartering for effective labour the gifts of God,\nand receiving recompense for utilities in the creation of which their\nlabour has had no share\u2014an evident, but a necessary, injustice, say\nthese writers.\n\nThen comes the famous theory of Ricardo, which may be summed up in a\nfew words: The price of the necessaries of life depends on the labour\nrequired to produce them on the least productive land in cultivation.\nThen the increase of population obliges us to have recourse to soils\nof lower and lower fertility. Consequently mankind at large (all\nexcept the landowners) are forced to give a larger and larger amount\nof labour for the same amount of subsistence; or, what comes to the\nsame thing, to receive a less and less amount of subsistence for\nthe same amount of labour,\u2014whilst the landowners see their rentals\nswelling by every new descent to soils of an inferior quality.\nConclusion: Progressive opulence of men of leisure\u2014progressive\npoverty of men of labour; in other words, fatal inequality.\n\nFinally, we have the still more celebrated theory of Malthus, that\npopulation has a tendency to increase more rapidly than the means\nof subsistence, and that at every given moment of the life of man.\nNow, men cannot be happy, or live in peace, if they have not the\nmeans of support; and there are but two obstacles to this increase\nof population which is always threatening us, namely, a diminished\nnumber of births, or an increase of mortality in all its dreadful\nforms. Moral restraint, to be efficacious, must be universal, and\nno one expects that. There remains, then, only the repressive\nobstacles\u2014vice, poverty, war, pestilence, famine; in other words,\npauperism and death.\n\nI forbear to mention other systems of a less general bearing,\nwhich tend in the same way to bring us to a dead-stand. Monsieur\nde Tocqueville, for example, and many others, tell us, if we admit\nthe right of primogeniture, we arrive at the most concentrated\naristocracy\u2014if we do not admit it, we arrive at ruin and sterility.\n[p039]\n\nAnd it is worthy of remark, that these four melancholy theories do\nnot in the least decree run foul of each other. If they did, we might\nconsole ourselves with the reflection that they are alike false,\nsince they refute each other. But no,\u2014they are in unison, and make\npart of one and the same general theory, which, supported by numerous\nand specious facts, would seem to explain the spasmodic state of\nmodern society, and, fortified by the assent of many masters in the\nscience, presents itself with frightful authority to the mind of the\nconfused and discouraged inquirer.\n\nWe have still to discover how the authors of this melancholy theory\nhave been able to lay down, as their principle, the \u2039harmony of\ninterests\u203a, and, as their conclusion, Liberty.\n\nFor if mankind are indeed urged on by the laws of Value towards\nInjustice,\u2014by the laws of Rent towards Inequality,\u2014by the laws of\nPopulation towards Poverty,\u2014by the laws of Inheritance towards\nSterility,\u2014we can no longer affirm that God has made the moral as\nHe has made the natural world\u2014a harmonious work; we must bow the\nhead and confess that it has pleased Him to base it on revolting and\nirremediable dissonance.\n\nYou must not suppose, young men, that the Socialists have refuted\nand repudiated what, in order to wound no one\u2019s susceptibilities,\nI shall call the theory of dissonances. No; let them say as they\nwill, they have assumed the truth of that theory, and it is just\nbecause they have assumed its truth that they propose to substitute\nConstraint for Liberty, artificial for natural organization, their\nown inventions for the work of God. They say to their opponents (and\nin this, perhaps, they are more consistent than the latter),\u2014if, as\nyou have told us, human interests when left to themselves tend to\nharmonious combination, we cannot do better than welcome and magnify\nLiberty as you do. But you have demonstrated unanswerably that those\ninterests, if allowed to develop themselves freely, urge mankind\ntowards injustice, inequality, pauperism, and sterility. Your theory,\nthen, provokes reaction precisely because it is true. We desire to\nbreak up the existing fabric of society just because it is subject to\nthe fatal laws which you have described; we wish to make trial of our\nown powers, seeing that the power of God has miscarried.\n\nThus they are agreed as regards the premises, and differ only on the\nconclusion.\n\nThe Economists to whom I have alluded say that \u2039the great\nprovidential laws urge on society to evil\u203a; but that we must take\ncare not to disturb the action of those laws, because such action\nis happily impeded by the secondary laws which retard the final\n[p040] catastrophe; and arbitrary intervention can only enfeeble the\nembankment, without stopping the fatal rising of the flood.\n\nThe Socialists say that \u2039the great providential laws urge on society\nto evil\u203a; we must therefore abolish them, and select others from our\ninexhaustible storehouse.\n\nThe Catholics say that \u2039the great providential laws urge on society\nto evil\u203a; we must therefore escape from them by renouncing worldly\ninterests, and taking refuge in abnegation, sacrifice, asceticism,\nand resignation.\n\nIt is in the midst of this tumult, of these cries of anguish and\ndistress, of these exhortations to subversion, or to resignation and\ndespair, that I endeavour to obtain a hearing for this assertion, in\npresence of which, if it be correct, all difference of opinion must\ndisappear\u2014\u2039it is not true that the great providential laws urge on\nsociety to evil\u203a.\n\nIt is with reference to the conclusions to be deduced from their\ncommon premises that the various schools are divided and combat each\nother. I deny those premises, and I ask, Is not that the best way of\nputting an end to these disputes?\n\nThe leading idea of this work, the harmony of interests, is \u2039simple\u203a.\nIs simplicity not the touchstone of truth? The laws of light,\nof sound, of motion, appear to us to be all the truer for being\nsimple\u2014Why should it be otherwise with the law of interests?\n\nThis idea is \u2039conciliatory\u203a. What is more fitted to reconcile parties\nthan to demonstrate the harmony of the various branches of industry:\nthe harmony of classes, of nations, even of doctrines?\n\nIt is \u2039consoling\u203a, seeing that it points out what is false in those\nsystems which adopt, as their conclusion, progressive evil.\n\nIt is \u2039religious\u203a, for it assures us that it is not only the\ncelestial but the social mechanism which reveals the wisdom of God,\nand declares His glory.\n\nIt is \u2039practical\u203a, for one can scarcely conceive anything more easily\nreduced to practice than this,\u2014to allow men to labour, to exchange,\nto learn, to associate, to act and react on each other,\u2014for,\naccording to the laws of Providence, nothing can result from their\nintelligent spontaneity but order, harmony, progress, good, and\nbetter still; better \u2039ad infinitum\u203a.\n\nBravo, you will say; here we have the optimism of the Economists\nwith a vengeance! These Economists are so much the slaves of their\nown systems that they shut their eyes to facts for fear of seeing\nthem. In the face of all the poverty, all the injustice, all the\noppressions which desolate humanity, they coolly deny the existence\nof evil. The smell of revolutionary gunpowder does not [p041] reach\ntheir blunted senses\u2014the pavement of the barricades has no voice\nfor them; and were society to crumble to pieces before their eyes,\nthey would still keep repeating, \u201cAll is for the best in the best of\nworlds.\u201d\n\nNo indeed,\u2014we do not think that all is for the best; but I have faith\nin the wisdom of the laws of Providence, and for the same reason I\nhave faith in Liberty.\n\nThe question is, Have we Liberty?\n\nThe question is, Do these laws act in their plenitude, or is their\naction not profoundly troubled by the countervailing action of human\ninstitutions?\n\nDeny evil! deny suffering! Who can? We must forget that our subject\nis man. We must forget that we are ourselves men. The laws of\nProvidence may be regarded as harmonious without their necessarily\nexcluding evil. Enough that evil has its explanation and its mission,\nthat it checks and limits itself, that it destroys itself by its\nown action, and that each suffering prevents a greater suffering by\nrepressing the cause of suffering.\n\nSociety has for its element man, who is a \u2039free\u203a agent; and\nsince man is free, he may choose,\u2014since he may choose, he may be\nmistaken,\u2014since he may be mistaken, he may suffer.\n\nI go further. I say he must be mistaken and suffer\u2014for he begins his\njourney in ignorance, and for ignorance there are endless and unknown\nroads, all of which, except one, lead to error.\n\nNow, every Error engenders suffering; but either suffering reacts\nupon the man who errs, and then it brings Responsibility into\nplay,\u2014or, if it affects others who are free from error, it sets in\nmotion the marvellous reactionary machinery of Solidarity.\n\nThe action of these laws, combined with the faculty which has been\nvouchsafed to us of connecting effects with their causes, must bring\nus back, by means of this very suffering, into the way of what is\ngood and true.\n\nThus, not only do we not deny the existence of evil, but we\nacknowledge that it has a mission in the social, as it has in the\nmaterial world.\n\nBut, in order that it should fulfil this mission, we must not stretch\nSolidarity artificially, so as to destroy Responsibility,\u2014in other\nwords, we must respect Liberty.\n\nShould human institutions step in to oppose in this respect the\ndivine laws, evil would not the less flow from error, only it would\nshift its position. It would strike those whom it ought not to\nstrike. It would be no longer a warning and a monitor. It would no\nlonger have the tendency to diminish and die away by its own [p042]\nproper action. Its action would be continued, and increase, as would\nhappen in the physiological world if the imprudences and excesses of\nthe men of one hemisphere were felt in their unhappy effects only by\nthe inhabitants of the opposite hemisphere.\n\nNow this is precisely the tendency not only of most of our\ngovernmental institutions, but likewise, and above all, of those\nwhich we seek to establish as remedies for the evils which we\nsuffer. Under the philanthropical pretext of developing among men\na factitious Solidarity, we render Responsibility more and more\ninert and inefficacious. By an improper application of the public\nforce, we alter the relation of labour to its remuneration, we\ndisturb the laws of industry and of exchange, we offer violence to\nthe natural development of education, we give a wrong direction to\ncapital and labour, we twist and invert men\u2019s ideas, we inflame\nabsurd pretensions, we dazzle with chimerical hopes, we occasion a\nstrange loss of human power, we change the centres of population, we\nrender experience itself useless,\u2014in a word, we give to all interests\nartificial foundations, we set them by the ears, and then we exclaim\nthat\u2014Interests are antagonistic: Liberty has done all the evil,\u2014let\nus denounce and stifle Liberty.\n\nAnd yet, as this sacred word has still power to stir men\u2019s hearts\nand make them palpitate, we despoil Liberty of its \u2039prestige\u203a by\ndepriving it of its name, and it is under the title of \u2039Competition\u203a\nthat the unhappy victim is led to the sacrificial altar, amid the\napplause of a mob stretching forth their hands to receive the\nshackles of servitude.\n\nIt is not enough, then, to exhibit, in their majestic harmony, the\nnatural laws of the social order; we must also explain the disturbing\ncauses which paralyze their action; and this is what I have\nendeavoured to do in the second part of this work.\n\nI have striven to avoid controversy; and, in doing so, I have no\ndoubt lost an opportunity of giving to the principles which I desire\nto disseminate the stability which results from a thorough and\nsearching discussion. And yet, might not the attention of the reader,\nseduced by digressions, have been diverted from the argument taken as\na whole? If I exhibit the edifice as it stands, what matters it in\nwhat light it has been regarded by others, even by those who first\ntaught me to look at it?\n\nAnd now I would appeal with confidence to men of all schools, who\nprefer truth, justice, and the public good to their own systems.\n\nEconomists! like you, I am the advocate of \u00abLiberty\u00bb; and if I\nsucceed in shaking some of those premises which sadden your generous\nhearts, perhaps you will see in this an additional incentive to love\nand to serve our sacred cause. [p043]\n\nSocialists! you have faith in \u00abAssociation\u00bb. I conjure you,\nafter having read this book, to say whether society as it is now\nconstituted, apart from its abuses and shackles, that is to say,\nunder the condition of Liberty, is not the most beautiful, the most\ncomplete, the most durable, the most universal, the most equitable,\nof all Associations.\n\n\u2039Egalitaires!\u203a you admit but one principle, the \u00abMutuality of\nServices\u00bb. Let human transactions be free, and I assert that they\nare not and cannot be anything else than a reciprocal exchange of\n\u2039services\u203a,\u2014services always diminishing in \u2039value\u203a, always increasing\nin \u2039utility\u203a.\n\nCommunists! you desire that men, become brothers, should enjoy in\ncommon the goods which Providence has lavished on them. My aim is to\ndemonstrate that society as it exists has only to acquire freedom\nin order to realize and surpass your wishes and your hopes. For all\nthings are common to all, on the single condition that each man takes\nthe trouble to gather what God has given, which is very natural; or\nremunerate freely those who take that trouble for him, which is very\njust.\n\nChristians of all communions! unless you stand alone in casting doubt\non the divine wisdom, manifested in the most magnificent of all God\u2019s\nworks which have come within the range of our knowledge, you will\nfind in this book no expression which can shock the severest morals,\nor the most mysterious dogmas of your faith.\n\nProprietors! whatever be the extent of your possessions, if I\nestablish that your rights, now so much contested, are limited, like\nthose of the most ordinary workman, to the receiving of services in\nexchange for real and substantial services which have been actually\nrendered by you, or by your forefathers, those rights will henceforth\nrepose on a basis which cannot lie shaken.\n\n\u2039Prol\u00e9taires!\u203a men who live by wages! I undertake to demonstrate that\nyou obtain the fruits of the land of which you are not the owners\nwith less pain and effort than if you were obliged to raise those\nfruits by your own direct labour,\u2014with less than if that land had\nbeen given to you in its primitive state, and before being prepared\nfor cultivation by labour.\n\nCapitalists and labourers! I believe myself in a position to\nestablish the law that, in proportion as capital is accumulated,\nthe \u2039absolute\u203a share of the total product falling to the capitalist\nincreases, and his \u2039proportional\u203a share is diminished; while both\nthe \u2039absolute\u203a and \u2039relative\u203a share of the product falling to the\nlabourer is augmented,\u2014the reverse effects being produced when\ncapital is lessened or dissipated.[14] If this law be established,\nthe obvious deduction is, [p044] a harmony of interests between\nlabourers and those who employ them.\n\nDisciples of Malthus! sincere and calumniated philanthropists, whose\nonly fault has been in warning mankind against the effects of a law\nwhich you believe to be fatal, I shall have to submit to you another\nlaw more reassuring:\u2014\u201c\u2039C\u00e6teris paribus\u203a, increasing density of\npopulation is equivalent to increasing facility of production.\u201d And\nif it be so, I am certain it will not be you who will grieve to see a\nstumbling-block removed from the threshold of our favourite science.\n\nMen of spoliation! you who, by force or fraud, by law or in spite of\nlaw, batten on the people\u2019s substance; you, who live by the errors\nyou propagate, by the ignorance you cherish, by the wars you light\nup, by the trammels with which you hamper trade; you who tax labour\nafter having rendered it unproductive, making it lose a sheaf for\nevery handful you yourselves pluck from it; you who cause yourselves\nto be paid for creating obstacles, in order to get afterwards paid\nfor partially removing those obstacles; incarnations of egotism\nin its worst sense; parasitical excrescences of a vicious policy,\nprepare for the sharpest and most unsparing criticism. To you alone\nI make no appeal, for the design of this book is to sacrifice\nyou, or rather to sacrifice your unjust pretensions. In vain we\ncherish conciliation. There are two principles which can never be\nreconciled\u2014Liberty and Constraint.\n\nIf the laws of Providence are harmonious, it is when they act with\nfreedom, without which there is no harmony. Whenever, then, we remark\nan absence of harmony, we may be sure that it proceeds from an\nabsence of liberty, an absence of justice. Oppressors, spoliators,\ncontemners of justice, you can have no part in the universal harmony,\nfor it is you who disturb it.\n\nDo I mean to say that the effect of this work may be to enfeeble\npower, to shake its stability, to diminish its authority? My design\nis just the opposite. But let me not be misunderstood.\n\nIt is the business of political science to distinguish between what\nought and what ought not to fall under State control; and in making\nthis important distinction we must not forget that the State always\nacts through the intervention of Force. The services which it renders\nus, and the services which it exacts from us in return, are alike\nimposed upon us under the name of contributions. [p045]\n\nThe question then comes back to this: What are the things which\nmen have a right to impose upon each other \u2039by force\u203a? Now, I know\nbut one thing in this situation, and that is \u2039Justice\u203a. I have no\nright to \u2039force\u203a any one whatever to be religious, charitable, well\neducated, or industrious; but I have a right to \u2039force\u203a him to be\n\u2039just\u203a,\u2014this is a case of legitimate defence.\n\nNow, individuals in the aggregate can possess no right which did\nnot pre-exist in individuals as such. If, then, the employment of\nindividual force is justified only by legitimate defence, the fact\nthat the action of government is always manifested by Force should\nlead us to conclude that it is essentially limited to the maintenance\nof order, security, and justice.\n\nAll action of governments beyond this limit is a usurpation upon\nconscience, upon intelligence, upon industry; in a word, upon human\nliberty.\n\nThis being granted, we ought to set ourselves unceasingly and without\ncompunction to emancipate the entire domain of private enterprise\nfrom the encroachments of power. Without this we shall not have\ngained Freedom, or the free play of those laws of harmony which God\nhas provided for the development and progress of the human race.\n\nWill Power by this means be enfeebled? Will it have lost in stability\nbecause it has lost in extent? Will it have less authority because\nit has fewer functions to discharge? Will it attract to itself less\nrespect because it calls forth fewer complaints? Will it be more\nthe sport of factions, when it has reduced those enormous budgets\nand that coveted influence which are the baits and allurements\nof faction? Will it encounter greater danger when it has less\nresponsibility?\n\nTo me it seems evident, that to confine public force to its one,\nessential, undisputed, beneficent mission,\u2014a mission desired and\naccepted by all,\u2014would be the surest way of securing to it respect\nand universal support. In that case, I see not whence could\nproceed systematic opposition, parliamentary struggles, street\ninsurrections, revolutions, sudden changes of fortune, factions,\nillusions, the pretensions of all to govern under all forms, those\ndangerous and absurd systems which teach the people to look to\ngovernment for everything, that compromising diplomacy, those wars\nwhich are always in perspective, or armed truces which are nearly\nas fatal, those crushing taxes which it is impossible to levy on\nany equitable principle, that absorbing and unnatural mixing up of\npolitics with everything, those great artificial displacements of\ncapital and labour, which are the source of fruitless heartburnings,\nfluctuations, stoppages, and commercial crises. All these causes of\ntrouble, of [p046] irritation, of disaffection, of covetousness,\nand of disorder, and a thousand others, would no longer have any\nfoundation, and the depositaries of power, instead of disturbing,\nwould contribute to the universal harmony,\u2014a harmony which does not\nindeed exclude evil, but which leaves less and less room for those\nills which are inseparable from the ignorance and perversity of our\nfeeble nature, and whose mission it is to prevent or chastise that\nignorance and perversity.\n\nYoung men! in these days in which a grievous Scepticism would seem\nto be at once the effect and the punishment of the anarchy of ideas\nwhich prevails, I shall esteem myself happy if this work, as you\nproceed in its perusal, should bring to your lips the consoling\nwords, \u00abI believe\u00bb,\u2014words of a sweet-smelling savour, which are at\nonce a refuge and a force, which are said to remove mountains, and\nstand at the head of the Christian\u2019s creed\u2014I believe. \u201cI believe,\nnot with a blind and submissive faith, for we are not concerned here\nwith the mysteries of revelation, but with a rational and scientific\nfaith, befitting things which are left to man\u2019s investigation.\u2014I\nbelieve that He who has arranged the material universe has not\nwithheld His regards from the arrangements of the social world.\u2014I\nbelieve that He has combined, and caused to move in harmony, free\nagents as well as inert molecules.\u2014I believe that His overruling\nProvidence shines forth as strikingly, if not more so, in the laws\nto which He has subjected men\u2019s interests and men\u2019s wills, as in the\nlaws which He has imposed on weight and velocity.\u2014I believe that\neverything in human society, even what is apparently injurious, is\nthe cause of improvement and of progress.\u2014I believe that Evil tends\nto Good, and calls it forth, whilst Good cannot tend to Evil; whence\nit follows that Good must in the end predominate.\u2014I believe that the\ninvincible social tendency is a constant approximation of men towards\na common moral, intellectual, and physical level, with, at the same\ntime, a progressive and indefinite elevation of that level.\u2014I believe\nthat all that is necessary to the gradual and peaceful development\nof humanity is that its tendencies should not be disturbed, but have\nthe liberty of their movements restored.\u2014I believe these things, not\nbecause I desire them, not because they satisfy my heart, but because\nmy judgment accords to them a deliberate assent.\u201d\n\nAh! whenever you come to pronounce these words, \u00abI believe\u00bb, you will\nbe anxious to propagate your creed, and the social problem will soon\nbe resolved, for, let them say what they will, it is not of difficult\nsolution. Men\u2019s interests are harmonious,\u2014the solution, then, lies\nentirely in this one word\u2014\u00abLiberty\u00bb. [p047]\n\n\n\n\n HARMONIES\n OF\n POLITICAL ECONOMY.\n\n\n\n\n I.\n NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL ORGANIZATION.[15]\n\n\nIs it quite certain that the mechanism of society, like the mechanism\nof the heavenly bodies, or that of the human frame, is subject to\ngeneral laws? Does it form a harmoniously \u2039organized\u203a whole? Or\nrather, do we not remark in it the absence of all \u2039organization\u203a? Is\nnot an \u2039organization\u203a the very thing which all men of heart and of\nthe future, all advanced publicists, all the pioneers of thought,\nare in search of at the present day? Is society anything else than\na multitude of individuals placed in juxtaposition, acting without\nconcert, and given up to the movements of an anarchical liberty? Are\nour countless masses, after having with difficulty recovered their\nliberties one after the other, not now awaiting the advent of some\ngreat genius to arrange them into a harmonious whole? Having pulled\ndown all, must we not now set about laying the foundation of a new\nedifice.\n\nAnd yet, it may be asked, have these questions any other meaning than\nthis: Can society dispense with written laws, rules, and repressive\nmeasures? Is every man to make an unlimited use of his faculties,\neven when in so doing he strikes at the liberties of [p048] another,\nor inflicts injury on society at large? In a word, must we recognise\nin the maxim, \u2039laissez faire, laissez passer\u203a, the absolute formula\nof political economy? If that were the question, no one could\nhesitate about the solution. The economists do not say that a man may\nkill, sack, burn, and that society has only to be quiescent,\u2014\u2039laisser\nfaire\u203a. They say that even in the absence of all law, society\nwould resist such acts; and that consequently such resistance is a\ngeneral law of humanity. They say that civil and penal laws must\nregulate, and not counteract, those general laws the existence of\nwhich \u2039they presuppose\u203a. There is a wide difference between a social\norganization, founded on the general laws of human nature, and an\nartificial organization, invented, imagined,\u2014which takes no account\nof these laws, or repudiates and despises them,\u2014such an organization,\nin short, as many modern schools would impose upon us.\n\nFor, if there be general laws which act independently of written\nlaws, and of which the latter can only regulate the action, we must\nstudy these \u2039general laws\u203a. They can be made the object of a science,\nand Political Economy exists. If, on the other hand, society is a\nhuman invention, if men are regarded only as inert matter, to which a\ngreat genius, like Rousseau, must impart sentiment and will, movement\nand life, then there is no such science as Political Economy.\nThere are only an indefinite number of possible and contingent\narrangements, and the fate of nations must depend upon the \u2039Founder\u203a\nto whom chance shall have committed their destinies.\n\nIn order to prove that society is subject to general laws, no\nelaborate dissertation is necessary. All I shall do is to notice\ncertain facts, which, although trite, are not the less important.\n\nRousseau has said, \u2039Il faut beaucoup de philosophie pour observer\nles faits qui sont trop pr\u00e8s de nous\u203a\u2014\u201cMuch philosophy is needed to\nobserve accurately things which are too near us.\u201d And such are the\nsocial phenomena in the midst of which we live and move. Habit has\nso familiarized us with these phenomena that we cease to observe\nthem, unless something striking and exceptional forces them on our\nattention.\n\nLet us take, by way of illustration, a man in the humble walks of\nlife\u2014a village carpenter, for instance,\u2014and observe the various\nservices he renders to society, and receives from it; we shall not\nfail to be struck with the enormous disproportion which is apparent.\n\nThis man employs his day\u2019s labour in planing boards, and making\ntables and chests of drawers. He complains of his condition; yet in\ntruth what does he receive from society in exchange for his work?\n[p049]\n\nFirst of all, on getting up in the morning, he dresses himself; and\nhe has himself personally made none of the numerous articles of\nwhich his clothing consists. Now, in order to put at his disposal\nthis clothing, simple as it is, an enormous amount of labour,\nindustry, and locomotion, and many ingenious inventions, must have\nbeen employed. Americans must have produced cotton, Indians indigo,\nFrenchmen wool and flax, Brazilians hides; and all these materials\nmust have been transported to various towns where they have been\nworked up, spun, woven, dyed, etc.\n\nThen he breakfasts. In order to procure him the bread which he eats\nevery morning, land must have been cleared, enclosed, laboured,\nmanured, sown; the fruits of the soil must have been preserved\nwith care from pillage, and security must have reigned among an\ninnumerable multitude of people; the wheat must have been cut down,\nground into flour, kneaded, and prepared; iron, steel, wood, stone,\nmust have been converted by industry into instruments of labour; some\nmen must have employed animal force, others water power, etc.; all\nmatters, of which each, taken singly, presupposes a mass of labour,\nwhether we have regard to space or time, of incalculable amount.\n\nIn the course of the day this man will have occasion to use sugar,\noil, and various other materials and utensils.\n\nHe sends his son to school, there to receive an education, which,\nalthough limited, nevertheless implies anterior study and research,\nand an extent of knowledge which startles the imagination.\n\nHe goes out. He finds the street paved and lighted.\n\nA neighbour goes to law with him. He finds advocates to plead his\ncause, judges to maintain his rights, officers of justice to put the\nsentence in execution; all which implies acquired knowledge, and,\nconsequently, intelligence and means of subsistence.\n\nHe goes to church. It is a stupendous monument, and the book which\nhe carries thither is a monument perhaps still more stupendous, of\nhuman intelligence. He is taught morals, he has his mind enlightened,\nhis soul elevated; and in order to this we must suppose that another\nman had previously frequented schools and libraries, consulted all\nthe sources of human learning, and while so employed had been able to\nlive without occupying himself directly with the wants of the body.\n\nIf our artizan undertakes a journey, he finds that, in order to save\nhim time and exertion, other men have removed and levelled the soil,\nfilled up valleys, hewed down mountains, united the banks of rivers,\ndiminished friction, placed wheeled carriages on blocks [p050] of\nsandstone or bands of iron, and brought the force of animals and the\npower of steam into subjection to human wants.\n\nIt is impossible not to be struck with the measureless disproportion\nwhich exists between the enjoyments which this man derives from\nsociety and what he could obtain by his own unassisted exertions. I\nventure to say that in a single day he consumes more than he could\nhimself produce in ten centuries.\n\nWhat renders the phenomenon still more strange is, that all other men\nare in the same situation. Every individual member of society has\nabsorbed millions of times more than he could himself produce; yet\nthere is no mutual robbery. And, if we regard things more nearly,\nwe perceive that the carpenter has paid, in services, for all the\nservices which others have rendered to him. If we bring the matter\nto a strict reckoning, we shall be convinced that he has received\nnothing which he has not paid for by means of his modest industry;\nand that every one who, at whatever interval of time or space, has\nbeen employed in his service has received, or will receive, his\nremuneration.\n\nThe social mechanism, then, must be very ingenious and very powerful,\nsince it leads to this singular result, that each man, even he whose\nlot is cast in the humblest condition, has more enjoyment in one day\nthan he could himself produce in many ages.\n\nNor is this all. The mechanism of society will appear still more\ningenious, if the reader will be pleased to turn his regards upon\nhimself.\n\nI suppose him a plain student. What is his business in Paris? How\ndoes he live? It cannot be disputed that society places at his\ndisposal food, clothing, lodging, amusements, books, means of\ninstruction, a multitude of things, in short, which would take a\nlong time not only to produce, but even to explain how they were\nproduced. And what services has this student rendered to society\nin return for all these things which have exacted so much labour,\ntoil, fatigue, physical and intellectual effort, so many inventions,\ntransactions, and conveyances hither and thither? None at all. He is\nonly preparing to render services. Why, then, have so many millions\nof men abandoned to him the fruits of their positive, effective,\nand productive labour? Here is the explanation:\u2014The father of this\nstudent, who was a lawyer, perhaps, or a physician, or a merchant,\nhad formerly rendered services\u2014it may be to society in China,\u2014and\nhad been remunerated, not by immediate services, but by a \u2039title\u203a to\ndemand services, at the time, in the place and under the form that\nmight be most suitable and convenient to him. [p051] It is of these\npast and distant services that society is now acquitting itself, and\n(astonishing as it seems) if we follow in thought the infinite range\nof transactions which must have had place in order to this result\nbeing effected, we shall see that every one has been remunerated\nfor his labour and services; and that these \u2039titles\u203a have passed\nfrom hand to hand, sometimes divided into parts, sometimes grouped\ntogether, until, in the consumption of this student, the entire\naccount has been squared and balanced. Is not this a very remarkable\nphenomenon?\n\nWe should shut our eyes to the light of day, did we fail to perceive\nthat society could not present combinations so complicated, and in\nwhich civil and penal laws have so little part, unless it obeyed\nthe laws of a mechanism wonderfully ingenious. The study of that\nmechanism is the business of \u2039Political Economy\u203a.\n\nAnother thing worthy of observation is, that of the incalculable\nnumber of transactions to which the student owed his daily\nsubsistence, there was not perhaps a millionth part which contributed\nto it directly. The things of which he has now the enjoyment, and\nwhich are innumerable, were produced by men the greater part of\nwhom have long since disappeared from the earth. And yet they were\nremunerated as they expected to be, although he who now profits by\nthe fruits of their labours had done nothing for them. They knew him\nnot; they will never know him. He who reads this page, at the very\nmoment he is reading it, has the power, although perhaps he has no\nconsciousness of it, to put in motion men of every country, of all\nraces, I had almost said of all time\u2014white, black, red, tawny\u2014to\nmake bygone generations, and generations still unborn, contribute to\nhis present enjoyments; and he owes this extraordinary power to the\nservices which his father had formerly rendered to other men, who\napparently had nothing in common with those whose labour is now put\nin requisition. Yet despite all differences of time and space, so\njust and equitable a balance has been struck, that every one has been\nremunerated, and has received exactly what he calculated he ought to\nreceive.\n\nBut, in truth, could all this have happened, and such phenomena been\nwitnessed, unless society had had a natural and wise \u2039organization\u203a,\nwhich acts, as it were, unknown to us?\n\nMuch has been said in our day of inventing a new \u2039organization\u203a. Is\nit quite certain, that any thinker, whatever genius we may attribute\nto him, whatever power we may suppose him to possess, could imagine\nand introduce an organization superior to that of which I have just\nsketched some of the results? [p052]\n\nBut what would be thought of it if I described its machinery, its\nsprings, and its motive powers?\n\nThe machinery consists of men, that is to say, of beings capable of\nlearning, reflecting, reasoning, of being deceived and undeceived,\nand consequently of contributing to the amelioration or deterioration\nof the mechanism itself. They are capable of pleasure and pain; and\nit is that which makes them not only the wheels but the springs of\nthe mechanism. They are also the motive power; for it is in them that\nthe active principle resides. More than that, they are themselves the\nvery end and object of the mechanism, since it is into individual\npains and enjoyments that the whole definitely resolves itself.\n\nNow it has been remarked, and it is unhappily obvious enough, that\nin the action, the development, and even the progress (by those who\nacknowledge progress) of this powerful mechanism, many of the wheels\nhave been inevitably, fatally injured; and that, as regards a great\nnumber of human beings, the sum of unmerited suffering surpasses by\nmuch the sum of enjoyment.\n\nThis view of the subject has led many candid minds, many generous\nhearts, to suspect the mechanism itself. They have repudiated it,\nthey have refused to study it, they have attacked, often with\npassion, those who have investigated and explained its laws. They\nhave risen against the nature of things, and at length they have\nproposed to \u2039organize\u203a society upon a new plan, in which injustice\nand suffering and error shall have no place.\n\nGod forbid that I should set myself against intentions manifestly\npure and philanthropical! But I should desert my principles, and do\nviolence to the dictates of my own conscience, did I not declare that\nthese men are in my opinion upon a wrong path.\n\nIn the first place, they are reduced, by the very nature of their\npropagandism, to the melancholy necessity of disowning the good which\nsociety develops, of denying its progress, of imputing to it all\nsufferings, of hunting after these with avidity, and exaggerating\nthem beyond measure.\n\nWhen a man believes that he has discovered a social organization\ndifferent from that which results from the ordinary tendencies of\nhuman nature, it is quite necessary, in order to obtain acceptance\nfor his invention, to paint the organization he wishes to abolish\nin the most sombre colours. Thus the publicists to whom I am\nalluding, after having proclaimed enthusiastically, and perhaps\nwith exaggeration, the perfectibility of man, fall into the strange\ncontradiction of maintaining that society is becoming more [p053]\nand more deteriorated. According to them, men are a thousand times\nmore unhappy than they were in ancient times under the feudal\n\u2039r\u00e9gime\u203a, and the yoke of slavery. The world is become a hell. Were\nit possible to conjure up the Paris of the tenth century, I venture\nto think that such a thesis would be found untenable.\n\nThen they are led to condemn the very mainspring of human action\u2014I\nmean a regard to \u2039personal interest\u203a, because it has brought about\nsuch a state of things. Let us remark that man is so organized\nas to seek for enjoyment and avoid suffering. From this source I\nallow that all social evils take their rise\u2014war, slavery, monopoly,\nprivilege; but from the same source springs all that is good, since\nthe satisfaction of wants and repugnance to suffering are the motives\nof human action. The business then is to discover whether this\nincitement to action, by its universality\u2014from individual becoming\nsocial\u2014is not in itself a principle of progress.\n\nAt all events, do the inventors of new organizations not perceive\nthat this principle, inherent in the very nature of man, will follow\nthem into their systems, and that there it will make greater havoc\nthan in our natural organization, in which the interest and unjust\npretensions of one are at least restrained by the resistance of\nall? These writers always make two inadmissible suppositions\u2014the\nfirst is, that society, such as they conceive it, will be directed\nby infallible men denuded of this motive of self-interest; and,\nsecondly, that the masses will allow themselves to be directed by\nthese men.\n\nFinally, these system-makers appear to give themselves no trouble\nabout the means of execution. How are they to establish their system?\nHow are they to induce all mankind at once to give up the principle\nupon which they now act\u2014the attraction of enjoyment, and the\nrepugnance to pain? It would be necessary, as Rousseau has said, \u2039to\nchange the moral and physical constitution of man\u203a.\n\nIn order to induce men at once to throw aside, as a worn-out garment,\nthe existing social order in which the human race has lived and been\ndeveloped from the beginning to our day, to adopt an organization of\nhuman invention and become docile parts of another mechanism, there\nare, it seems to me, only two means which can be employed\u2014Force, or\nUniversal Consent.\n\nThe founder of the new system must have at his disposal a force\ncapable of overcoming all resistance, so that humanity shall be in\nhis hands only as so much melting wax to be moulded and [p054]\nfashioned at his pleasure\u2014or he must obtain by persuasion an assent\nso complete, so exclusive, so blind even, as to render unnecessary\nthe employment of force.\n\nI defy any one to point out to me a third means of establishing or\nintroducing into human practice a \u2039Phalanst\u00e8re\u203a,[16] or any other\nartificial social organization.\n\nNow, if there be only two assumed means, and if we have demonstrated\nthat the one is as impracticable as the other, we have proved that\nthese system-makers are losing both their time and their trouble.\n\nAs regards the disposal of a material force which should subject\nto them all the kings and peoples of the earth, this is what these\ndotards, senile as they are, have never dreamt of. King Alphonsus\nhad presumption and folly enough to exclaim, that \u201cIf he had been\ntaken into God\u2019s counsels, the planetary system should have been\nbetter arranged.\u201d But although he set his \u2039wisdom\u203a above that of the\nCreator, he was not mad enough to wish to struggle with the \u2039power\u203a\nof Omnipotence, and history does not tell us that he ever actually\ntried to make the stars turn according to the laws of his invention.\nDescartes likewise contented himself with constructing a tiny world\nwith dice and strings, knowing well that he was not \u2039strong\u203a enough\nto remove the universe. We know no one but Xerxes who, in the\nintoxication of his power, dared to say to the waves, \u201cThus far shall\nye come, and no farther.\u201d The billows did not recede before Xerxes,\nbut Xerxes retreated before the billows; and without this humiliating\nbut wise precaution he would certainly have been drowned.\n\nForce, then, is wanting to the organizers who would subject humanity\nto their experiments. When they shall have gained over to their cause\nthe Russian autocrat, the shah of Persia, the khan of Tartary, and\nall the other tyrants of the world, they will find that they still\nwant the power to distribute mankind into groups and classes, and\nto annihilate the general laws of property, exchange, inheritance,\nand family; for even in Russia, in Persia, and in Tartary, it is\nnecessary to a certain extent to consult the feelings, habits, and\nprejudices of the people. Were the emperor of Russia to take it into\nhis head to set about \u2039altering the moral and physical constitution\nof his subjects\u203a, it is probable that he would soon have a successor,\nand that his successor would be better advised than to pursue the\nexperiment.\n\nBut since \u2039force\u203a is a means quite beyond the reach of our [p055]\nnumerous system-makers, no other resource remains to them but to\nobtain \u2039universal consent\u203a.\n\nThere are two modes of obtaining this\u2014namely, Persuasion and\nImposture.\n\nPersuasion! but have we ever found two minds in perfect accord upon\nall the points of a single science? How then are we to expect men\nof various tongues, races, and manners, spread over the surface\nof the globe, most of them unable to read, and destined to die\nwithout having even heard the name of the \u2039reformer\u203a, to accept\nwith unanimity the universal science? What is it that you aim at?\nAt changing the whole system of labour, exchanges, and social\nrelations, domestic, civil, and religious; in a word, at altering\nthe whole physical and moral constitution of man; and you hope to\nrally mankind, and bring them all under this new order of things, by\nconviction!\n\nVerily you undertake no light or easy duty.\n\nWhen a man has got the length of saying to his fellows:\n\n\u201cFor the last five thousand years there has been a misunderstanding\nbetween God and man;\n\n\u201cFrom the days of Adam to our time, the human race have been upon\na wrong course\u2014and, if only a little confidence is placed in me. I\nshall soon bring them back to the right way;\n\n\u201cGod desired mankind to pursue a different road altogether, but they\nhave taken their own way, and hence evil has been introduced into\nthe world. Let them turn round at my call, and take an opposite\ndirection, and universal happiness will then prevail.\u201d\n\nWhen a man sets out in this style it is much if he is believed by\nfive or six adepts; but between that and being believed by one\nthousand millions of men the distance is great indeed.\n\nAnd then, remember that the number of social inventions is as vast as\nthe domain of the imagination itself; that there is not a publicist\nor writer on social economy who, after shutting himself up for a\nfew hours in his library, does not come forth with a ready-made\nplan of artificial organization in his hand; that the inventions of\nFourier, Saint Simon, Owen, Cabet, Blanc, etc., have no resemblance\nwhatever to each other; that every day brings to light a new scheme;\nand that people are entitled to have some little time given them\nfor reflection before they are called upon to reject the social\norganization which God has vouchsafed them, and to make a definite\nand irrevocable choice among so many newly invented systems. For what\nwould happen if, after having selected one of these plans, a better\nshould present itself! Can the institutions [p056] of property,\nfamily, labour, exchange, be placed every day upon a new basis? Are\nwe to be forced to change the organization of society every morning?\n\n\u201cThus, then,\u201d says Rousseau, \u201cthe legislator being able to employ\neffectively neither force nor persuasion, he is under the necessity\nof having recourse to an authority of another kind, which carries us\nalong without violence, and persuades without convincing us.\u201d\n\nWhat is that authority? Imposture. Rousseau dares not give utterance\nto the word, but, according to his invariable practice in such a\ncase, he places it behind the transparent veil of an eloquent tirade.\n\n\u201cThis is the reason,\u201d says he, \u201cwhich in all ages has forced the\nFathers of nations to have recourse to the intervention of heaven,\nand to give the credit of their own wisdom to the gods, in order\nthat the people, submitting to the laws of the state as to those \u2039of\nnature\u203a, and acknowledging the same power in the formation of man\nand of the commonwealth, should obey \u2039freely\u203a and bear willingly the\nyoke of the public felicity. This \u2039sublime\u203a reason, which is above\nthe reach of vulgar souls, is that \u2039whose decisions the legislator\nputs into the mouth of the immortals\u203a, in order to \u2039carry along\u203a by\ndivine authority those who cannot be moved by considerations of human\nprudence. But it is not for every man to make \u2039the gods\u203a speak,\u201d etc.\n\nAnd in order that there may be no mistake, he cites Machiavel, and\nallows him to complete the idea: \u201cMai non fu alcuno ordinatore de\nleggi \u00abSTRAORDINARIE\u00bb in un popolo che non ricorresse a Dio.\u201d\n\nBut why does Machiavel counsel us to have recourse to \u2039God\u203a, and\nRousseau to \u2039the gods\u203a, to the \u2039immortals\u203a? The reader can answer\nthat question for himself.\n\nI do not indeed accuse the modern \u2039Fathers of nations\u203a of making\nuse of these unworthy deceptions. But when we place ourselves in\ntheir point of view, we see that they readily allow themselves to\nbe hurried along by the desire of success. When an earnest and\nphilanthropical man is deeply convinced that he possesses a social\nsecret by means of which all his fellow-men may enjoy in this world\nunlimited happiness,\u2014when he sees clearly that he can practically\nestablish that idea neither by force nor by reasoning, and that\ndeception is his only resource, he is laid under a very strong\ntemptation. We know that the ministers of religion themselves, who\nprofess the greatest horror of untruth, have not rejected \u2039pious\nfrauds\u203a; and we see by the example of Rousseau [p057] (that\naustere writer, who has inscribed at the head of all his works the\nmotto, \u2039Vitam impendere vero\u203a), that even a proud philosophy can\nallow itself to be seduced by the attraction of a very different\nmaxim, namely, \u2039The end justifies the means\u203a. Why then should we be\nsurprised that modern \u2039organisateurs\u203a should think also \u201c\u2039to place\ntheir own wisdom to the credit of the gods, to put their decisions in\nthe mouths of the immortals, hurrying us along without violence and\npersuading without convincing us\u203a!\u201d\n\nWe know that, after the example of Moses, Fourier has preceded his\nDeuteronomy by a Genesis. Saint Simon and his disciples had gone\nstill farther in their apostolic senilities. Others, more discreet,\nattached themselves to a latitudinarian faith, modified to suit their\nviews, under the name of \u2039n\u00e9ochristianisme\u203a; and every one must be\nstruck with the tone of mystic affectation which nearly all our\nmodern reformers have introduced into their sermons.\n\nEfforts of this kind have served only to prove one thing, and it is\nnot unimportant\u2014namely, that in our days the man is not always a\nprophet who wishes to be one. In vain he proclaims himself a god; he\nis believed by no one; neither by the public, nor by his compeers,\nnor by himself.\n\nSince I have spoken of Rousseau, I may be permitted to make here some\nobservations on that manufacturer of systems, inasmuch as they will\nserve to point out the distinctions between artificial and natural\norganization. This digression, besides, is not out of place, as the\n\u2039Contrat Social\u203a has again for some time been held forth as the\noracle of the future.\n\nRousseau was convinced that \u2039isolation\u203a was man\u2019s \u2039natural state\u203a,\nand, consequently, that \u2039society\u203a was a human invention. \u201c\u2039The social\norder\u203a,\u201d he says in the outset, \u201c\u2039comes not from nature\u203a, and is\ntherefore founded on convention.\u201d\n\nThis philosopher, although a passionate lover of liberty, had a very\nlow opinion of men. He believed them to be quite incapable of forming\nfor themselves good institutions. The intervention of a founder, a\nlegislator, a father of nations, was therefore indispensable.\n\n\u201cA people subjected to laws,\u201d says he, \u201cshould be the authors\nof them. It belongs alone to those who associate to adjust the\nconditions of their association; but how are they to regulate them?\nBy common consent, or by sudden inspiration? How should a blind\nmultitude, who frequently know not what they want, because they\nrarely know what is good for them, accomplish of themselves an\nenterprise so great and so difficult as the formation of a system\n[p058] of laws?\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. Individuals perceive what is good, and reject\nit\u2014the public wishes for what is good, but cannot discover it:\u2014all\nare equally in want of guides.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. Hence the necessity of a\nlegislator.\u201d\n\nThat legislator, as we have already seen, \u201cnot being able to employ\nforce or reason, is under the necessity of having recourse to an\nauthority of another kind;\u201d that is to say, in plain terms, to\ndeception.\n\nIt is impossible to give an idea of the immense height at which\nRousseau places his legislator above other men:\n\n\u201cGods would be necessary in order to give laws to men.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. He who\ndares to found a nation must feel himself in a condition to change\nhuman nature, so to speak,\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. to alter the constitution of man in\norder to strengthen it.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. He must take from man his own force, in\norder to give him that which is foreign to him.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. The lawgiver\nis in all respects an extraordinary man in the state,\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. his\nemployment is a peculiar and superior function which has nothing in\ncommon with ordinary government.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. If it be true that a great\nprince is a rare character, what must a great lawgiver be? The first\nhas only to follow the model which the other is to propose to him.\nThe one is the mechanician who invents the machine\u2014the other merely\nputs it together and sets it in motion.\u201d\n\nAnd what is the part assigned to human nature in all this? It is but\nthe base material of which the machine is composed.\n\nIn sober reality, is this anything else than pride elevated to\nmadness? Men are the materials of a machine, which the prince, the\nruling power, sets in motion. The lawgiver proposes the model.\nThe philosopher governs the lawgiver, placing himself thus at an\nimmeasurable distance above the vulgar herd, above the ruler, above\nthe lawgiver himself. He soars far above the human race, actuates it,\ntransforms it, moulds it, or rather he teaches the Fathers of nations\nhow they are to do all this.\n\nBut the founder of a nation must propose to himself a design. He has\nhis human material to set in motion, and he must direct its movements\nto a definite result. As the people are deprived of the initiative,\nand all depends upon the legislator, he must decide whether the\nnation is to be commercial or agricultural, or a barbarous race\nof hunters and fishers; but it is desirable at the same time that\nthe legislator should not himself be mistaken, and so do too much\nviolence to the nature of things.\n\nMen in \u2039agreeing\u203a to enter into an association, or rather in\nassociating under the fiat of a lawgiver, have a precise and definite\ndesign. \u201cThus,\u201d says Rousseau, \u201cthe Hebrews, and, more recently, the\nArabs, had for their principal object religion; the [p059] Athenians,\nletters; Carthage and Tyre, commerce; Rhodes, navigation; Sparta,\nwar; and Rome, virtue.\u201d\n\nWhat object is to determine us Frenchmen to leave the state of\nisolation and of nature, in order to form a society? Or rather\u2014as we\nare only so much inert matter\u2014the materials of a machine,\u2014towards\nwhat object shall our great founder direct us?\n\nFollowing the ideas of Rousseau, there could be but little room for\nlearning, commerce, or navigation. War is a nobler object, and virtue\nstill more so. But there is another, the noblest of all: \u201cThe end of\nevery system of legislation is \u2039liberty and equality\u203a.\u201d\n\nBut we must first of all discover what Rousseau understands by\nliberty. To enjoy liberty, according to him, is not to be free,\nbut to \u2039exercise the suffrage\u203a, when we are \u201cborne along without\nviolence, and persuaded without being convinced;\u201d for then \u201cwe obey\nwith freedom, and bear willingly the yoke of the public felicity.\u201d\n\n\u201cAmong the Greeks,\u201d he says, \u201call that the people had to do they did\nfor themselves, they were constantly assembled in the market-place;\nthey inhabited a genial climate; they were not avaricious; \u2039slaves\ndid all their work; their grand concern was their liberty\u203a.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe English people,\u201d he remarks in another place, \u201cbelieve\nthemselves free,\u2014they are much mistaken. They are so only during the\nelection of their members of parliament; the moment the election is\nover, they are slaves\u2014they are nothing.\u201d\n\nThe people, if they will be free, must, then, themselves perform all\nduties in connexion with the public service, for it is in that that\nliberty consists. They must be always voting and electing, always in\nthe market-place. Woe to him who takes it into his head to work for\nhis living! the moment a citizen begins to mind his own affairs, that\ninstant (to use Rousseau\u2019s favourite phrase) \u2039tout est perdu\u203a\u2014all is\nover with him.\n\nAnd yet the difficulty is by no means trifling. How are we to manage?\nfor, after all, before we can either practise virtue, or exercise\nliberty, we must have the means of living.\n\nWe have already remarked the rhetorical veil under which Rousseau\nconceals the word \u2039Imposture\u203a. We shall now see how, by another dash\nof eloquence, he evades the conclusion of his whole work, which is\n\u2039Slavery\u203a.\n\n\u201cYour ungenial climate entails upon you additional wants. For six\nmonths of the year you cannot frequent the market-place, your hoarse\nvoices cannot make themselves audible in the open air, and you fear\npoverty more than slavery.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou see clearly that you cannot be free.\u201d [p060]\n\n\u201cWhat! liberty maintain itself only by the aid of servitude? Very\nlikely!\u201d\n\nHad Rousseau stopt short at this dreadful word, the reader would have\nbeen shocked. It was necessary therefore to have recourse to imposing\ndeclamation, and Rousseau never fails in that.\n\n\u201cAll things that are unnatural (it is society he is speaking of) are\ninconvenient, and civil society more so than all the rest. There are\nunfortunate situations in which one man cannot maintain his liberty\nbut at the expense of another, and where the citizen cannot be\nentirely free unless the rigours of slavery are extreme. As for you,\nmodern people, you have no slavery, but you are yourselves slaves.\nYou purchase other men\u2019s liberty with your own. In vain you boast of\nthis advantage. I see in it rather cowardice than humanity.\u201d\n\nI ask, does not this mean: Modern people, you would do infinitely\nbetter not to be slaves, but to possess slaves?\n\nI trust the reader will have the goodness to pardon this long\ndigression, which is by no means useless or inopportune. Rousseau\nand his disciples of the Convention have been held up to us of late\nas the apostles of human fraternity. Men for materials, a ruler\nfor mechanician, a father of nations for inventor, a philosopher\nabove them all\u2014imposture for means, slavery for result,\u2014is this the\nfraternity which is promised us?\n\nThis work of Rousseau to which I have referred\u2014the \u2039Contrat\nSocial\u203a\u2014appears to me well fitted to exhibit the characteristics of\nthese artificial social organizations. The inventors of such systems\nset out with the idea that society is a state contrary to nature,\nand they seek to subject humanity to different combinations. They\nforget that its motive power, its spring of action, is in itself.\nThey regard men as base materials, and aspire to impart to them\nmovement and will, sentiment and life; placing themselves at an\nimmeasurable height above the whole human race. These are features\ncommon to all the inventors of social organizations. The inventions\nare different\u2014the inventors are alike.\n\nAmong the new arrangements which feeble mortals are invited to make\ntrial of, there is one which is presented to us in terms worthy of\nattention. Its formula is: \u2039Association voluntary and progressive\u203a.\n\nBut \u2039Political Economy\u203a is founded exactly on the datum, that\n\u2039society\u203a is nothing else than \u2039association\u203a (such as the above three\nwords describe it)\u2014association, very imperfect at first, because\nman is imperfect; but improving as man improves, that is to say,\n\u2039progressive\u203a. [p061]\n\nIs your object to effect a more intimate association between labour,\ncapital, and talent, insuring thereby to the members of the human\nfamily a greater amount of material enjoyment\u2014enjoyment more equally\ndistributed? If such associations are \u2039voluntary\u203a; if force and\nconstraint do not intervene; if the cost is defrayed by those who\nenter these associations, without drawing upon those who refuse\nto enter them, in what respect are they repugnant to Political\nEconomy? Is it not the business of Political Economy, as a science,\nto examine the various forms in which men may unite their powers,\nand divide their employments, with a view to greater and more widely\ndiffused prosperity? Does trade not frequently afford us examples\nof two, three, or four persons uniting to form such associations?\nIs \u2039M\u00e9tayage\u203a[17] not a sort of informal association of capital\nand labour? Have we not in recent times seen joint stock companies\nformed which afford to the smallest capitals the opportunity of\ntaking part in the most extensive enterprizes? Have we not certain\nmanufactures in which it is sought to give the labourers an interest\nin the profits? Does Political Economy condemn those efforts of men\nto make their industry more productive and profitable? Does she\naffirm anywhere that human nature has reached perfection? Quite the\ncontrary. I believe that there is no science which demonstrates more\nclearly that society is still in its infancy.\n\nBut whatever hopes we may entertain as to the future, whatever\nideas we may conceive as to the measures that men may adopt for\nthe improvement of their mutual relations, and the diffusion of\nhappiness, knowledge, and morality, we must never forget that society\nis an organization which has for its element a moral and intelligent\nagent, endued with free will, and susceptible of improvement. If you\ntake away Liberty from man, he becomes nothing else than a rude and\nwretched machine.\n\nLiberty would seem not to be wanted in our days. In France, the\nprivileged land of fashion, freedom appears to be no longer in\nrepute. For myself, I say that he who rejects liberty has no faith\nin human nature. Of late the distressing discovery seems to have\nbeen made that liberty leads inevitably to monopoly.[18] This\nmonstrous union, this unnatural conjunction, does not exist; it is\nthe imaginary fruit of an error which the light of Political Economy\nspeedily [p062] dissipates. Freedom engender monopoly! Oppression\nthe offspring of liberty! To affirm this is to affirm that the\ntendencies of human nature are radically bad\u2014bad in themselves, in\ntheir nature, in their essence. It is to affirm that the natural\nbent of man is to deterioration; that the human mind is irresistibly\nattracted towards error. To what end, then, our schools, our\nstudies, our inquiries, our discussions, unless to accelerate our\nprogress towards that fatal descent; since to teach men to judge, to\ndistinguish, to select, is only to teach them to commit suicide? And\nif the tendencies of human nature are essentially perverse, where\nare the organizers of new social systems to place the fulcrum of\nthat lever by which they hope to effect their changes? It must be\nsomewhere beyond the limits of the present domain of humanity. Do\nthey search for it in themselves\u2014in their own minds and hearts? They\nare not gods yet; they are men, and tending, consequently, along with\nthe whole human race, towards the fatal abyss. Shall they invoke the\nintervention of the state? The state also is composed of men. They\nmust therefore prove that they form a distinct class, for whom the\ngeneral laws of society are not intended, since it is their province\nto make these laws. Unless this be proved the difficulty is not\nremoved, it is not even diminished.\n\nLet us not thus condemn human nature before studying its laws, its\nforces, its energies, its tendencies. Newton, after he discovered\nattraction, never pronounced the name of God without uncovering his\nhead. Yet the celestial mechanism is subject to laws of which it has\nno consciousness; and the social world is as much superior to that\nwhich called forth the admiration of Newton as mind is superior to\nmatter. How much more reason, then, have we to bow before Omniscience\nwhen we behold the social mechanism, which universal intelligence no\nless pervades (\u2039mens agitat molem\u203a); and which presents, moreover,\nthis extraordinary phenomenon, that every atom of which it is\ncomposed is an animated thinking being, endued with marvellous\nenergy, and with that principle of all morality, all dignity, all\nprogress, the exclusive attribute of man\u2014\u00abLiberty\u00bb. [p063]\n\n\n\n\n II.\n WANTS, EFFORTS, SATISFACTIONS.[19]\n\n\nWhat a profoundly afflicting spectacle France presents to us!\n\nIt would be difficult to say if anarchy has passed from ideas to\nfacts, or from facts to ideas, but it is certain that it pervades\nall, and abounds everywhere.\n\nThe poor rise up against the rich, men without fortune or profession\nagainst property; the populace against the bourgeoisie; labour\nagainst capital; agriculture against manufactures; the country\nagainst the town; the provinces against the metropolis; the denizen\nagainst the stranger.\n\nAnd theorists step in, and form a system of this antagonism. \u201cIt is\nthe \u2039inevitable\u203a result, they say, of the nature of things, that\nis to say, of Liberty. Man is endued with \u2039self-love\u203a, and hence\ncomes all the evil; for since he is endued with self-love, he seeks\nto better his own condition, and he can only do so by entailing\nmisery on his brethren. Let us hinder him, then, from following his\ninclinations; let us stifle his liberty, change the human heart,\nsubstitute other motives for those which God has placed there: let us\ninvent and constitute an artificial society!\u201d\n\nWhen they have got this length, an unlimited career opens itself to\ntheir reason or imagination. If they are possessed of a disputatious\nturn and a peevish temper, they enter with eagerness into an\nanalysis of Evil. They dissect it, they put it in the crucible,\nthey interrogate it, they remount to its causes, they pursue it\nto its consequences; and, as by reason of our native imperfection\nthere is nothing in which Evil is not present, they asperse and\ndisparage everything. They exhibit to us Property, Family, Capital,\nLabour, Competition, Liberty, Personal Interest, only in one of\ntheir aspects, and always on the dark side, the side which injures\nor [p064] destroys. Their lectures on the natural history of man\nare, if I may use the expression, clinical lectures\u2014the subject is\nalways on his deathbed. They impiously defy God to reconcile what is\nsaid of His infinite goodness with the existence of evil. They stain\nand sully everything; they disgust us with everything; they dispute\neverything; and yet they obtain only a melancholy and dangerous\nsuccess with those classes whom suffering disposes but too much to\ndespair.\n\nIf, on the other hand, such theorists have a heart open to\nbenevolence, a mind which is pleased with illusions, they rush to the\nregion of chimeras. They dream of an Oceania, an Atlantis, a Salente,\na Spensonie, an Icarie, a Utopia, a Phalanst\u00e8re,[20] and they\npeople these imaginary regions with a docile, loving, devoted race\nwho always avoid setting themselves up against the fancies of the\ndreamer. He installs himself complacently in the seat of Providence.\nHe arranges, he disposes, he moulds men after his own fancy. Nothing\nstops him. He never encounters deceit. He resembles the Roman\npreacher, who, after having transformed his square cap into Rousseau,\nrefuted warmly the \u2039Contrat Social\u203a, and triumphantly reduced his\nadversary to silence. It is thus that our Reformers dazzle those who\nsuffer by means of seductive pictures of ideal felicity, well fitted\nto disgust them with the hard necessities of real life.\n\nThe theorist, however, rarely confines himself to such innocent\nchimeras. The moment he aims at leading mankind, he finds the\npeople impatient of attempted transformations. Men resist, they get\nangry. In order to gain them over, he harangues them not only on\nthe happiness they reject, but more especially on the evils from\nwhich he professes to deliver them. He finds it impossible to make\ntoo striking a picture. He is continually charging his palette and\ndeepening his colours. He hunts out the evils of existing society\nwith as much zeal as another employs in discovering the good. He sees\nnothing but sufferings, rags, leanness, starvation, pain, oppression.\nHe is enraged that society has not a deeper sense of its misery. He\nneglects no means of making it throw off its insensibility, and,\nhaving begun with benevolence, he ends with misanthropy.[21]\n\nGod forbid that I should call in question the sincerity of any one.\nBut, in truth, I cannot explain to myself how these writers, [p065]\nwho see a radical antagonism in the natural order of things, can\never taste a moment\u2019s calm or repose. Discouragement and despair\nwould seem to be their unhappy portion. For, to sum up all, if\nnature is mistaken in making \u2039personal interest\u203a the mainspring of\nhuman society (and the mistake is manifest if it be admitted that\nthe interests of society are fatally antagonistic), how do they not\nperceive that the evil is without remedy? Being men ourselves, and\nbeing able to have recourse only to men, where can be our \u2039point\nd\u2019appui\u203a for changing the tendencies of human nature? Shall we invoke\nthe Police, the Magistracy, the State, the Legislature? That would\nonly be to invoke men, that is to say, beings subject to the common\ninfirmity. Shall we address ourselves to Universal Suffrage? That\nwould be to give the freest course to the universal tendency.\n\nOnly one expedient remains to these gentlemen. It is to hold\nthemselves out as discoverers, as prophets, made of different\nclay from their fellow-men, and deriving their inspiration from a\ndifferent source. This is the reason, no doubt, why we find them so\nfrequently enveloping their systems and their councils in a mystic\nphraseology. But if they are ambassadors of God, let them exhibit\ntheir credentials. In effect, what they demand is sovereign power,\ndespotism the most absolute that ever existed. They not only wish to\ngovern our acts, but to revolutionize our thoughts. Do they hope that\nmankind will believe them on their word, when they are not able to\nagree among themselves?\n\nBut before even examining their projects of artificial societies, is\nthere not one point upon which it is necessary to assure ourselves,\nnamely, whether they are not mistaken in the very foundation of their\nargument? Is it quite certain that \u00abMEN\u2019S INTERESTS ARE NATURALLY\nANTAGONISTIC\u00bb; that an irremediable cause of inequality is fatally\ndeveloped in the natural order of human society under the influence\nof personal interest, and that Providence is manifestly in error\nin ordaining that the progress of man should be towards ease and\ncompetency?\n\nThis is what I propose to inquire into.\n\nTaking man as it has pleased God to constitute him, capable of\nforesight and experience, perfectible, endued with self-love, it\nis true,\u2014but self-love qualified by the sympathetic principle, and\nat all events restrained and balanced by encountering an analogous\nsentiment universally prevailing in the medium in which it acts,\u2014I\nproceed to inquire what social order must necessarily result from the\ncombination and free play of such elements.\n\nIf we find that this result is nothing else than a progressive\n[p066] march towards prosperity, improvement, and equality,\u2014a\nsustained approximation of all classes towards the same physical,\nintellectual, and moral level, accompanied by a constant elevation\nof that level, the ways of God to man will be vindicated. We shall\nlearn with delight that there is no gap, no blank, in creation, and\nthat the social order, like everything else, attests the existence of\nthose \u2039harmonic laws\u203a before which Newton bowed his head, and which\nelicited from the Psalmist the exclamation, \u201c\u2039The heavens declare the\nglory of God.\u203a\u201d\n\nRousseau has said, \u201cIf I were a prince or a legislator, I should not\nlose my time in pointing out what was necessary to be done\u2014I should\ndo it or hold my tongue.\u201d\n\nI am not a \u2039prince\u203a, but the confidence of my fellow-citizens has\nmade me a \u2039legislator\u203a. Perhaps they will tell me that this is the\ntime for me to act and not to write.\n\nLet them pardon me. Whether it be truth itself which urges me on, or\nthat I am the dupe of an illusion. I have never ceased to feel the\nwant of concentrating those ideas which have hitherto failed to find\nacceptance when presented in detached portions. I think I discover\nin the play of the natural laws of society sublime and consoling\n\u2039harmonies\u203a. What I see, or think I see, ought I not to try to\nexhibit to others, in order to rally round a sentiment of concord\nand fraternity many unsettled minds, many imbittered hearts? If,\nwhen the much-loved vessel of the state is beat by the tempest, I\nsometimes appear to absent myself from my post, in order to collect\nmy scattered thoughts, it is because I feel my feeble hands unfitted\nfor the work. Is it, besides, to betray my mission, to reflect upon\nthe causes of the tempest itself, and endeavour to act upon these\ncauses? And then, what I find I cannot do to-day, who knows but it\nmay be given me to accomplish to-morrow?\n\nI shall begin by establishing some Economical ideas. Availing myself\nof the works of my predecessors, I shall endeavour to sum up the\nscience in one principle\u2014true, simple, and prolific\u2014of which we have\nhad a glimpse from the beginning, to which we are constantly drawing\nnearer and nearer, and of which, perhaps, the time is now come to fix\nthe formula. By the light thus afforded, I shall afterwards essay\nthe solution of some yet disputed problems\u2014Competition, Machinery,\nForeign trade, Luxury, Capital, Rent, etc. I shall note some of\nthe relations, or, I should rather say, the harmonies of Political\nEconomy, with the other moral and social sciences, glancing at\nthe important subjects indicated by the terms\u2014Personal Interest,\nProperty, Community, Liberty, [p067] Equality, Responsibility,\nSolidarity, Fraternity, Unity. Last of all, I shall invite attention\nto the artificial obstacles which the pacific, regular, and\nprogressive development of human society encounters. From these two\nideas\u2014Natural harmonic Laws\u2014Artificial disturbing Causes\u2014will be\ndeduced the solution of the Social Problem.\n\nIt is easy to see that there are two rocks ahead upon which this\nundertaking may founder. In the middle of the vortex in which we are\ncarried along, if this work is abstruse, it will not be read; if it\nobtains readers, the questions of which it treats will be but glanced\nat. How are we to reconcile the exactions of the reader with the\nrequirements of science? To satisfy all conditions both in form and\nsubstance, each word would require to be weighed, and have its proper\nplace assigned to it. It is thus that the crystal is formed drop by\ndrop in silence and obscurity. Retirement, quiet, time, freedom from\ncare\u2014all are wanting to me\u2014and I am forced to trust to the sagacity\nof the public, and throw myself on its indulgence.\n\nThe subject of Political Economy is Man.\n\nBut it does not embrace the whole range of human affairs. The science\nof morals has appropriated all that comes within the attractive\nregions of Sympathy\u2014the religious sentiment, paternal and maternal\ntenderness, filial piety, love, friendship, patriotism, charity,\npoliteness. To Political Economy is left only the cold domain of\nPersonal interest. This is unjustly forgotten when Economical science\nis reproached with wanting the charm and unction of morals. How can\nit be otherwise? Dispute its right to existence as a science, but\ndon\u2019t force it to counterfeit what it is not, and cannot be. If human\ntransactions which have wealth for their object are vast enough,\ncomplicated enough, to afford materials for a special science, leave\nto it its own attractions, such as they are, and don\u2019t force it\nto speak of men\u2019s Interests in the language of Sentiment. For my\nown part, I believe that little good has been effected of late in\nexacting from writers on Political Economy a tone of enthusiastic\nsentimentality which in their mouth can only be declamation. Of what\ndo they treat? Of transactions which take place between people who\nknow nothing of each other, who owe each other nothing but common\nJustice, who seek to defend or advance certain interests. It has to\ndo with claims and pretensions which limit and restrain each other,\nand with which disinterestedness and devotion have nothing to do.\nTake a lyre, and chant such themes! As well might Lamartine sing his\nodes with the aid of the logarithm tables. [p068]\n\nNot that Political Economy is without its poetry. There is poetry\nwherever order and harmony exist. But it is in the results, not in\nthe demonstrations. It is brought out, not created. Kepler did not\ngive himself out as a poet, and yet the laws which he discovered are\nthe true poetry of mind.\n\nThus, Political Economy regards man only in one aspect, and our first\ncare must be to study man in that point of view. This is the reason\nwhy we cannot avoid going back to the primary phenomena of human\n\u2039Sensibility\u203a and \u2039Activity\u203a. Start not, gentle reader! We shall not\ndetain you long in those cloudy regions of metaphysics, and we shall\nborrow from that science only such notions as are clear, simple, and,\nif possible, incontestable.\n\nThe soul, or (to get rid of the spiritual question) man, is endued\nwith \u2039Sensibility\u203a. Let this sensibility be either in the soul or in\nthe body, man, as a \u2039passive\u203a being, always experiences \u2039sensations\u203a\neither painful or agreeable. As an \u2039active\u203a being, he makes an effort\nto drive away the one set of sensations and to multiply the other.\nThe result, which affects him again as a \u2039passive\u203a being, may be\ncalled \u2039Satisfaction\u203a.\n\nThe general idea of \u2039Sensibility\u203a springs from other ideas which are\nmore precise: pain, want, desire, taste, appetite, on one side; and,\non the other, pleasure, enjoyment, competence.\n\nBetween these two extremes a middle term is interposed, and from the\ngeneral idea of \u2039Activity\u203a spring the more precise ideas of pain,\neffort, fatigue, labour, production.\n\nIn analyzing \u2039Sensibility\u203a and \u2039Activity\u203a we encounter a word common\nto both; the word \u2039Pain\u203a. To experience certain sensations is a\n\u2039pain\u203a, and we cannot put an end to it but by an effort, which is\nalso a \u2039pain\u203a. We \u2039feel pains\u203a; we \u2039take pains\u203a. This advertises us\nthat here below we have only a choice of evils.\n\nIn the aggregate of these phenomena all is \u2039personal\u203a, as well the\nSensation which precedes the effort, as the Satisfaction which\nfollows it.\n\nWe cannot doubt, then, that \u2039Personal interest\u203a is the great\nmainspring of human nature. It must be perfectly understood, however,\nthat this term is here employed as the expression of a universal\nfact, incontestable, and resulting from the organization of man,\u2014and\nnot of a critical judgment on his conduct and actions, as if, instead\nof it, we should employ the word \u2039egotism\u203a. Moral science would be\nrendered impossible, if we were to pervert beforehand the terms of\nwhich it is compelled to make use.\n\nHuman effort does not always come necessarily to place itself\nbetween the sensation and the satisfaction. Sometimes the [p069]\nsatisfaction comes of its own accord. More frequently the effort is\nexercised upon \u2039materials\u203a, by the intervention of \u2039forces\u203a which\nnature has placed gratuitously at our disposal.\n\nIf we give the name of \u2039Utility\u203a to all which effects the\nsatisfaction of wants, there are, then, utilities of two kinds:\u2014one,\nvouchsafed to us gratuitously by Providence; the other (if I may use\nthe expression), requiring to be purchased by an \u2039Effort\u203a.\n\nThus the complete evolution embraces, or may embrace, these four\nideas:\n\n  Wants  {Gratuitous Utility,  Onerous Utility}  Satisfaction.\n\nMan is endued with progressive faculties. He compares, he foresees,\nhe learns, he reforms himself, by experience. If want is a \u2039pain\u203a,\neffort is a \u2039pain\u203a also, and there is therefore no reason why he\nshould not seek to diminish the latter, when he can do so without\ndiminishing the satisfaction, which is his ultimate object. This\nis the reason of his success when he comes to replace \u2039onerous\u203a by\n\u2039gratuitous Utility\u203a, which is the perpetual object of his search.\n\nIt follows from the \u2039interested\u203a nature of the human heart, that we\nconstantly seek to increase the proportion which our Satisfactions\nbear to our Efforts; and it results from the intelligent nature of\nour mind that we manage at each step to augment the proportion which\ngratuitous bears to onerous Utility.\n\nEvery time a success of this nature is achieved, a part of our\nefforts is, so to speak, rendered disposable, and we have the option\nof either indulging ourselves with longer repose, or of working\nfor the satisfaction of new desires, if these are strong enough to\nstimulate our activity.\n\nSuch is the principle of all economic progress; and it is easy to\nsee that it is the principle also of all deception; for progress\nand error have both their root in that marvellous gift of God to\nman\u2014\u2039Free will\u203a.\n\nWe are endued with the faculty of comparing, of judging, of choosing,\nand of acting in consequence; which implies that we may form a right\nor a wrong judgment, and make a good or a bad choice. It is never\nuseless to remind men of this when they talk of Liberty.\n\nWe never deceive ourselves, it is true, regarding the particular\nnature of our sensations, and we discern with an infallible instinct\nwhether they are painful or agreeable. But how many various forms may\nour errors take! We may be labouring under a mistake as to the cause,\nand pursue with ardour, as likely to afford us enjoyment, what can\nonly indict pain upon us; or we may be [p070] mistaken as to the\nchain of consequences, and be ignorant that an immediate satisfaction\nwill be followed by greater ulterior pain; or, again, we may mistake\nthe relative importance of our wants and our desires.\n\nNot only may we thus give a false direction to our efforts through\nignorance, but also through a perverse will. \u201cMan,\u201d says M. Bonald,\n\u201cis an intelligence served by organs.\u201d What! is there nothing else in\nus? Have we no passions?\n\nWhen we speak of harmony, then, we must not be understood to mean\nthat the natural arrangement of the social world is such that error\nand vice have been excluded from it. To maintain that thesis in the\nface of plain facts would be to carry the love of system to madness.\nTo have harmony without dissonance man must either be devoid of free\nwill or he must be infallible. All we say is this, that the great\nsocial tendencies are harmonious, inasmuch as\u2014all error leading\nto deception and all vice to chastisement\u2014the dissonances have a\ncontinual tendency to disappear.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nA first and vague notion of property may be deduced from these\npremises. Since it is the individual who experiences the sensation,\nthe desire, the want,\u2014since it is he who makes the \u2039Effort\u203a,\u2014the\nsatisfaction must necessarily redound to him, for otherwise the\neffort would be without cause or reason.\n\nThe same may be said of \u2039Inheritance\u203a. No theory, no declamation, is\nrequired in order to make fathers love their children. People who sit\ndown to manufacture imaginary societies may think it strange, but\nit is so;\u2014a father makes as many \u2039Efforts\u203a for the \u2039satisfaction\u203a\nof his children as for his own. Perhaps he makes more. If, then, an\nunnatural law should interdict the transmission of property, not only\nwould that law violate property by the very act, but it would hinder\nits formation by abandoning to inaction one-half at least of our\n\u2039Efforts\u203a.\n\nWe shall have occasion to return to the subjects of Personal\ninterest, Property, and Inheritance. Let us, in the first instance,\nmark out the limits of the science with which we have more\nimmediately to do.\n\nI am not one of those who think that a science, as such, has natural\nand unalterable boundaries. In the domain of ideas, as in that of\nfacts, all things are bound up and linked together; truths run into\none another; and there is no science which, in order to be complete,\nmight not be made to include all. It has been said with reason that\nto an infinite intelligence there is but a single verity. It is,\nthen, our weakness which obliges us to study separately a [p071]\ncertain order of phenomena, and the classifications which result from\nit cannot escape a certain decree of arbitrariness.\n\nThe true merit is to explain accurately the facts, their causes,\nand their consequences. It is also a merit, although a much less\nand a purely relative one, to determine, not rigorously\u2014for that is\nimpossible\u2014but rationally, the order of the facts which we propose to\nstudy.\n\nI say this in order that it may not be supposed that I intend to\ncriticise my predecessors if I give to Political Economy limits\nsomewhat different from those which they have assigned to that\nscience.\n\nEconomists have of late been reproached with addicting themselves\ntoo much to the study of \u2039Wealth\u203a. It has been wished that they had\nfound a place in their science for all that, directly or indirectly,\ncontributes to the happiness or sufferings of humanity. They have\neven been supposed to deny everything which they did not profess to\nteach\u2014for example, the phenomena of sympathy, which is as natural\nto the heart of man as the principle of self-interest. It is as\nif they accused the mineralogist of denying the existence of the\nanimal kingdom. What! Wealth, the laws of its production, of its\ndistribution, of its consumption,\u2014is not this a subject vast enough,\nand important enough, to be made the object of a special science?\nIf the conclusions of the Economist were at variance with those of\nmorals and politics. I could conceive ground for the accusation. One\nmight say to him, \u201cIn limiting your science you are mistaken, for\nit is not possible for two verities to run counter to each other.\u201d\nPerhaps one result of the work which I now submit to the public may\nbe, that the Science of Wealth will be found to be in perfect harmony\nwith all the other sciences.\n\nOf the three terms comprehended in the human destinies\u2014Sensation,\nEffort, Satisfaction\u2014the first and the last are always and\nnecessarily confounded in the same individuality. It is impossible to\nimagine them separated. We can conceive a sensation unsatisfied, a\nwant unappeased, but it is quite impossible to suppose the \u2039want\u203a to\nbe in one man and the \u2039satisfaction\u203a to be in another.\n\nIf the same observation applied to the middle term, \u2039Effort\u203a, man\nwould be a being completely solitary. The Economic phenomena would\nthen manifest themselves in an isolated individual. There might be a\njuxtaposition of persons, but there could be no society; there might\nbe a Personal, but not a Political, Economy.\n\nBut it is not so. It is very possible, and very often happens, that\nthe \u2039wants\u203a of one owe their \u2039satisfaction\u203a to the \u2039efforts\u203a of\n[p072] another. This is a fact. If any one of us were to pass in\nreview all the satisfactions he enjoys, he would acknowledge that\nhe owes them chiefly to efforts which he has not himself made;\nand in the same way, the labour which we undergo, each in his own\nprofession, goes almost always to satisfy the desires of others.\n\nThis tells us, that it is neither in the wants nor in the\nsatisfactions (phenomena essentially personal and intransmissible),\nbut in the nature of the mean term, \u2039human Efforts\u203a, that we must\nsearch for the \u2039social\u203a principle\u2014the origin of Political Economy.\n\nIt is in fact to this faculty, given to men, and to men alone,\namong all creatures, to \u2039work the one for the other\u203a; it is this\ntransmission of efforts, this exchange of services, with all the\ninfinite and involved combinations to which it gives rise, through\ntime and through space, it is \u00abTHIS\u00bb precisely which constitutes\nEconomic Science, points out its origin, and determines its limits.\n\nI say, then:\n\n\u2039Every effort, capable of satisfying, on condition of a return,\nthe wants of a person other than the man who makes the effort, and\nconsequently the wants and satisfactions relative to this species of\neffort, constitute the domain of Political Economy.\u203a\n\nThus, to give an example: the act of breathing, although it includes\nthe three terms which constitute the Economic phenomenon, does not\npertain to that science, and we see the reason. What we have here to\ndo with is a series of facts, of which not only the two extremes\u2014want\nand satisfaction\u2014are incapable of transmission (they are always so);\nbut the mean term, \u2039Effort\u203a, is also incapable of transmission. To\nenable us to respire we invoke the assistance of no one; in that\nthere is neither a service to be received nor a service to render.\nThe fact is in its nature individual, not \u2039social\u203a, and consequently\ncannot enter into a science which is essentially one of relation, as\nits very name indicates.\n\nBut if, in peculiar circumstances, people were to render each other\nassistance to enable them to breathe, as when a workman descends\nin a diving-bell, when a physician treats a patient for pulmonary\ncomplaints, or when the police take measures for purifying the air,\nin such cases there is a want satisfied by a person other than the\nperson who experiences the want; there is a service rendered; and\nrespiration itself, as far at least as concerns assistance and\nremuneration, is brought within the sphere of Political Economy.\n\nIt is not necessary that the transaction should be completed, it is\nsufficient that it is possible, in order to impart to the \u2039labour\u203a\nemployed an \u2039economic\u203a character. The labourer who raises corn\n[p073] for his own use accomplishes an economic fact in this respect\nthat the corn is capable of being exchanged.\n\nTo make an effort in order to satisfy another\u2019s wants is to render\nhim a \u2039service\u203a. If a service is stipulated in return, there is\nan exchange of \u2039services\u203a; and as this is the most ordinary case,\nPolitical Economy may be defined \u2039the theory of Exchange\u203a.\n\nWhatever may be for one of the contracting parties the urgency of\nthe want, or for the other the intensity of the effort, if the\nexchange is free, the two services exchanged are \u2039worth each other\u203a.\nValue, then, consists in the comparative appreciation of reciprocal\n\u2039services\u203a, and Political Economy again may be defined \u2039the theory of\nValue\u203a.\n\nI have just defined Political Economy, and marked out its domain,\nwithout mentioning an essential element, \u2039gratuitous Utility\u203a.\n\nAll authors have remarked that we derive a multitude of satisfactions\nfrom this source. They denominate these utilities, such as\nair, water, the light of the sun, etc., \u2039natural wealth\u203a, in\ncontradistinction to \u2039social wealth\u203a, and having done so, they take\nno more notice of them; and in fact it would seem that, as they give\nrise to no effort, to no exchange, to no service, as (being destitute\nof value) they figure in no inventory of goods, they should not be\nadmitted into the domain of Political Economy.\n\nThis exclusion would be rational if \u2039gratuitous\u203a utility were a\nfixed invariable quantity, always separated from \u2039onerous\u203a utility;\nbut they are constantly mixed up, and in inverse proportions. Man\u2019s\nconstant endeavour is to substitute the one for the other, that\nis to say, to arrive, by means of natural and gratuitous agents,\nat the same results as by efforts. He accomplishes by the wind,\nby gravitation, by heat, by the elasticity of the air, what he\naccomplished at first only by muscular exertion.\n\nNow what happens? Although the effect is equally useful, the effort\nis less. Less effort implies less service, and less service implies\nless value. Each step of progress, then, annihilates value; but how?\nNot by suppressing the useful effect, but by substituting gratuitous\nfor onerous utility, natural for social wealth. In one sense the\nportion of value thus annihilated is excluded from the domain of\nPolitical Economy, just as it is excluded from our inventories. It is\nno longer exchanged, bought, or sold, and mankind enjoy it without\neffort and almost without consciousness. It is no longer accounted\nrelative wealth, but is ranked among the gifts of God.\n\nBut, on the other hand, if science takes it no longer into account,\nthe error is assuredly committed of losing sight of what [p074]\nunder all circumstances is the main, the essential thing\u2014the\nresult, the \u2039useful effect\u203a. In that case we overlook the strongest\ntendencies towards community and equality, and discover much\nless of harmony in the social order. If this book is destined to\nadvance Political Economy a single step, it will be by keeping\nconstantly before the eyes of the reader that portion of \u2039value\u203a\nwhich is successively annihilated, and recovered, under the form of\n\u2039gratuitous utility\u203a, by mankind at large.\n\nI shall here make an observation which will prove how frequently the\nsciences unite and nearly run into each other.\n\nI have just defined \u2039service\u203a. It is the \u2039effort\u203a in one man,\nwhile the \u2039want\u203a and the \u2039satisfaction\u203a are in another. Sometimes\nthe service is rendered gratuitously, without remuneration,\nwithout any service being exacted in return. It proceeds, then,\nfrom the principle of sympathy rather than from the principle of\nself-interest. It constitutes gift, not exchange. Consequently it\nwould seem to appertain not to Political Economy (which is the theory\nof exchange), but to morals. In fact, acts of that nature, by reason\nof their motive, are rather moral than economical. We shall see,\nhowever, that, by reason of their effects, they concern the science\nwhich now engages us. On the other hand, services rendered for an\nonerous consideration, on condition of a return, and, by reason of\nthat motive (essentially economic), do not on that account remain\nexcluded from the domain of morals, in so far as their effects are\nconcerned.\n\nThus these two branches of knowledge have an infinite number of\npoints of contact; and as two truths cannot be antagonistic, when the\neconomist ascribes to a phenomenon injurious consequences, and the\nmoralist ascribes to it beneficial effects, we may affirm that one or\nother of them is mistaken. It is thus that the sciences verify and\nfortify one another. [p075]\n\n\n\n\n III.\n WANTS OF MAN.\n\n\nIt is perhaps impossible, and, at any rate, it would not be of much\nuse, to present a complete and methodical catalogue of human wants.\nNearly all those which are of real importance are comprised in the\nfollowing enumeration:\u2014\n\nRespiration (I retain here that want, as marking the boundary\nwhere the transmission of labour or exchange of services\nbegins)\u2014Food\u2014Clothing\u2014Lodging\u2014Preservation or re-establishment\nof Health\u2014Locomotion\u2014Security\u2014Instruction\u2014Diversion\u2014Sense of the\nbeautiful.\n\nWants exist. This is a fact. It would be puerile to inquire whether\nwe should have been better without wants, and why God has made us\nsubject to them.\n\nIt is certain that man \u2039suffers\u203a, and even dies, when he cannot\nsatisfy the wants which belong to his organization. It is certain\nthat he \u2039suffers\u203a, and may even die, when in satisfying certain of\nhis wants he indulges to excess.\n\nWe cannot satisfy the greater part of our wants without pain or\ntrouble, which may be considered as \u2039suffering\u203a. The same may be said\nof the act by which, exercising a noble control over our appetites,\nwe impose on ourselves a privation.\n\nThus, \u2039suffering\u203a is inevitable, and there remains to us only a\nchoice of evils. Nothing comes more home to us than suffering, and\nhence \u2039personal interest\u203a\u2014the sentiment which is branded now-a-days\nwith the names of egotism and individualism\u2014is indestructible. Nature\nhas placed \u2039sensibility\u203a at the extremity of our nerves, and at all\nthe avenues to the heart and mind, as an advanced guard, to give us\nnotice when our satisfactions are either defective or in excess. Pain\nhas, then, a purpose, a mission. We are asked frequently, whether the\nexistence of evil can be reconciled with the infinite goodness of\nthe Creator\u2014a formidable [p076] problem that philosophy will always\ndiscuss, and never probably be able to solve. As far as Political\nEconomy is concerned, we must take man as he is, inasmuch as it is\nnot given to imagination to figure to itself\u2014far less can the reason\nconceive\u2014a sentient and mortal being exempt from pain. We should\ntry in vain to comprehend sensibility without pain, or man without\nsensibility.\n\nIn our days, certain sentimentalist schools reject as false all\nsocial science which does not go the length of establishing a system\nby means of which suffering may be banished from the world. They pass\na severe judgment on Political Economy because it admits, what it is\nimpossible to deny, the existence of suffering. They go farther\u2014they\nmake Political Economy responsible for it. It is as if they were to\nattribute the frailty of our organs to the physiologist who makes\nthem the object of his study.\n\nUndoubtedly we may acquire a temporary popularity, attract the\nregards of suffering classes, and irritate them against the natural\norder of society, by telling them that we have in our head a plan of\nartificial social arrangement which excludes pain in every form. We\nmay even pretend to appropriate God\u2019s secret, and to interpret His\npresumed will, by banishing evil from the world. And there will not\nbe wanting those who will treat as \u2039impious\u203a a science which exposes\nsuch pretensions, and who will accuse it of overlooking or denying\nthe foresight of the Author of things.\n\nThese schools, at the same time, give us a frightful picture of the\nactual state of society, not perceiving that if it be \u2039impious\u203a to\nforesee suffering in the future, it is equally so to expose its\nexistence in the past or in the present. For the infinite admits\nof no limits; and if a single human being has since the creation\nexperienced suffering, that fact would entitle us to admit, without\n\u2039impiety\u203a, that suffering has entered into the plan of Providence.\n\nSurely it is more philosophical and more manly to acknowledge at once\ngreat natural facts which not only exist, but apart from which we can\nform no just or adequate conception of human nature.\n\nMan, then, is subject to suffering, and consequently society is also\nsubject to it.\n\nSuffering discharges a function in the individual, and consequently\nin society.\n\nAn accurate investigation of the social laws discloses to us that\nthe mission of suffering is gradually to destroy its own causes, to\ncircumscribe suffering itself within narrower limits, and finally to\nassure the preponderance of the Good and the Fair, by enabling us to\npurchase or merit that preponderance. [p077]\n\nThe nomenclature we have proposed places material wants in the\nforeground.\n\nThe times in which we live force me to put the reader on his guard\nagainst a species of sentimental affectation which is now much in\nvogue.\n\nThere are people who hold very cheap what they disdainfully term\n\u2039material wants\u203a, \u2039material satisfactions\u203a: they will say, as Belise\nsays to Chrysale,\n\n \u201cLe corps, cette guenille, est-il d\u2019une importance,\n  D\u2019un prix \u00e0 m\u00e9riter seulement qu\u2019on y pense?\u201d\n\nAnd although, in general, pretty well off themselves, they will blame\nme for having indicated as one of our most pressing wants, that of\n\u2039food\u203a, for example.\n\nI acknowledge undoubtedly that moral advancement is a higher thing\nthan physical sustenance. But are we so stuffed with declamatory\naffectation that we can no longer venture to say, that before we can\nset about moral culture, we must have the means of living. Let us\nguard ourselves against these puerilities, which obstruct science.\nIn wishing to pass for philanthropical we cease to be truthful;\nfor it is contrary both to reason and to fact to represent moral\ndevelopment, self-respect, the cultivation of refined sentiments,\nas preceding the requirements of simple preservation. This sort of\nprudery is quite modern. Rousseau, that enthusiastic panegyrist of\nthe \u2039State of Nature\u203a, steered clear of it; and a man endued with\nexquisite delicacy, of a tenderness of heart full of unction, a\nspiritualist even to quietism, and, towards himself, a stoic\u2014I mean\nF\u00e9n\u00e9lon\u2014has said that, \u201cAfter all, solidity of mind consists in the\ndesire to be exactly instructed as to how those things are managed\nwhich lie at the foundation of human life\u2014all great affairs turn upon\nthat.\u201d\n\nWithout pretending, then, to classify our wants in a rigorously\nexact order, we may say, that man cannot direct his efforts to the\nsatisfaction of moral wants of the highest and most elevated kind\nuntil after he has provided for those which concern his preservation\nand sustenance. Whence, without going farther, we may conclude that\nevery legislative measure which tells against the material well-being\nof communities injures the moral life of nations,\u2014a \u2039harmony\u203a which I\ncommend, in passing, to the attention of the reader.\n\nAnd since the occasion presents itself, I will here mark another.\n\nSince the inexorable necessities of material life are an obstacle to\nmoral and intellectual culture, it follows that we ought to find more\nvirtue among wealthy than among poor nations and classes. [p078]\nGood Heaven! what have I just said, and with what clamour shall I\nbe assailed! But the truth is, it is a perfect mania of our times\nto attribute all disinterestedness, all self-sacrifice, all which\nconstitutes the greatness and moral beauty of man, to the poorer\nclasses, and this mania has of late been still more developed by a\nrevolution, which, bringing these classes to the surface of society,\nhas not failed to surround them with a crowd of flatterers.\n\nI don\u2019t deny that wealth, opulence, especially where it is very\nunequally spread, tends to develop certain special vices.\n\nBut is it possible to admit as a general proposition that virtue\nis the privilege of poverty, and vice the unhappy and unfailing\ncompanion of ease? This would be to affirm that moral and\nintellectual improvement, which is only compatible with a certain\namount of leisure and comfort, is detrimental to intelligence and\nmorality.\n\nI appeal to the candour of the suffering classes themselves. To what\nhorrible \u2039dissonances\u203a would such a paradox conduct us!\n\nWe must then conclude, that human nature has the frightful\nalternative presented to it, either to remain eternally wretched,\nor advance gradually on the road to vice and immorality. Then all\nthe forces which conduct us to wealth\u2014such as activity, economy,\nskill, honesty\u2014are the seeds of vice; while those which tie us to\npoverty\u2014improvidence, idleness, dissipation, carelessness\u2014are the\nprecious germs of virtue. Could we conceive in the moral world a\ndissonance more discouraging? Or, were it really so, who would dare\nto address or counsel the people? You complain of your sufferings\n(we must say to them), and you are impatient to see an end of these\nsufferings. You groan at finding yourselves under the yoke of the\nmost imperious material wants, and you sigh for the hour of your\ndeliverance, for you desire leisure to make your voice heard in the\npolitical world and to protect your interests. You know not what you\ndesire, or how fatal success would prove to you. Ease, competence,\nriches, develop only vice. Guard, then, religiously your poverty and\nyour virtue.\n\nThe flatterers of the people, then, fall into a manifest\ncontradiction when they point to the region of opulence as an impure\nsink of egotism and vice, and, at the same time, urge them on\u2014and\nfrequently in their eagerness by the most illegitimate means\u2014to a\nregion which they deem so unfortunate.\n\nSuch discordances are never encountered in the natural order of\nsociety. It is impossible to suppose that all men should aspire\nto competence, that the natural way to attain it should be by the\nexercise of the strictest virtue, and that they should reach it\n[p079] nevertheless only to be caught in the snares of vice. Such\ndeclamations are calculated only to light up and keep alive the\nhatred of classes. If true, they place human nature in a dilemma\nbetween poverty and immorality. If untrue, they make falsehood the\nminister of disorder, and set to loggerheads classes who should\nmutually love and assist each other.\n\nFactitious inequality\u2014inequality generated by law, by disturbing the\nnatural order of development of the different classes of society\u2014is,\nfor all, a prolific source of irritation, jealousy, and crime. This\nis the reason why it is necessary to satisfy ourselves whether this\nnatural order leads to the progressive amelioration and progressive\nequalization of all classes; and we should be arrested in this\ninquiry by what lawyers term a \u2039fin de non-recevoir\u203a, a peremptory\nexception, if this double material progress implied necessarily a\ndouble moral degradation.\n\nUpon the subject of human wants I have to make an important\nobservation,\u2014and one which, in Political Economy, may even be\nregarded as fundamental,\u2014it is, that wants are not a fixed immutable\nquantity. They are not in their nature stationary, but progressive.\n\nWe remark this characteristic even in our strictly physical wants;\nbut it becomes more apparent as we rise to those desires and\nintellectual tastes which distinguish man from the inferior animals.\n\nIt would seem that if there be anything in which men should resemble\neach other, it is in the want of food, for, unless in exceptional\ncases, men\u2019s stomachs are very much alike.\n\nAnd yet aliments which are \u2039recherch\u00e9s\u203a at one period become vulgar\nat another, and the regimen which suits a Lazzarone would subject a\nDutchman to torture. Thus the want which is the most immediate, the\ngrossest of all, and consequently the most uniform of all, still\nvaries according to age, sex, temperament, climate, custom.\n\nThe same may be said of all our other wants. Scarcely has a man found\nshelter than he desires to be lodged, scarcely is he clothed than he\nwishes to be decorated, scarcely has he satisfied his bodily cravings\nthan study, science, art, open to his desires an unlimited field.\n\nIt is a phenomenon well worthy of remark, how quickly, by continuous\nsatisfaction, what was at first only a vague desire becomes a taste,\nand what was only a taste is transformed into a want, and even a want\nof the most imperious kind.\n\nLook at that rude artizan. Accustomed to poor fare, plain [p080]\nclothing, indifferent lodging, he imagines he would be the happiest\nof men, and would have no farther desires, if he could but reach the\nstep of the ladder immediately above him. He is astonished that those\nwho have already reached it should still torment themselves as they\ndo. At length comes the modest fortune he has dreamt of, and then he\nis happy, very happy\u2014for a few days.\n\nFor soon he becomes familiar with his new situation, and by degrees\nhe ceases to feel his fancied happiness. With indifference he puts\non the fine clothing after which he sighed. He has got into a new\ncircle, he associates with other companions, he drinks of another\ncup, he aspires to mount another step, and if he ever turns his\nreflections at all upon himself, he feels that if his fortune has\nchanged, his soul remains the same, and is still an inexhaustible\nspring of new desires.\n\nIt would seem that nature has attached this singular power to\n\u2039habit\u203a, in order that it should be in us what a rochet-wheel is in\nmechanics, and that humanity, urged on continually to higher and\nhigher regions, should not be able to rest content, whatever degree\nof civilisation it attains to.\n\nThe \u2039sense of dignity\u203a, the feeling of self-respect, acts with\nperhaps still more force in the same direction. The stoic philosophy\nhas frequently blamed men for desiring rather to \u2039appear\u203a than to\n\u2039be\u203a. But, taking a broader view of things, is it certain that to\n\u2039appear\u203a is not for man one of the modes of \u2039being\u203a?\n\nWhen, by exertion, order, and economy, a family rises by degrees\ntowards those social regions where tastes become nicer and more\ndelicate, relations more polished, sentiments more refined,\nintelligence more cultivated, who can describe the acute suffering\nwhich accompanies a forced return to their former low estate? The\nbody does not alone suffer. The sad reverse interferes with habits\nwhich have become as it were a second nature; it clashes with the\nsense of dignity, and all the feelings of the soul. It is by no means\nuncommon in such a case to see the victim sink all at once into\ndegrading sottishness, or perish in despair. It is with the social\nmedium as with the atmosphere. The mountaineer, accustomed to the\npure air of his native hills, pines and moulders away in the narrow\nstreets of our cities.\n\nBut I hear some one exclaim, Economist, you stumble already. You have\njust told us that your science is in accord with morals, and here you\nare justifying luxury and effeminacy. Philosopher, I say in my turn,\nlay aside these fine clothes, which were not those of primitive man,\nbreak your furniture, burn your books, dine on raw flesh, and I shall\nthen reply to your objection. It is too much [p081] to quarrel with\nthis power of habit, of which you are yourself the living example.\n\nWe may find fault with this disposition which Nature has given to\nour organs; but our censure will not make it the less universal.\nWe find it existing among all nations, ancient and modern, savage\nand civilized, at the antipodes as at home. We cannot explain\ncivilisation without it; and when a disposition of the human heart is\nthus proved to be universal and indestructible, social science cannot\nput it aside, or refuse to take it into account.\n\nThis objection will be made by publicists who pride themselves on\nbeing the disciples of Rousseau; but Rousseau has never denied the\nexistence of the phenomenon. He establishes undeniably the indefinite\nelasticity of human wants, and the power of habit, and admits even\nthe part which I assign to them in preventing the human race from\nretrograding; only, that which I admire is what he deplores, and he\ndoes so consistently. Rousseau fancied there was a time when men\nhad neither rights, nor duties, nor relations, nor affections, nor\nlanguage; and it was then, according to him, that they were happy and\nperfect. He was bound, therefore, to abhor the social machinery which\nis constantly removing mankind from ideal perfection. Those, on the\ncontrary, who are of opinion that perfection is not at the beginning,\nbut at the end, of the human evolution, will admire the spring and\nmotive of action which I place in the foreground. But as to the\nexistence and play of the spring itself we are at one.\n\n\u201cMen of leisure,\u201d he says, \u201cemployed themselves in procuring\nall sorts of conveniences and accommodations unknown to their\nforefathers, and that was the first yoke which, without intending\nit, they imposed upon themselves, and the prime source of the\ninconveniences which they prepared for their descendants. For,\nnot only did they thus continue to emasculate both mind and body,\nbut these luxuries having \u2039by habit\u203a lost all their relish, and\ndegenerated into \u2039true wants\u203a, their being deprived of them caused\nmore pain than the possession of them had given pleasure: they were\nunhappy at losing what they had no enjoyment in possessing.\u201d\n\nRousseau was convinced that God, nature, and humanity were wrong.\nThat is still the opinion of many; but it is not mine.\n\nAfter all, God forbid that I should desire to set myself against the\nnoblest attribute, the most beautiful virtue of man, self-control,\ncommand over his passions, moderation in his desires, contempt of\nshow. I don\u2019t say that he is to make himself a slave to this or that\nfactitious want. I say that wants (taking a broad and general [p082]\nview of them as resulting from man\u2019s mental and bodily constitution),\ncombined with the power of habit, and the sense of dignity, are\nindefinitely expansible, because they spring from an inexhaustible\nsource\u2014namely, desire. Who should blame a rich man for being sober,\nfor despising finery, for avoiding pomp and effeminacy? But are there\nnot more elevated desires to which he may yield? Has the desire for\ninstruction, for instance, any limits? To render service to his\ncountry, to encourage the arts, to disseminate useful ideas, to\nsuccour the distressed,\u2014is there anything in these incompatible with\nthe right use of riches?\n\nFor the rest, whatever philosophers may think of it, human wants\ndo not constitute a fixed immutable quantity. That is a certain, a\nuniversal fact, liable to no exception. The wants of the fourteenth\ncentury, whether with reference to food, or lodging, or instruction,\nwere not at all the wants of ours, and we may safely predict that\nours will not be the wants of our descendants.\n\nThe same observation applies to all the elements of Political\nEconomy\u2014Wealth, Labour, Value, Services, etc.,\u2014all participate in\nthe extreme versatility of the principal subject, Man. Political\nEconomy has not, like geometry or physics, the advantage of dealing\nwith objects which can be weighed or measured. This is one of its\ndifficulties to begin with, and it is a perpetual source of errors\nthroughout; for when the human mind applies itself to a certain order\nof phenomena, it is naturally on the outlook for a \u2039criterion\u203a, a\ncommon measure, to which everything can be referred, in order to give\nto that particular branch of knowledge the character of an \u2039exact\nscience\u203a. Thus we observe some authors seeking for fixity in \u2039value\u203a,\nothers in \u2039money\u203a, others in \u2039corn\u203a, others in \u2039labour\u203a, that is to\nsay, in things which are themselves all liable to fluctuation.\n\nMany errors in Political Economy proceed from authors thus regarding\nhuman wants as a fixed determinate quantity; and it is for this\nreason that I have deemed it my duty to enlarge on this subject.\nAt the risk of anticipating, it is worth while to notice briefly\nthis mode of reasoning. Economists take generally the enjoyments\nwhich satisfy men of the present day, and they assume that human\nnature admits of no other. Hence, if the bounty of nature, or the\npower of machinery, or habits of temperance and moderation, succeed\nin rendering disposable for a time a portion of human labour,\nthis progress disquiets them, they consider it as a disaster, and\nthey retreat behind absurd but specious formulas, such as these:\n\u2039Production is superabundant\u203a,\u2014\u2039we suffer from plethora\u203a,\u2014\u2039the power\nof producing outruns the power of consuming\u203a, etc. [p083]\n\nIt is not possible to discover a solution of the question of\n\u2039machinery\u203a, or that of \u2039external competition\u203a, or that of \u2039luxury\u203a,\nif we persist in considering our \u2039wants\u203a as a fixed invariable\nquantity, and do not take into account their indefinite expansibility.\n\nBut if human \u2039wants\u203a are indefinite, progressive, capable of\nincrease, like desire, which is their never failing source, we must\nadmit, under pain of introducing discordance and contradiction\ninto the economical laws of society, that nature has placed\nin man and around him indefinite and progressive means of\n\u2039satisfaction\u203a;\u2014equilibrium between the means and the end being the\nprimary condition of all harmony. This is what we shall now examine.\n\nI said at the outset of this work that the object of Political\nEconomy is \u2039man\u203a, considered with reference to his wants, and his\nmeans of satisfying these wants.\n\nWe must then begin with the study of man and his organization.\n\nBut we have also seen that he is not a solitary being. If his \u2039wants\u203a\nand his \u2039satisfactions\u203a are, from the very nature of sensibility,\ninseparable from his being, the same thing cannot be said of his\n\u2039efforts\u203a, which spring from the active principle. The latter are\nsusceptible of transmission. In a word, men work for one another.\n\nNow a very strange thing takes place.\n\nIf we take a general, or, if I may be allowed the expression,\nabstract view, of man, his wants, his efforts, his satisfactions, his\nconstitution, his inclinations, his tendencies, we fall into a train\nof observation which appears free from doubt and self-evident,\u2014so\nmuch so, that the writer finds a difficulty in submitting to the\npublic judgment truths so vulgar and so palpable. He is afraid\nof provoking ridicule; and thinks, not without reason, that the\nimpatient reader will throw away his book, exclaiming, \u201cI shall not\nwaste time on such trivialities.\u201d\n\nAnd yet these truths which, when presented to us in an abstract\nshape, we regard as so incontrovertible that we can scarce summon\npatience to listen to them, are considered only as ridiculous\nerrors and absurd theories the moment they are applied to man in\nhis social state. Regarding man as an isolated being, who ever took\nit into his head to say, \u201cProduction is superabundant\u2014the power of\nconsumption cannot keep pace with the power of production\u2014luxury and\nfactitious tastes are the source of wealth\u2014the invention of machinery\nannihilates labour,\u201d and other apophthegms of the same sort,\u2014which,\nnevertheless, when applied to mankind in the aggregate, we receive\nas axioms so well established that they are actually made the basis\nof our commercial and industrial legislation? \u2039Exchange\u203a produces in\nthis respect an illusion of which [p084] even men of penetration\nand solid judgment find it impossible to disabuse themselves, and\nI affirm that Political Economy will have attained its design, and\nfulfilled its mission, when it shall have conclusively demonstrated\nthis:\u2014that what is true of an individual man is true of society at\nlarge. Man in an isolated state is at once producer and consumer,\ninventor and projector, capitalist and workman. All the economic\nphenomena are accomplished in his person\u2014he is, as it were, society\nin miniature. In like manner, humanity, viewed in the aggregate, may\nbe regarded as a great, collective, complex individual, to whom you\nmay apply exactly the same truths as to man in a state of isolation.\n\nI have felt it necessary to make this remark, which I hope will be\njustified in the sequel, before continuing what I had to say upon\nman. I should have been afraid, otherwise, that the reader might\nreject, as superfluous, the following developments, which in fact are\nnothing else than veritable \u2039truisms\u203a.\n\nI have just spoken of the \u2039wants\u203a of man, and after presenting an\napproximate enumeration of them, I observed that they were not of a\nstationary, but of a progressive nature; and this holds true, whether\nwe consider these wants each singly, or all together, in their\nphysical, intellectual, and moral order. How could it be otherwise?\nThere are wants the satisfaction of which is exacted by our\norganization under pain of death, and up to a certain point we may\nrepresent these as fixed quantities, although that is not rigorously\nexact, for however little we may desire to neglect an essential\nelement\u2014namely, the \u2039force of habit\u203a\u2014however little we may condescend\nto subject ourselves to honest self-examination, we shall be forced\nto allow that wants, even of the plainest and most homely kind (the\ndesire for food, for example), undergo, under the influence of\nhabit, undoubted transformations. The man who declaims against this\nobservation as materialist and epicurean, would think himself very\nunfortunate, if, taking him at his word, we should reduce him to the\nblack broth of the Spartans, or the scanty pittance of an anchorite.\nAt all events, when wants of this kind have been satisfied in an\nassured and permanent way, there are others which take their rise\nin the most expansible of our faculties, desire. Can we conceive a\ntime when man can no longer form even reasonable desires? Let us not\nforget that a desire which might be unreasonable in a former state\nof civilisation\u2014at a time when all the human faculties were absorbed\nin providing for low material wants\u2014ceases to be so when improvement\nopens to these faculties a more extended field. A desire to travel at\nthe rate of thirty miles an hour would have been unreasonable [p085]\ntwo centuries ago\u2014it is not so at the present day. To pretend that\nthe wants and desires of man are fixed and stationary quantities, is\nto mistake the nature of the human soul, to deny facts, and to render\ncivilisation inexplicable.\n\nIt would still be inexplicable if, side by side with the indefinite\ndevelopment of wants, there had not been placed, as possible, the\nindefinite development of the means of providing for these wants.\nHow could the expansible nature of our wants have contributed to the\nrealization of progress, if, at a certain point, our faculties could\nadvance no farther, and should encounter an impassable barrier?\n\nOur wants being indefinite, the presumption is that the means of\nsatisfying these wants should be indefinite also, unless we are to\nsuppose Nature, Providence, or the Power which presides over our\ndestinies, to have fallen into a cruel and shocking contradiction.\n\nI say indefinite, not infinite, for nothing connected with man is\ninfinite. It is precisely because our faculties go on developing\nthemselves \u2039ad infinitum\u203a, that they have no assignable limits,\nalthough they may have absolute limits. There are many points\nabove the present range of humanity, which we may never succeed in\nattaining, and yet for all that, the time may never come when we\nshall cease to approach nearer them.[22]\n\nI don\u2019t at all mean to say that \u2039desire\u203a, and the \u2039means\u203a of\nsatisfying desire, march in parallel lines and with equal rapidity.\nThe former runs\u2014the latter limps after it.\n\nThe prompt and adventurous nature of desire, compared with the\nslowness of our faculties, shews us very clearly that in every\nstage of civilisation, at every step of our progress, suffering to\na certain extent is, and ever must be, the lot of man. But it shews\nus likewise that this suffering has a mission, for desire could no\nlonger be an incentive to our faculties if it followed, in place of\npreceding, their exercise. Let us not, however, accuse nature of\ncruelty in the construction of this mechanism, for we cannot fail\nto remark that desire is never transformed into want, strictly so\ncalled, that is, into \u2039painful desire\u203a, until it has been made such\nby \u2039habit\u203a; in other words, until the \u2039means\u203a of satisfying the\ndesire have been found and placed irrevocably within our reach.[23]\n[p086]\n\nWe have now to examine the question,\u2014What means have we of\nproviding for our wants?\n\nIt seems evident to me that there are two\u2014namely, Nature and Labour,\nthe gifts of God, and the fruits of our efforts\u2014or, if you will, the\napplication of our faculties to the things which Nature has placed at\nour service.\n\nNo school that I know of has attributed the satisfaction of our wants\nto Nature \u2039alone\u203a. Such an assertion is clearly contradicted by\nexperience, and we need not learn Political Economy to perceive that\nthe intervention of our \u2039faculties\u203a is necessary.\n\nBut there are schools who have attributed this privilege to Labour\nalone. Their axiom is, \u201cAll wealth comes from labour\u2014labour is\nwealth.\u201d\n\nI cannot help anticipating, so far as to remark, that these formulas,\ntaken literally, have led to monstrous errors of doctrine, and,\nconsequently, to deplorable legislative blunders. I shall return to\nthis subject. I confine myself here to establishing, as a fact, that\n\u2039Nature\u203a and \u2039Labour\u203a co-operate for the satisfaction of our wants\nand desires.\n\nLet us examine the facts.\n\nThe first want which we have placed at the head of our list is that\nof \u2039breathing\u203a. As regards respiration, we have already shown that\n\u2039nature\u203a in general is at the whole cost, and that human \u2039labour\u203a\nintervenes only in certain exceptional cases, as where it becomes\nnecessary to purify the atmosphere.\n\nAnother want is that of quenching our \u2039thirst\u203a, and it is more or\nless satisfied by Nature, in as far as she furnishes us with water,\nmore or less pure, abundant, and within reach; and Labour concurs\nin as far as it becomes necessary to bring water from a greater\ndistance, to filter it, or to obviate its scarcity by constructing\nwells and cisterns.\n\nThe liberality of Nature towards us in regard to \u2039food\u203a is by no\nmeans uniform; for who will maintain, that the labour to be furnished\nis the same when the land is fertile, or when it is sterile, when the\nforest abounds with game, the river with fish, or in the opposite\ncases?\n\nAs regards \u2039lighting\u203a, human labour has certainly less to do when the\nnight is short than when it is long.\n\nI dare not lay it down as an absolute rule, but it appears to me that\nin proportion as we rise in the scale of wants, the co-operation\nof Nature is lessened, and leaves us more room for the exercise of\nour faculties. The painter, the sculptor, and the author even, are\nforced to avail themselves of materials and instruments which Nature\nalone [p087] furnishes, but from their own genius is derived all\nthat makes the charm, the merit, the utility, and the value of their\nworks. \u2039To learn\u203a is a want which the well-directed exercise of\nour faculties almost alone can satisfy. Yet here \u2039Nature\u203a assists,\nby presenting to us in divers degrees objects of observation and\ncomparison. With an equal amount of application, may not botany,\ngeology, or natural history, make everywhere equal progress?\n\nIt would be superfluous to cite other examples. We have already\nshown undeniably that Nature gives us the means of satisfaction, in\nplacing at our disposal things possessed of higher or lower degrees\nof \u2039utility\u203a (I use the word in its etymological sense, as indicating\nthe \u2039property of serving\u203a, of being \u2039useful\u203a). In many cases, in\nalmost every case, labour must contribute, to a certain extent, in\nrendering this \u2039utility\u203a complete; and we can easily comprehend that\nthe part which labour has to perform is greater or less in proportion\nas Nature had previously advanced the operation in a less or greater\ndegree.\n\nWe may then lay down these two formulas:\n\n1. \u2039Utility is communicated sometimes by Nature alone, sometimes by\nLabour alone, but almost always by the co-operation of both\u203a.\n\n2. \u2039To bring anything to its highest degree of\u203a \u00abUTILITY\u00bb, \u2039the\naction of Labour is in an inverse ratio to the action of Nature\u203a.\n\nFrom these two propositions, combined with what I have said of the\nindefinite expansibility of our wants, I may be permitted to deduce\na conclusion, the importance of which will be demonstrated in the\nsequel. Suppose two men, having no connexion with each other, to be\nunequally situated in this respect, that Nature had been liberal to\nthe one, and niggardly to the other; the first would evidently obtain\na given amount of satisfaction at a less expense of labour. Would it\nfollow that the part of his forces thus left \u2039disposable\u203a, if I may\nuse the expression, would be abandoned to inaction? and that this\nman, on account of the liberality of Nature, would be reduced to\ncompulsory idleness? Not at all. It would follow that he could, if\nhe wished it, dispose of these forces to enlarge the circle of his\nenjoyments; that with an equal amount of labour he could procure two\nsatisfactions in place of one; in a word, that his progress would\nbecome more easy.\n\nI may be mistaken, but it appears to me that no science, not even\ngeometry, is founded on truths more unassailable. Were any one to\nprove to me that all these truths were so many errors, I should not\nonly lose confidence in them, but all faith in evidence itself;\nfor what reasoning could one employ which should better deserve\nthe acquiescence of our judgment than the evidence thus [p088]\noverturned? The moment an axiom is discovered which shall contradict\nthis other axiom\u2014that a straight line is the shortest road from one\npoint to another\u2014that instant the human mind has no other refuge, if\nit be a refuge, than absolute scepticism.\n\nI positively feel ashamed thus to insist upon first principles which\nare so plain as to seem puerile. And yet we must confess that, amid\nthe complications of human transactions, such simple truths have been\noverlooked; and in order to justify myself for detaining the reader\nso long upon what the English call \u2039truisms\u203a, I shall notice here a\nsingular error by which excellent minds have allowed themselves to\nbe misled. Setting aside, neglecting entirely, the \u2039co-operation of\nNature\u203a in relation to the satisfaction of our wants, they have laid\ndown the absolute principle that \u2039all wealth comes from labour\u203a. On\nthis foundation they have reared the following erroneous syllogism:\n\n\u201cAll wealth comes from labour:\n\n\u201cWealth, then, is in proportion to labour.\n\n\u201cBut labour is in an inverse ratio to the liberality of Nature:\n\n\u201c\u2039Ergo\u203a, wealth is inversely as the liberality of Nature.\u201d\n\nRight or wrong, many economical laws owe their origin to this\nsingular reasoning. Such laws cannot be otherwise than subversive of\nevery sound principle in relation to the development and distribution\nof wealth; and this it is which justifies me in preparing beforehand,\nby the explanation of truths very trivial in appearance, for the\nrefutation of the deplorable errors and prejudices under which\nsociety is now labouring.\n\nLet us analyze the co-operation of Nature of which I have spoken.\nNature places two things at our disposal\u2014\u2039materials\u203a and \u2039forces\u203a.\n\nMost of the material objects which contribute to the satisfaction of\nour wants and desires are brought into the state of \u2039utility\u203a which\nrenders them fit for our use only by the intervention of labour, by\nthe application of the human faculties. But the elements, the atoms,\nif you will, of which these objects are composed, are the gifts, I\nwill add the \u2039gratuitous\u203a gifts, of Nature. This observation is of\nthe very highest importance, and will, I believe, throw a new light\nupon the theory of wealth.\n\nThe reader will have the goodness to bear in mind that I am inquiring\nat present in a general way into the moral and physical constitution\nof man, his wants, his faculties, his relations with Nature\u2014apart\nfrom the consideration of Exchange, which I shall enter upon in the\nnext chapter. We shall then see in what respect, and in what manner,\nsocial transactions modify the phenomena. [p089]\n\nIt is very evident, that if man in an isolated state must, so to\nspeak, \u2039purchase\u203a the greater part of his satisfactions by an\nexertion, by an effort, it is rigorously exact to say that prior to\nthe intervention of any such exertion, any such effort, the materials\nwhich he finds at his disposal are the \u2039gratuitous\u203a gifts of Nature.\nAfter the first effort on his part, however slight it may be, they\ncease to be \u2039gratuitous\u203a; and if the language of Political Economy\nhad been always exact, it would have been to material objects in\nthis state, and before human labour had been bestowed upon them,\nthat the term \u2039raw materials\u203a (\u2039mati\u00e8res premi\u00e8res\u203a) would have been\nexclusively applied.\n\nI repeat that this \u2039gratuitous\u203a quality of the gifts of Nature,\nanterior to the intervention of labour, is of the very highest\nimportance. I said in my second chapter that Political Economy\nwas the \u2039theory of value\u203a; I add now, and by anticipation, that\nthings begin to possess \u2039value\u203a only when it is given to them by\nlabour. I intend to demonstrate afterwards that everything which\nis \u2039gratuitous\u203a for man in an isolated state is gratuitous for man\nin his social condition, and that the gratuitous gifts of Nature,\n\u2039whatever be their\u203a \u00abUTILITY\u00bb, have no value. I say that a man who\nreceives a benefit from Nature, directly and without any effort on\nhis part, cannot be considered as rendering himself an \u2039onerous\nservice\u203a, and, consequently, that he cannot render to another any\nservice with reference to things which are common to all. Now, where\nthere are no services rendered and received there is no \u2039value\u203a.\n\nAll that I have said of \u2039materials\u203a is equally applicable to the\n\u2039forces\u203a which Nature places at our disposal. Gravitation, the\nelasticity of air, the power of the winds, the laws of equilibrium,\nvegetable life, animal life, are so many forces which we learn to\nturn to account. The pains and intelligence which we bestow in this\nway always admit of remuneration, for we are not bound to devote our\nefforts to the advantage of others gratuitously. But these natural\nforces, in themselves, and apart from all intellectual or bodily\nexertion, are \u2039gratuitous\u203a gifts of Providence, and in this respect\nthey remain destitute of \u2039value\u203a through all the complications of\nhuman transactions. This is the leading idea of the present work.\n\nThis observation would be of little importance, I allow, if the\nco-operation of Nature were constantly uniform, if each man, at all\ntimes, in all places, in all circumstances, received from Nature\nequal and invariable assistance. In that case, science would be\njustified in not taking into account an element which, remaining\nalways and everywhere the same, would affect the services [p090]\nexchanged in equal proportions on both sides. As in geometry we\neliminate portions of lines common to two figures which we compare\nwith each other, we might neglect a co-operation which is invariably\npresent, and content ourselves with saying, as we have done\nhitherto, \u201cThere is such a thing as natural wealth\u2014Political Economy\nacknowledges it, and has no more concern with it.\u201d\n\nBut this is not the true state of the matter. The irresistible\ntendency of the human mind, stimulated by self-interest and assisted\nby a series of discoveries, is to substitute natural and gratuitous\nco-operation for human and onerous concurrence; so that a given\nutility, although remaining the same as far as the result and the\nsatisfactions which it procures us are concerned, represents a\nsmaller and smaller amount of labour. In fact, it is impossible not\nto perceive the immense influence of this marvellous phenomenon on\nour notion of value. For what is the result of it? This, that in\nevery product the \u2039gratuitous\u203a element tends to take the place of the\n\u2039onerous\u203a; that \u2039utility\u203a, being the result of two \u2039collaborations\u203a,\nof which one is remunerated and the other is not, Value, which has\nrelation only to the first of these united forces, is diminished,\nand makes room for a \u2039utility\u203a which is identically the same, and\nthis in proportion as we succeed in constraining Nature to a more\nefficacious co-operation. So that we may say that mankind have as\nmany more \u2039satisfactions\u203a, as much more \u2039wealth\u203a, as they have less\n\u2039value\u203a. Now, the majority of authors having employed these three\nterms, \u2039utility\u203a, \u2039wealth\u203a, \u2039value\u203a, as synonymous, the result has\nbeen a theory which is not only not true, but the reverse of true. I\nbelieve sincerely that a more exact description of this combination\nof natural forces and human forces in the business of production,\nin other words, a juster definition of Value, would put an end to\ninextricable theoretical confusion, and would reconcile schools\nwhich are now divergent; and if I am now anticipating somewhat in\nentering on this subject here, my justification with the reader is\nthe necessity of explaining in the outset certain ideas of which\notherwise he would have difficulty in perceiving the importance.\n\nReturning from this digression, I resume what I had to say upon man\nconsidered exclusively in an economical point of view.\n\nAnother observation, which we owe to J. B. Say, and which is almost\nself-evident, although too much neglected by many authors, is, that\nman \u2039creates\u203a neither the \u2039materials\u203a nor the \u2039forces\u203a of nature,\nif we take the word \u2039create\u203a in its exact signification. These\nmaterials, these forces, have an independent existence. Man can only\ncombine them or displace them, for his own benefit or that [p091]\nof others. If for his own, \u2039he renders a service to himself\u203a,\u2014if for\nthe benefit of others, \u2039he renders service to his fellows\u203a, and has\nthe right to exact an \u2039equivalent\u203a service. Whence it also follows\nthat \u2039value\u203a is proportional to the service rendered, and not at all\nto the absolute \u2039utility\u203a of the thing. For this \u2039utility\u203a may be\nin great part the result of the \u2039gratuitous\u203a action of Nature, in\nwhich case the human service, the onerous service, the service to be\nremunerated, is of little value. This results from the axiom above\nestablished\u2014namely, that \u2039to bring a thing to the highest degree of\nutility, the action of man is inversely as the action of Nature\u203a.\n\nThis observation overturns the doctrine which places value in the\n\u2039materiality\u203a of things. The contrary is the truth. The materiality\nis a quality given by Nature, and consequently \u2039gratuitous\u203a, and\ndevoid of \u2039value\u203a, although of incontestable utility. Human action,\nwhich can never succeed in \u2039creating\u203a matter, constitutes alone the\nservice which man in a state of isolation renders to himself, or that\nmen in society render to each other; and it is the free appreciation\nof these \u2039services\u203a which is the foundation of \u2039value\u203a. Far, then,\nfrom concluding with Adam Smith that it is impossible to conceive of\nvalue otherwise than as residing in material substance, we conclude\nthat between Matter and Value there is no possible relation.\n\nThis erroneous doctrine Smith deduced logically from his principle,\nthat those classes alone are \u2039productive\u203a who operate on material\nsubstances. He thus prepared the way for the modern error of the\n\u2039socialists\u203a, who have never done representing as \u2039unproductive\u203a\nparasites those whom they term \u2039intermediaries\u203a between the producer\nand consumer\u2014the merchant, the retail dealer, etc. Do they render\nservices? Do they save us trouble by taking trouble for us? In that\ncase they create \u2039value\u203a, although they do not create matter; and\nas no one can create matter, and we all confine our exertions to\nrendering reciprocal services, we pronounce with justice that all,\nincluding agriculturists and manufacturers, are \u2039intermediaries\u203a in\nrelation one to another.\n\nThis is what I had to say at present upon the co-operation of\nNature. Nature places at our disposal, in various degrees, depending\non climate, seasons, and the advance of knowledge, but \u2039always\ngratuitously\u203a, materials and forces. Then these materials and\nforces are devoid of \u2039value\u203a; it would be strange if they had any.\nAccording to what rule should we estimate them? In what way could\nNature be paid, remunerated, compensated? We shall see afterwards\nthat \u2039exchange\u203a is necessary in order to determine \u2039value\u203a. We don\u2019t\npurchase the goods of Nature\u2014we gather them; and if, in order to\nappropriate them, a certain amount of effort is [p092] necessary, it\nis in this \u2039effort\u203a, not in the gifts of Nature, that the principle\nof \u2039value\u203a resides.\n\nLet us now consider that action of man which we designate, in a\ngeneral way, by the term \u2039labour\u203a.\n\nThe word \u2039labour\u203a, like almost all the terms of Political Economy,\nis very vague. Different authors use it in a sense more or less\nextended. Political Economy has not had, like most other sciences,\nChemistry for example, the advantage of constructing her own\nvocabulary. Treating of subjects which have been familiar to men\u2019s\nthoughts since the beginning of the world, and the constant subject\nof their daily talk, she has found a nomenclature ready made, and has\nbeen forced to adopt it.\n\nThe meaning of the word \u2039labour\u203a is often limited exclusively to the\nmuscular action of man upon materials. Hence those who execute the\nmechanical part of production are called the \u2039working classes\u203a.\n\nThe reader will comprehend that I give to this word a more extended\nsense. I understand by \u2039labour\u203a the application of our faculties to\nthe satisfaction of our wants. \u2039Wants\u203a, \u2039efforts\u203a, \u2039satisfactions\u203a,\nthis is the circle of Political Economy. \u2039Effort\u203a may be physical,\nintellectual, or even moral, as we shall immediately see.\n\nIt is not necessary to demonstrate in this place that all our organs,\nall or nearly all our faculties, may concur, and, in point of\nfact, do concur, in production. Attention, sagacity, intelligence,\nimagination, have assuredly their part in it.\n\nM. Dunoyer, in his excellent work, \u2039Sur la Libert\u00e9 du Travail\u203a, has\nincluded, and with scientific exactness, our moral faculties among\nthe elements to which we are indebted for our wealth\u2014an idea as\noriginal and suggestive as it is just. It is destined to enlarge and\nennoble the field of Political Economy.\n\nI shall not dwell here upon that idea farther than as it may enable\nme to throw a faint light upon the origin of a powerful agent of\nproduction, of which I shall have occasion to speak hereafter\u2014I mean\n\u2039Capital\u203a.\n\nIf we examine in succession the material objects which contribute to\nthe satisfaction of our wants, we shall discover without difficulty\nthat all or nearly all require, in order to their being brought to\nperfection, more time, a larger portion of our life, than a man can\nexpend without recruiting his strength, that is to say, without\nsatisfying his wants. This supposes that those who had made those\nthings had previously reserved, set aside, accumulated, provisions,\nto enable them to subsist during the operation. [p093]\n\nThe same observation applies to satisfactions which have nothing\nmaterial belonging to them.\n\nA clergyman cannot devote himself to preaching, a professor to\nteaching, a magistrate to the maintenance of order, unless, by\nthemselves, or by others, they are put in possession of means of\nsubsistence previously created.\n\nLet us go a little higher. Suppose a man isolated and forced to\nlive by the chase. It is easy to comprehend that if every night he\nconsumed the whole game which his day\u2019s hunting had furnished, he\ncould never set himself to any other work, to build a cottage, for\nexample, or repair his arms or implements. All progress would be\ninterdicted in his case.\n\nThis is not the proper place to define the nature and functions\nof Capital. My sole object at present is to show that certain\nmoral virtues co-operate very directly in the amelioration of\nour condition, even when viewed exclusively with reference to\nwealth,\u2014among other virtues, order, foresight, self-control, economy.\n\nTo \u2039foresee\u203a is one of our noblest privileges, and it is scarcely\nnecessary to say that, in all situations of life, the man who\nmost clearly foresees the probable consequences of his acts and\ndeterminations has the best chance of success.\n\nTo \u2039control his appetites\u203a, to govern his passions, to sacrifice\nthe present to the future, to submit to privations for the sake of\ngreater but more distant advantages\u2014such are the conditions essential\nto the formation of capital; and capital, as we have already\npartially seen, is itself the essential condition of all labour that\nis in any degree complicated or prolonged. It is quite evident that\nif we suppose two men placed in identically the same position, and\npossessed of the same amount of intelligence and activity, that man\nwould make the most progress who, having accumulated provisions,\nhad placed himself in a situation to undertake protracted works,\nto improve his implements, and thus to make the forces of nature\nco-operate in the realization of his designs.\n\nI shall not dwell longer on this. We have only to look around us to\nbe convinced that all our forces, all our faculties, all our virtues,\nconcur in furthering the advancement of man and of society.\n\nFor the same reason, there are none of our vices which are not\ndirectly or indirectly the causes of poverty. Idleness paralyzes\nefforts, which are the sinews of production. Ignorance and error\ngive our efforts a false direction. Improvidence lays us open to\ndeceptions. Indulgence in the appetites of the hour prevents the\naccumulation of capital. Vanity leads us to devote our efforts to\nfactitious enjoyments, in place of such as are real. Violence and\n[p094] fraud provoke reprisals, oblige us to surround ourselves with\ntroublesome precautions, and entail a great waste and destruction of\npower.\n\nI shall wind up these preliminary observations on man with a remark\nwhich I have already made in relation to his wants. It is this, that\nthe elements discussed and explained in this chapter, and which enter\ninto and constitute economical science, are in their nature flexible\nand changeable. Wants, desires, materials and powers furnished by\nNature, our muscular force, our organs, our intellectual faculties,\nour moral qualities, all vary with the individual, and change with\ntime and place. No two men, perhaps, are entirely alike in any one\nof these respects, certainly not in all\u2014nay more, no man entirely\nresembles himself for two hours together. What one knows another is\nignorant of\u2014what one values another despises\u2014here nature is prodigal,\nthere niggardly\u2014a virtue which it is difficult to practise in one\nclimate or latitude becomes easy in another. Economical science has\nnot, then, like the exact sciences, the advantage of possessing a\nfixed measure, and absolute unconditional truths\u2014a graduated scale,\na standard, which can be employed in measuring the intensity of\ndesires, of efforts, and of satisfactions. Were we even to devote\nourselves to solitary labour, like certain animals, we should still\nfind ourselves placed in circumstances in some degree different;\nand were our external circumstances alike, were the medium in which\nwe act the same for all, we should still differ from each other in\nour desires, our wants, our ideas, our sagacity, our energy, our\nmanner of estimating and appreciating things, our foresight, our\nactivity\u2014so that a great and inevitable inequality would manifest\nitself. In truth, absolute isolation, the absence of all relations\namong men, is only an idle fancy coined in the brain of Rousseau. But\nsupposing that this antisocial state, called the \u2039state of nature\u203a,\nhad ever existed, I cannot help inquiring by what chain of reasoning\nRousseau and his adepts have succeeded in planting Equality there? We\nshall afterwards see that Equality, like Wealth, like Liberty, like\nFraternity, like Unity, is the end; it is not the starting point. It\nrises out of the natural and regular development of societies. The\ntendency of human nature is not away from, but towards, Equality.\nThis is most consoling and most true.\n\nHaving spoken of our \u2039wants\u203a, and our \u2039means\u203a of providing for them,\nit remains to say a word respecting our \u2039satisfactions\u203a. They are the\nresult of the entire mechanism we have described.\n\nIt is by the greater or less amount of physical, intellectual,\nand moral \u2039satisfactions\u203a which mankind enjoy, that we discover\nwhether [p095] the machine works well or ill. This is the reason\nwhy the word \u2039consommation\u203a [\u2039consumption\u203a[24]], adopted by our\nEconomists would have a profound meaning if we used it in its\netymological signification as synonymous with \u2039end\u203a, or \u2039completion\u203a.\nUnfortunately, in common, and even in scientific, language, it\npresents to the mind a gross and material idea, exact without doubt\nwhen applied to our physical wants, but not at all so when used with\nreference to those of a more elevated order. The cultivation of\ncorn, the manufacture of woollen cloth, terminate in \u2039consumption\u203a\n[consommation]. But can this be said with equal propriety of the\nworks of the artist, the songs of the poet, the studies of the\nlawyer, the prelections of the professor, the sermons of the\nclergyman? It is here that we again experience the inconvenience\nof that fundamental error which caused Adam Smith to circumscribe\nPolitical Economy within the limits of a material circle; and\nthe reader will pardon me for frequently making use of the term\n\u2039satisfaction\u203a, as applicable to all our wants and all our desires,\nand as more in accordance with the larger scope which I hope to be\nable to give to the science.\n\nPolitical Economists have been frequently reproached with confining\ntheir attention exclusively to the \u2039interests of the consumer\u203a.\n\u201cYou forget the producer,\u201d we are told. But satisfaction being\nthe end and design of all our efforts\u2014the grand \u2039consummation\u203a or\ntermination of the economic phenomena\u2014is it not evident that it\nis there that the touchstone of progress is to be found? A man\u2019s\nhappiness and well-being are not measured by his \u2039efforts\u203a, but by\nhis \u2039satisfactions\u203a, and this holds equally true of society in the\naggregate. This is one of those truths which are never disputed when\napplied to an individual, but which are constantly disputed when\napplied to society at large. The phrase to which exception has been\ntaken only means this, that Political Economy estimates the worth of\nwhat we do, not by the labour which it costs us to do it, but by the\nultimate result, which resolves itself definitively into an increase\nor diminution of the general prosperity.\n\nWe have said, in reference to our wants and desires, that there\nare no two men exactly alike. The same thing may be said of our\n\u2039satisfactions\u203a: they are not held in equal estimation by all, which\nverifies the common saying, that \u2039tastes differ\u203a. Now it is by the\nintensity of our desires, and the variety of our tastes, that the\ndirection of our efforts is determined. It is here that the influence\nof morals upon industry becomes apparent. Man, as an individual, may\nbe the slave of tastes which are factitious, puerile, and [p096]\nimmoral. In this case it is self-evident that, his powers being\nlimited, he can only satisfy his depraved desires at the expense of\nthose which are laudable and legitimate. But when society comes into\nplay, this evident axiom is marked down as an error. We are led to\nbelieve that artificial tastes, illusory satisfactions, which we\nacknowledge as the source of individual poverty, are nevertheless\nthe cause of national wealth, as opening a vent to manufactures.\nIf it were so, we should arrive at the miserable conclusion, that\nthe social state places man between poverty and vice. Once more,\nPolitical Economy reconciles, in the most rigorous and satisfactory\nmanner, these apparent contradictions. [p097]\n\n\n\n\n IV.\n EXCHANGE.\n\n\nExchange is Political Economy\u2014it is Society itself\u2014for it is\nimpossible to conceive Society as existing without Exchange, or\nExchange without Society. I shall not pretend in this chapter to\nexhaust so vast a subject. To present even an outline of it would\nrequire the entire volume.\n\nIf men, like snails, lived in complete isolation, if they did\nnot exchange their ideas and exertions, and had no bargain or\ntransactions with each other, we might have multitudes, indeed\u2014human\nunits\u2014individuals living in juxtaposition\u2014but we could not have\n\u2039Society\u203a.\n\nNay, we should not even have individuals. To man isolation is death.\nBut then, if he cannot live out of society, the legitimate conclusion\nis that the social state is his natural state.\n\nAll the sciences tend to establish this truth, which was so little\nunderstood by the men of the eighteenth century that they founded\nmorals and politics on the contrary assertion. They were not content\nwith placing the state of nature in opposition to the social\nstate\u2014they gave the first a decided preference. \u201cMen were blessed,\u201d\nsaid Montaigne, \u201cwhen they lived without bonds, without laws, without\nlanguage, without religion.\u201d And we know that the system of Rousseau,\nwhich exercised, and still exercises, so powerful an influence over\nopinions and facts, rests altogether on this hypothesis\u2014that men,\nunhappily, \u2039agreed\u203a one fine morning to abandon the innocent \u2039state\nof nature\u203a for the stormy \u2039state of society\u203a.\n\nIt is not the design of this chapter to bring together all possible\nrefutations of this fundamental error, the most fatal which has\never infested the political sciences; for if society is the fruit\nof invention and convention, it follows that every one may propose\na new model, and this, since Rousseau\u2019s time, has in fact been the\n[p098] direction in which men\u2019s minds have tended. I could easily\ndemonstrate, I believe, that isolation excludes language, as the\nabsence of language excludes thought; and man, deprived of thought,\ninstead of being a child of nature, ceases to be man at all.\n\nBut a peremptory refutation of the idea upon which Rousseau\u2019s\ndoctrine reposes, flows naturally from some considerations on\nExchange.\n\n\u2039Want\u203a, \u2039Effort\u203a, \u2039Satisfaction\u203a,\u2014such is man in an economical point\nof view.\n\nWe have seen that the two extreme terms are essentially\nintransmissible, for they terminate in sensation, they are sensation,\nwhich is the most personal thing in the world, as well the sensation\nwhich precedes the effort and determines it, as the sensation which\nfollows the effort and rewards it.\n\nIt is then the \u2039Effort\u203a which is exchanged; indeed, it cannot be\notherwise, since exchange implies action, and Effort alone manifests\nthe principle of activity. We cannot suffer or enjoy for one another,\nunless we could experience personally the pains and pleasures of\nothers. But we can assist each other, work for one another, render\nreciprocal \u2039services\u203a, and place our faculties, or the results of\ntheir exercise, at the disposal of others, in consideration of a\nreturn. This is society. The causes, the effects, the laws, of these\nexchanges constitute the subject of political and social economy.\n\nWe not only can exchange efforts and render reciprocal services, but\nwe do so necessarily. What I affirm is this, that our organization is\nsuch that we are obliged to work for one another under pain of death,\nof instant death. If it be so, society is our state of nature, since\nit is the only state in which we can live at all.\n\nThere is one observation which I have to make upon the equilibrium\nbetween our wants and our faculties, an observation which has always\nled me to admire the providential plan which regulates our destinies:\u2014\n\n\u2039In the state of isolation our wants exceed our powers;\u203a\n\n\u2039In the social state our powers exceed our wants.\u203a\n\nHence it follows that man in an isolated state cannot subsist, whilst\nin the social state his most imperious wants give place to desires\nof a higher order, and continue to do so in an ascending career of\nprogress and improvement to which it is impossible to set limits.\n\nThis is not declamation, but an assertion capable of being [p099]\nrigorously demonstrated by reasoning and analogy, if not by\nexperience. And why can it not be demonstrated by experience, by\ndirect observation? Precisely because it is true\u2014precisely because,\nman not being able to exist in a state of isolation, it becomes\nimpossible to exhibit in actual nature the effects of absolute\nsolitude. You cannot lay hold of a nonentity. You can prove to me\nthat a triangle never has four sides, but you cannot, in support of\nyour demonstration, place before my eyes a tetragonal triangle. If\nyou could, the exhibition of such a triangle would disprove your\nassertion. In the same way, to ask me for experimental proof, to ask\nme to study the effects of isolation in actual nature, is to palm a\ncontradiction upon me; for life and isolation being incompatible, we\nhave never seen, and never shall see, men without social relations.\n\nIf there are animals (of which I am ignorant) destined by their\norganization to make the round of their existence in absolute\nisolation, it is very clear that nature must exactly proportion\ntheir wants and their powers. It is possible to conceive that their\npowers have the superiority, in which case these animals would be\nprogressive and capable of improvement. An equilibrium of wants and\npowers would render them stationary beings; but the superiority of\ntheir wants to their powers it is impossible to conceive. From their\nbirth, from their first appearance in life, their faculties must be\ncomplete\u2014relatively to the wants for which they have to provide,\nor at least both must be developed in just proportion. Otherwise\nthe species would die the moment they came into existence, and,\nconsequently, could not be the subject of our observation.\n\nOf all the species of living beings which surround us, undoubtedly\nnone have so many wants as man. In none is infancy so long, so\nfeeble, and so helpless\u2014in none is maturity loaded with so much\nresponsibility\u2014in none is old age so frail and so liable to\nsuffering. And, as if we had not enough of wants, man has tastes\nalso, the satisfaction of which exercises his faculties quite as much\nas his wants. Scarcely has he appeased his hunger than he begins\nto pamper himself with dainties\u2014no sooner has he clothed himself\nthan he sighs for finery\u2014no sooner has he obtained shelter than he\nproceeds to embellish and decorate his residence. His mind is as\nrestless as his body is exacting. He seeks to fathom the secrets\nof nature, to tame animals, to control the elements, to dive into\nthe bowels of the earth, to traverse broad seas, to soar above the\nclouds, to annihilate time and space. He desires to know the motions,\nthe springs, the laws, of his mind and heart\u2014to [p100] control his\npassions\u2014to conquer immortality\u2014to become a god\u2014to bring all things\ninto subjection; nature, his fellow-men, himself. In a word, his\ndesires and aspirations expand continually, and tend towards the\ninfinite.\n\nThus, in no other species are the faculties so susceptible of vast\ndevelopment as in man. It is his alone to compare and to judge, to\nreason and to speak, to foresee, to sacrifice the present to the\nfuture. He alone can transmit, from generation to generation, his\nworks, his thoughts, the treasures of his experience. He alone is\ncapable of a perfectibility which is indefinite, which forms a chain\nthe countless links of which would seem to stretch beyond the limits\nof the present world.\n\nLet me here set down an observation which belongs properly to\nPolitical Economy. However extended may be the domain of our\nfaculties, they do not reach the length of \u2039creating\u203a anything.\nMan cannot, in truth, augment or diminish the number of existing\nparticles of matter. His action is limited to subjecting the\nsubstances which he finds around him to modifications and\ncombinations which fit them for his use.[25]\n\nTo modify substances, so as to increase their utility in relation\nto us, is to \u2039produce\u203a, or rather it is one mode of producing.\nFrom this I conclude that value (as we shall afterwards more fully\nexplain) does not reside in these substances themselves, but in the\neffort which intervenes in order to modify them, and which exchange\nbrings into comparison with other analogous efforts. This is the\nreason why value is simply the appreciation of services exchanged,\nwhether a material commodity does or does not intervene. As regards\nthe notion of value, it is a matter of perfect indifference whether\nI render to another a direct service, as, for example, in performing\nfor him a surgical operation, or an indirect service, in preparing\nfor him a curative substance. In this last case the \u2039utility\u203a is in\nthe substance, but the \u2039value\u203a is in the service, in the effort,\nintellectual and muscular, made by one man for the benefit of\nanother. It is by a pure metonymy that we attribute value to the\nmaterial substance itself, and here, as on many other occasions,\nmetaphor leads science astray.\n\nI return to the subject of man\u2019s organization. If we adhere to the\npreceding notions, he differs from other animals only in the greater\nextent of his wants, and the superiority of his powers. All, in\nfact, are subject to the one and provided with the other. A bird\nundertakes long journeys in search of the temperature which suits\nit best\u2014the beaver crosses the river on a bridge of [p101] his own\nconstruction\u2014the hawk pursues his prey openly\u2014the cat watches for it\nwith patience\u2014the spider prepares a snare\u2014all labour in order to live\nand multiply.\n\nBut while Nature has established an exact proportion between the\nwants of animals and their faculties, if she has treated man with\ngreater bounty and munificence, if, in order to force him to be\n\u2039sociable\u203a, she has decreed that in a state of isolation his wants\nshould surpass his faculties, whilst, on the contrary, in the social\nstate, his powers, superior to his wants, open to him an unlimited\nfield for nobler enjoyments, we ought to acknowledge that, as in\nhis relation with the Creator man is elevated above the beasts by\nthe religious sentiment, in his relations with his fellow-creatures\nby his sense of justice, in his relations with himself by the moral\nprinciple\u2014in like manner, in relation to the means of living and\nmultiplying, he is distinguished by a remarkable phenomenon, namely,\n\u00abExchange\u00bb.\n\nShall I essay to paint the state of poverty, of destitution, and\nof ignorance, in which, but for the power of exchanging, the human\nspecies would have been sunk, had it not, indeed, as is more likely,\ndisappeared altogether.\n\nOne of the most popular philosophers, in a romance which has been\nthe charm of the young from generation to generation, has shown us\nman surmounting by his energy, his activity, his intelligence, the\ndifficulties of absolute solitude. For the purpose of setting clearly\nbefore us what are the resources of that noble creature, the author\nhas exhibited him as accidentally cut off from civilisation. It was\npart of Defoe\u2019s plan to throw Robinson Crusoe into the Island of Juan\nFernandez alone, naked, deprived of all that the union of efforts,\nthe division of employments, exchange, society, add to the human\npowers.\n\nAnd yet, although the fancied obstacles are but imaginary, Defoe\nwould have taken away from his tale even the shadow of probability\nif, too faithful to the thought which he wished to develop, he had\nnot made forced concessions to the social state, by admitting that\nhis hero had saved from shipwreck some indispensable things, such\nas provisions, gunpowder, a gun, a hatchet, a knife, cords, planks,\niron, etc.; a decisive proof that society is the necessary medium in\nwhich man lives, and out of which not even a romance writer could\nfigure him as existing.\n\nAnd, observe, that Robinson Crusoe carried with him into solitude\nanother \u2039social\u203a treasure, a thousand times more precious than all\nthese, and which the waves could not engulf, I mean his ideas, his\nrecollections, his experience, above all, his language, [p102]\nwithout which he would not have been able to hold converse with\nhimself, that is to say, to think.\n\nWe have the unfortunate and unreasonable habit of attributing to\nthe \u2039social state\u203a the sufferings which we see around us. We are\nright so far, if our object be to compare society with itself in\ndifferent degrees of advancement and improvement; but we are wrong\nif our object be to compare the social state, however imperfect,\nwith a state of isolation. To authorize us to assert that society\nimpairs the condition, I do not say of man in general, but of some\nmen, and these the poorest and most wretched of the species, we must\nbegin by proving that the worst provided of our fellow-creatures\nhave to support in the social state a heavier load of privations\nand sufferings than the man whose lot has been cast in solitude.\nNow, examine the life of the humblest day-labourer. Pass in review,\nin all their details, the articles of his daily consumption. He is\ncovered with some coarse clothing, he eats a little common bread, he\nsleeps under shelter, and on boards, at least, if he has no better\ncouch. Now, let us ask if man in a state of isolation, deprived of\nthe resources of Exchange, could by any possibility procure for\nhimself that coarse clothing, that common bread, that rude bed, that\nhumble shelter? Rousseau himself, the passionate enthusiast of the\n\u2039state of nature\u203a, avows the utter impossibility of it. Men dispensed\nwith everything, he says; they went naked, they slept in the open\nair. Thus Rousseau, to exalt the state of nature, was led to make\nhappiness consist in privation. And yet I affirm that this negative\nhappiness is a chimera, and that man in a state of isolation would\ninfallibly perish in a very few hours. Perhaps Rousseau would have\ngone to the length of saying that that would have been the perfection\nof his system; and he would have been consistent, for if privation be\nhappiness, death is perfection.\n\nI trust the reader will not conclude from what precedes that we are\ninsensible to the social sufferings of our fellow-men. Because these\nsufferings are less even in an imperfect state of society than in a\nstate of isolation, it does not follow that we should not invoke,\nwith all earnestness, that progress which constantly diminishes them.\nBut if isolation is something worse than all that is bad in the\nsocial state, then I am justified in saying that it places our wants,\neven the most imperious, far above our faculties and our means of\nproviding for wants.\n\nIn what way does Exchange advantageously reverse all this, and place\nour faculties above our wants?\n\nAnd first this is proved by the very fact of civilisation. If our\n[p103] wants surpassed our faculties, we should be beings invincibly\nretrograde; if there were an equilibrium between them, we should be\ninvincibly stationary. But we advance; which shows that at every\nstage of social life, as compared with the period that preceded it,\na certain portion of our powers, relatively to a given amount of\nsatisfactions, is left disposable. We shall endeavour to explain this\nmarvellous phenomenon.\n\nThe explanation which Condillac has given appears to me to be quite\nunsatisfactory and empirical\u2014in fact, it explains nothing. \u201cFrom\nthe very fact,\u201d he says, \u201cthat an exchange is made, it follows that\nthere must be profit for the two contracting parties, for otherwise\nit would not take place. Then each exchange includes two gains for\nhumanity.\u201d\n\nHolding this proposition as true, we see in it only the statement of\na result. It is in this way that the \u2039Malade Imaginaire\u203a explains the\nnarcotic virtue of opium:\u2014\n\n  Quia est in eo\n  Virtus dormitiva\n  Qu\u00e6 facit dormire.\n\nExchange includes two gains, you say. How? Why? It results from the\nfact that it takes place. But why does it take place? What motive has\ninduced the contracting parties to effect the exchange? Has Exchange\nin itself a mysterious virtue, necessarily beneficial, and incapable\nof explanation?\n\nOthers make the advantage consist in this, that the one gives away\na commodity of which he has too much in order to receive another of\nwhich he has too little. Exchange, they say, is a \u2039barter of the\nsuperfluous for the necessary\u203a. This is contradicted by facts which\npass under our own eyes; for who can say that the peasant, in giving\naway the corn which he has raised, but which he is never to eat,\ngives away a superfluity? I see in this axiom very clearly how two\nmen may make an accidental arrangement, but I see no explanation of\nprogress.\n\nObservation gives us a more satisfactory explanation of the power of\nExchange.\n\nExchange has two manifestations\u2014namely, union of forces, and\nseparation of occupations.\n\nIt is very clear that in many cases the united force of several men\nis superior, all things considered, to the sum of their individual\nforces. Suppose that what is wanted is to remove a heavy load. Where\na thousand men in succession may fail, it is possible that four men\nmay succeed by uniting their efforts. Just let us reflect how few\nthings were ever accomplished in this world without union! [p104]\n\nAnd yet this is only the concurrence of muscular forces in a common\ndesign. Nature has endued us with very varied physical, intellectual,\nand moral faculties. There are in the co-operation of these faculties\nendless combinations. Is it wished to accomplish a useful work, like\nthe construction of a road, or the defence of a country? One gives\nthe community the benefit of his strength, another of his agility,\nanother of his courage, another of his experience, foresight,\nimagination, even of his reputation. It is easy to comprehend\nthat the same men acting singly could not have attained, or even\nconceived, the same results.\n\nNow, union of forces implies Exchange. To induce men to co-operate,\nthey have the prospect of participating in the benefit to be\nobtained. Each makes the other profit by his Efforts, and he profits\nby the other\u2019s Efforts in return, which is Exchange.\n\nWe see how Exchange in this way augments our Satisfactions. The\nbenefit consists in this, that efforts of equal intensity tend, by\nthe mere fact of their union, to superior results. There is here no\ntrace of the pretended \u2039barter of the superfluous for the necessary\u203a,\nany more than of the double and empirical profit alleged by Condillac.\n\nThe same remark applies to division of labour. Indeed, if we regard\nthe matter more closely, we shall be convinced that the separation\nof employments is only another and more permanent manner of uniting\nour forces\u2014of co-operating, of \u2039associating\u203a; and it is quite correct\nto say, as we shall afterwards demonstrate, that the present social\norganization, provided Exchange is left free and unfettered, is\nitself a vast and beautiful association\u2014a marvellous association,\nvery different, indeed, from that dreamt of by the Socialists,\nsince, by an admirable mechanism, it is in perfect accordance with\nindividual independence. Every one can enter and leave it at any\nmoment which suits his convenience. He contributes to it voluntarily,\nand reaps a satisfaction superior to his contribution, and always\nincreasing\u2014a satisfaction determined by the laws of justice and the\nnature of things, not by the arbitrary will of a chief. But this is\nanticipating. All we have to do at present is to explain how the\ndivision of labour increases our power.\n\nWithout dwelling much on this subject, as it is one of the few which\ndo not give rise to controversy, a remark or two may not be out\nof place. Its importance has perhaps been somewhat disparaged. In\norder to demonstrate the powerful effects of the Division of Labour,\nit has been usual to describe its marvellous results in certain\nmanufactures\u2014in the making of pins, for [p105] example. But the\nsubject admits of being viewed in a more general and philosophical\nlight. The force of habit has the singular effect of concealing from\nus, and rendering us unconscious of, the phenomena in the midst of\nwhich we live and move. No saying is more profoundly true than that\nof Rousseau, \u201cMuch philosophy is needed for the observation of what\nwe see every day.\u201d It may not then be without use to recall what we\nowe to Exchange, without perceiving it.\n\nIn what way has the power of exchanging elevated mankind to the\nheight of civilisation we have now attained? I answer, by the\ninfluence which it exerts on \u2039Labour\u203a, upon the co-operation of\n\u2039natural agents\u203a, upon the \u2039powers and faculties\u203a of man, and upon\n\u2039Capital\u203a.\n\nAdam Smith has clearly demonstrated its influence on Labour.\n\n\u201cThe great increase in the quantity of work, which, in consequence\nof the division of labour, the same number of people are capable of\nperforming, is owing to three circumstances,\u201d says that celebrated\nEconomist: \u201c\u2039First\u203a, to the increase of dexterity in every particular\nworkman; \u2039secondly\u203a, to the saving of time which is commonly lost\nin passing from one species of work to another; \u2039thirdly\u203a, to this,\nthat men are much more likely to discover easier and readier methods\nof attaining an object when the whole attention of their minds is\ndirected to that single object, than when it is dissipated among a\ngreat variety of things.\u201d\n\nThose who, like Adam Smith, see in Labour the exclusive source of\nwealth, confine themselves to inquiring in what way the division\nof labour increases its efficiency. But we have seen in the\npreceding chapter that labour is not the sole agent in procuring us\nsatisfaction. \u2039Natural forces\u203a co-operate. That is beyond doubt.\n\nThus, in agriculture, the action of the sun and of the rain, the\nmoisture of the earth, and the gases diffused in the atmosphere,\nare undoubtedly agents which co-operate with human labour in the\nproduction of vegetable substances.\n\nManufacturing industry owes analogous services to the chemical\nqualities of certain substances, to water-power, to the elasticity of\nsteam, to gravitation, to electricity.\n\nCommerce has turned to the profit of man the vigour and instincts of\ncertain races of animals, the force of the winds which fill the sails\nof his ships, the laws of magnetism, which, acting on the compass,\ndirect the course of these ships through the pathless ocean.\n\nThere are two verities which are beyond all dispute. The [p106]\nfirst is, that \u2039the more man avails himself of the forces of nature,\nthe better he is provided with everything he requires\u203a.\n\nIt is sufficiently evident that, with equal exertion, we obtain more\ncorn from a rich loamy soil than from sterile rocks or arid sands.\n\nThe second is, \u2039that natural agents are unequally diffused over the\nvarious countries of the world\u203a.\n\nWho would venture to maintain that all soils are equally well fitted\nfor all kinds of culture, or all countries for the same description\nof manufactures?\n\nNow, if it be true on the one hand that natural forces are unequally\ndiffused in the different countries of the world, and on the other\nthat men are richer in proportion as they avail themselves of them,\nit follows that the faculty of Exchange immeasurably augments the\nuseful co-operation of these forces.\n\nAnd here we recur once more to gratuitous and onerous utility, the\nformer being substituted for the latter by virtue of Exchange. Is it\nnot very clear, that if men were deprived of the power of Exchange,\nand were obliged to produce ice under the equator, and sugar at the\npoles, they must spend much pains in doing what heat and cold do\ngratuitously, and that for them an immense proportion of the Forces\nof nature would remain inoperative? Thanks to Exchange, these forces\nare rendered useful to us wherever we encounter them. Corn land is\nsown with wheat\u2014in wine-growing countries the land is planted with\nvines\u2014there are fishermen on the coasts, and wood-cutters among the\nmountains. In one place a wheel which does the work of ten men is set\nin motion by water\u2014in another, by wind. Nature becomes a slave, whom\nwe have neither to feed, nor to clothe, nor to pay\u2014who costs nothing\neither to our purse or our conscience.[26] The same amount of human\nefforts, that is to say, the same services, the same value, realizes\na constantly increasing amount of utility. For each given result a\ncertain portion only of human exertion is absorbed; the remainder, by\nmeans of the intervention of natural Forces, is rendered disposable,\nand it sets to work to overcome new obstacles, to minister to new\ndesires, to realize new utilities.\n\nThe effects of Exchange upon our intellectual Faculties are so great,\nthat we can scarcely even imagine their extent.\n\n\u201cKnowledge,\u201d says M. de Tracy, \u201cis the most precious of all our\nacquisition, since it directs and governs the employment of our\nforces, and renders them more prolific, in proportion as it is\nsounder and more extensive. No man can himself observe [p107]\neverything, and it is much easier to learn than to invent. But\nwhen several men communicate with each other, what is observed by\none is soon known to the rest; and if there be among them but one\nperson of superior ingenuity, precious discoveries speedily become\nthe property of all. In such circumstances, knowledge is much more\nrapidly increased than it could be in a state of isolation, without\ntaking into account the power of preserving it, and consequently of\naccumulating it from one generation to another.\u201d\n\nIf the resources which nature has accumulated around man and placed\nat his disposal are varied, the human faculties themselves are not\nless so. We are not all equally endowed with strength, courage,\nintelligence, patience, or with artistic, literary, and industrial\naptitudes. Without exchange, this diversity, far from contributing\nto our well-being, would contribute to our misery, each feeling less\nthe advantage of those Faculties he possessed than the deprivation\nof those he wanted. Thanks to exchange, a man possessed of bodily\nstrength may, up to a certain point, dispense with genius, and a man\nof intelligence with bodily strength; for by the admirable community\nwhich the power of exchange establishes among men, each individual\nparticipates in the distinctive qualities of his neighbours.\n\nIn order to obtain the satisfactions he desires, it is not enough,\nin most cases, to work\u2014to exercise his faculties upon, or by means\nof, natural agents. He requires also to have tools, instruments,\nmachines, provisions\u2014in a word, Capital. Suppose a small tribe,\ncomposed of ten families, each, in working exclusively for itself,\nbeing obliged to engage in ten different employments. In that case\neach family must have ten sets of industrial apparatus. The tribe\nwould require to possess ten ploughs, ten teams of oxen, ten forges,\nten joiner\u2019s and carpenter\u2019s workshops, ten looms, etc.; while, with\nthe power of exchange, a single plough, a single team, a single\nforge, a single loom, would be sufficient. It is impossible to\nconceive the economy of Capital which we owe to exchange.\n\nThe reader now sees clearly what constitutes the true power of\nexchange. It is not, as Condillac says, that it implies \u2039two gains\u203a,\nbecause of each of the contracting parties valuing more highly what\nhe receives than what he gives. Neither is it that each gives away\nwhat is superfluous for what is necessary. It lies simply in this,\nthat when one man says to another, \u201cDo you only this, and I shall\ndo only that, and we shall divide,\u201d there is a better and more\nadvantageous employment of labour, of faculties, of natural agents,\nof capital, and consequently there is \u2039more\u203a to divide. And these\nresults take place to a still greater extent when [p108] three, ten,\na hundred, a thousand, or several millions of men enter into the\nassociation.\n\nThe two propositions which I have laid down, then, are rigorously\ntrue, viz.:\u2014\n\n\u2039In isolation our wants exceed our powers;\u203a\n\n\u2039In society our powers exceed our wants.\u203a\n\nThe first is true, seeing that the whole surface of our country would\nnot maintain one man in a state of absolute isolation.\n\nThe second is true, seeing that, in fact, the population which is\nspread over that same surface multiplies and grows richer.\n\n\u2039Progress of Exchange.\u203a\u2014The primitive form of exchange is \u2039Barter\u203a.\nTwo persons, one of whom desires an object, and is possessed of\nan object which the other desires, agree to cede these objects\nreciprocally, or they agree to work separately, each at one thing,\nbut for the purpose of dividing the total product of their labour in\narranged proportions. This is \u2039Barter\u203a, which is, as the Socialists\nwould say, Exchange, traffic, commerce \u2039in embryo\u203a. We observe here\ntwo Desires as motives\u2014two Efforts as means\u2014two Satisfactions as\nresults, or as the termination and completion of the entire cycle;\nand this evolution is not essentially different from the same\nevolution accomplished in a state of isolation, except that the\ndesires and satisfactions have, as their nature requires, remained\nintransmissible, and that Efforts alone have been exchanged. In other\nwords, the two persons have worked for each other, and have rendered\neach other reciprocal \u2039services\u203a.\n\nIt is at this point that Political Economy truly begins, for it is\nhere that \u2039value\u203a first makes its appearance. Barter takes place\nonly after an arrangement, a discussion. Each of the contracting\nparties is governed by considerations of self-interest. Each of\nthem makes a calculation, which in effect comes to this, \u201cI shall\nbarter if the barter procures me the \u2039satisfaction\u203a I \u2039desire\u203a with\na less \u2039Effort\u203a.\u201d It is certainly a marvellous phenomenon that\ndiminished efforts can yet keep pace with undiminished desires\nand satisfactions; and this is explained by the considerations\nwhich I have presented in the first part of this chapter. When two\ncommodities or two services are \u2039bartered\u203a, we may conclude that they\nare of \u2039equal value\u203a. We shall have to analyze afterwards the notion\nof \u2039value\u203a, but this vague definition is sufficient for the present.\n\nWe may suppose a \u2039round-about barter\u203a, including three contracting\nparties. \u2039Paul\u203a renders a service to \u2039Peter\u203a, who renders an\nequivalent service to \u2039James\u203a, who in turn renders an equivalent\nservice to \u2039Paul\u203a, by means of which all is balanced. I need not say\nthat this round-about transaction only takes place because it [p109]\nsuits all the parties, without changing either the nature or the\nconsequences of barter.\n\nThe essence of Barter is discovered in all its purity even when\nthe number of contracting parties is greater. In my \u2039commune\u203a the\nvine-dresser pays with wine for the services of the blacksmith, the\nbarber, the tailor, the beadle, the curate, the grocer; while the\nblacksmith, the barber, the tailor, in turn deliver to the grocer,\nfor the commodities consumed during the year, the wine which they\nhave received from the vine-dresser.\n\nThis round-about Barter, I cannot too often repeat, does not change\nin the least degree the primary notions explained in the preceding\nchapters. When the evolution is complete, each of those who have had\npart in it presents still the triple phenomenon, \u2039want\u203a, \u2039effort\u203a,\n\u2039satisfaction\u203a. We have but to add, the exchange of efforts, the\ntransmission of services, the separation of employments, with all\ntheir resulting advantages\u2014advantages to which every one of the\nparties has contributed, seeing that isolated individual labour\nis a \u2039pis aller\u203a, always reserved, and which is only renounced in\nconsideration of a certain advantage.\n\nIt is easy to comprehend that Barter in kind, especially the indirect\nand round-about barter which I have described, cannot be much\nextended, and it is unnecessary to dwell upon the obstacles which\nset limits to it. How could he manage, for example, who wished to\nexchange his house against the thousand articles which enter into his\nannual consumption? In any case, Barter could never take place but\namong the few persons who happen to be acquainted with each other.\nProgress and the Division of Labour would soon reach their limits if\nmankind had not discovered the means of facilitating exchanges.\n\nThis is the reason why men, from the earliest ages of society, have\nemployed an intermediate commodity to effect their transactions\u2014corn,\nwine, animals, and almost always, the precious metals. Such\ncommodities perform this function of facilitating exchanges more or\nless conveniently; still any one of them can perform it, provided\nthat, in the transaction, Effort is represented by \u2039value\u203a, the\ntransmission of which is the thing to be effected.\n\nWhen recourse is had to an intermediate commodity, two economic\nphenomena make their appearance, which we denominate \u2039Sale\u203a and\n\u2039Purchase\u203a. It is evident that the idea of \u2039sale\u203a and \u2039purchase\u203a is\nnot included in direct Barter, or even in round-about Barter. When a\nman gives another something to drink, in consideration of receiving\nfrom him something to eat, we have a [p110] simple fact which we\ncannot analyze farther. Now, what we must remark in the very outset\nof the science is, that exchanges which are effected by means of\nan intermediate commodity do not lose the nature, the essence, the\nquality of barter\u2014only the barter is no longer simple, but compound.\nTo borrow the very judicious and profound observation of J. B. Say,\nit is a barter of \u2039two factors\u203a [troc \u00e0 deux facteurs], of which the\none is called \u2039sale\u203a and the other \u2039purchase\u203a\u2014factors whose union is\nindispensable in order to constitute a complete barter.\n\nIn truth, this discovery of a convenient means of effecting exchanges\nmakes no alteration in the nature either of men or of things. We have\nstill in every case the \u2039want\u203a which determines the \u2039effort\u203a, and the\n\u2039satisfaction\u203a which rewards it. The Exchange is complete only when\nthe man who has made an \u2039effort\u203a in favour of another has obtained\nfrom him an equivalent service, that is to say, \u2039satisfaction\u203a. To\neffect this, he \u2039sells\u203a his service for the intermediate commodity,\nand then with that intermediate commodity he \u2039purchases\u203a equivalent\nservices, when the two factors bring back the transaction to simple\n\u2039barter\u203a.\n\nTake the case of a physician, for instance. For many years he has\ndevoted his time and his faculties to the study of diseases and their\nremedies. He has visited patients, he has prescribed for them, in a\nword, he has rendered \u2039services\u203a. Instead of receiving compensation\nfrom his patients in \u2039direct services\u203a, which would have constituted\nsimple barter, he receives from them an intermediate commodity, the\nprecious metals, wherewith he purchases the satisfactions which were\nthe ultimate object he had in view. His patients have not furnished\nhim with bread, wine, or other goods, but they have furnished\nhim with the value of these. They could not have given him money\nunless they had themselves rendered \u2039services\u203a. As far as they are\nconcerned, therefore, there is a balance of \u2039services\u203a, and there\nis also a balance as regards the physician; and could we in thought\nfollow this circulation of services out and out, we should see that\nExchange carried on by the intervention of money resolves itself into\na multitude of acts of simple barter.\n\nIn the case of simple barter, \u2039value\u203a is the appreciation of two\nservices exchanged and directly compared with each other. In the\ncase of \u2039Compound Exchange\u203a the two services measure each other\u2019s\nvalue, not directly, but by comparison with this mean term, this\nintermediate commodity, which is called Money. We shall see by-and-by\nwhat difficulties, what errors, have sprung from this complication.\nAt present it is sufficient to remark that [p111] the intervention\nof this intermediate commodity makes no change whatever in the notion\nof \u2039value\u203a.\n\nOnly admit that exchange is at once the cause and the effect of the\ndivision of labour and the separation of employments; only admit\nthat the separation of occupations multiplies \u2039satisfactions\u203a in\nproportion to \u2039efforts\u203a, for the reasons explained at the beginning\nof this chapter, and you will comprehend at once the services which\nMoney has rendered to mankind, by the simple fact that it facilitates\nExchanges. By means of Money, Exchange is indefinitely extended\nand developed. Each man casts his services into the common fund,\nwithout knowing who is to enjoy the satisfactions which they are\ncalculated to procure. In the same way he obtains from society, not\nimmediate services, but money with which he can afterwards purchase\nservices, where, when, and how it may best suit him. In this way the\nultimate transactions occur at various times and places, between\npeople totally unacquainted with each other, and in the greater\nnumber of cases no one knows by whose \u2039efforts\u203a his \u2039wants\u203a will be\n\u2039satisfied\u203a, or to the \u2039satisfaction\u203a of whose \u2039desires\u203a his own\n\u2039efforts\u203a will contribute. Exchange, by the intervention of Money,\nresolves itself into innumerable acts of \u2039barter\u203a, of which the\ncontracting parties themselves are ignorant.\n\nExchange, however, confers so great a benefit on society (is it not\nsociety itself?) that it facilitates and extends it by other means\nbesides the introduction of money. In logical order, after Want and\nSatisfaction united in the same individual with isolated Effort\u2014after\nsimple barter\u2014after barter \u2039\u00e0 deux facteurs\u203a, or Exchange composed\nof \u2039sale\u203a and \u2039purchase\u203a\u2014come other transactions, extended farther\nover time and space by means of credit, mortgages, bills of exchange,\nbank notes, etc. By means of this wondrous machinery, the result of\ncivilisation, the improver of civilisation, and itself becoming more\nperfect at the same time, an exertion made at the present hour in\nParis may contribute to the satisfaction and enjoyment of an unknown\nstranger, separated from us by oceans and centuries; and he who makes\nthe exertion will not the less receive for it a present recompense,\nthrough the intervention of persons who advance the remuneration,\nand wait to be reimbursed in a distant country or at a future day.\nMarvellous and astonishing complication! which, when subjected to\nanalysis, shows us finally the accomplishment of the entire economic\ncycle\u2014\u2039want\u203a, \u2039effort\u203a, \u2039satisfaction\u203a, taking place in each\nindividual, according to a just law.\n\n\u2039Limits of Exchange.\u203a\u2014The general character of Exchange is \u2039to\ndiminish the proportion which the Effort bears to the satisfaction\u203a.\nBetween our wants and our satisfactions \u2039obstacles\u203a are interposed,\n[p112] which we succeed in diminishing by the union of forces or the\ndivision of occupations, that is to say, by \u2039Exchange\u203a. But Exchange\nitself encounters obstacles and demands efforts. The proof of this\nis the immense amount of human labour which it sets in motion.\nThe precious metals, roads, canals, railways, wheeled carriages,\nships\u2014all these things absorb a considerable portion of human\nactivity. Observe, besides, how many men are exclusively occupied\nin facilitating exchanges\u2014how many bankers, merchants, shopkeepers,\nbrokers, carriers, sailors! This vast and costly apparatus shows us,\nbetter than any reasoning, how much efficacy there is in the power of\nExchange, for why otherwise should society be encumbered with it?\n\nSince it is the nature of Exchange to \u2039save\u203a efforts and to \u2039exact\u203a\nthem, it is easy to understand what are its natural limits. In virtue\nof that motive which urges man to choose always the least of two\nevils, Exchange will go on extending itself indefinitely as long as\nthe effort it exacts is less than the effort which it saves. And its\nextension will stop naturally when, upon the whole, the aggregate of\nsatisfactions obtained by the division of labour becomes less, by\nreason of the increasing difficulties attending Exchange, than if we\nprocured them by direct production.\n\nSuppose the case of a small tribe. If they desire to procure\nthemselves satisfactions they must make an effort. They may address\nthemselves to another tribe, and say to them, \u201cMake this effort for\nus, and we shall make another for you.\u201d The stipulation may suit\nall parties, if, for example, the second tribe is in a situation to\nobtain greater assistance than the other from natural and gratuitous\nforces. In that case it may be able to realize the result with an\neffort equal to eight, while the first could only accomplish it by an\neffort equal to twelve. There is thus an economy equal to four for\nthe first. But then come the cost of transport, the remuneration of\nintermediate agents, in a word, the effort exacted by the machinery\nof Exchange. This cost must, then, clearly be added to the figure\neight. Exchange will continue to take place as long as the Exchange\n\u2039itself\u203a does not cost four. The moment it reaches that figure it\nwill stop. It is quite unnecessary to make laws on this subject; for\neither the law intervenes before this level is attained, and then it\nis injurious\u2014it prevents an economy of efforts\u2014or it comes after it,\nand then it is useless, like an ordinance forbidding people to light\ntheir lamps at noonday.\n\nWhen Exchange is thus arrested from ceasing to be advantageous, the\nslightest improvement in the \u2039commercial apparatus\u203a gives it a new\nactivity. Between Orleans and Angoul\u00eame a certain [p113] number of\ntransactions take place. These towns effect an Exchange as often\nas they can obtain a greater amount of enjoyments by that means\nthan by direct production. They stop short the moment the cost of\nobtaining commodities by means of exchange, aggravated by the cost\nof effecting the exchange itself, surpasses, or reaches, that of\nobtaining them by means of direct production. In these circumstances,\nif we improve the conditions under which Exchanges are effected\u2014if\nthe merchants\u2019 profits are diminished, or the means of transport\nfacilitated\u2014if roads and railways are made, mountains levelled, and\nbridges thrown over rivers\u2014in a word, if obstacles are removed, the\nnumber of Exchanges will be increased; for men are always desirous\nto avail themselves of the great advantages which we have ascribed\nto Exchange, and to substitute gratuitous for onerous utility. The\nimprovement of the \u2039commercial apparatus\u203a, then, is equivalent\nto bringing two cities locally nearer to each other. Whence it\nfollows that bringing men physically, locally, nearer each other is\nequivalent to improving the conditions of exchange. This is very\nimportant. It is, in fact, the solution of the problem of population;\nand this is precisely the element in that great problem that Malthus\nhas neglected. Where Malthus saw Discordance, attention to this\nelement enables us to discover \u2039Harmony\u203a.\n\nWhen men effect an exchange, it is because they succeed by that means\nin obtaining an equal amount of \u2039satisfaction\u203a at a less expense of\n\u2039effort\u203a; and the reason of this is, that on both sides services are\nrendered which are the means of procuring a greater proportion of\nwhat we have termed \u2039gratuitous utility\u203a.\n\nNow, you have always a greater number of exchanges in proportion as\nyou remove the \u2039obstacles\u203a which impede exchanges, and diminish the\n\u2039efforts\u203a which these exchanges exact.\n\nAnd Exchange encounters fewer obstacles, and exacts fewer efforts,\njust in proportion as you bring men nearer each other, and mass them\nmore together. A greater density of population, then, is accompanied\nby a greater proportion of \u2039gratuitous utility\u203a. That density imparts\ngreater power to the machinery of exchange; it sets free and renders\ndisposable a portion of human efforts; it is a cause of progress.\n\nNow, if you please, let us leave generalities and look at facts.\n\nDoes not a street of equal length render more service in Paris than\nin a remote village? Is not a mile of railway of more use in the\nDepartment of the Seine than in the Department of the Landes? Is not\na London merchant content with smaller profits [p114] on account of\nthe greater amount of business which he transacts? In everything we\nshall discover two sets of exchange agencies at work, which although\nidentical in kind, act very differently, according as they operate in\na densely or a thinly peopled locality.\n\nThe density of population not only enables us to reap more advantage\nfrom the machinery of exchange, it permits us to improve that\nmachinery, and increase its power. Where the population is condensed,\nthese improvements are advantageous, because they save us more\nefforts than they exact; but where the population is scattered and\nthin-spread, they exact more efforts than they save.\n\nOn leaving the metropolis for a time, and going to reside in a small\nprovincial town, one is astonished to find that in many instances the\nmost ordinary \u2039services\u203a can only be obtained at great expense, and\nwith time and difficulty.\n\nIt is not the material part of the commercial mechanism only which\nis turned to account and improved by the single circumstance of the\ndensity of population, but the moral part also. When men are massed\ntogether, they have more facility in dividing their employments,\nin uniting their powers, and in combining to found churches and\nschools, to provide for their common security, to establish banks and\ninsurance companies, in a word, to procure themselves all the common\nenjoyments with a much smaller proportion of efforts.\n\nWe shall revert to these considerations when we come to enter on the\nsubject of Population. At present we shall make only this remark:\u2014\n\nExchange enables men to turn their faculties to better account, to\neconomize capital, to obtain more assistance from the gratuitous\nagencies of nature, to increase the proportion of gratuitous to\nonerous utility, to diminish, consequently, the ratio of efforts to\nresults, and to leave at their disposal a part of their forces, so\nthat they may withdraw a greater and greater portion of them from the\nbusiness of providing for their primary and more imperious wants, and\ndevote them to procuring enjoyments of a higher and higher order.\n\nIf Exchange saves efforts, it also exacts them. It extends, and\nspreads, and increases, up to the point at which the effort it\nexacts becomes equal to the effort which it saves, and it stops\nthere until, by the improvement of the commercial apparatus, or by\nthe circumstance exclusively of the condensation of population, and\nbringing men together in masses, it again returns to the conditions\nwhich are essential to its onward and ascending march. [p115] Whence\nit follows that laws which limit or hamper Exchanges are always\neither hurtful or superfluous.\n\nGovernments which persuade themselves that nothing good can be\ndone but through their instrumentality, refuse to acknowledge this\nharmonic law.\n\n\u2039Exchange develops itself\u203a \u00abNATURALLY\u00bb \u2039until it becomes more onerous\nthan useful, and at that point it\u203a \u00abNATURALLY\u00bb \u2039stops\u203a.\n\nIn consequence, we find governments everywhere busying themselves in\nfavouring or restraining trade.\n\nIn order to carry it \u2039beyond\u203a its natural limits, they set to\nconquering colonies and opening new markets. In order to confine it\n\u2039within\u203a its natural bounds, they invent all sorts of restrictions\nand fetters.\n\nThis intervention of Force in human transactions is the source of\ninnumerable evils.\n\nThe Increase of this force itself is an evil to begin with; for it\nis very evident that the State cannot make conquests, retain distant\ncountries under its rule, or divert the natural course of trade by\nthe action of tariffs, without greatly increasing the number of its\nagents.\n\nThe Diversion of the public Force from its legitimate functions is\nan evil still greater than its Increase. Its rational mission was to\nprotect Liberty and Property; and here you have it violating Liberty\nand Property. All just notions and principles are thus effaced from\nmen\u2019s minds. The moment you admit that Oppression and Spoliation are\nlegitimate, provided they are legal\u2014provided they interfere only by\nmeans of the Law or public Force, you find by degrees each class of\ncitizens demanding that the interest of every other class should be\nsacrificed to it.\n\nThis intervention of Force in the business of Exchanges, whether\nit succeeds in promoting or in restraining them, cannot fail to\noccasion both the Loss and Displacement of labour and capital, and,\nof consequence, a disturbance of the natural distribution of the\npopulation. On one side, natural interests disappear, on the other,\nartificial interests are created, and men are forced to follow the\ncourse of these interests. It is thus we see important branches of\nindustry established where they ought not to be. France makes sugar;\nEngland spins cotton, brought from the plains of India. Centuries\nof war, torrents of blood, the dissipation of vast treasures, have\nbrought about these results, and the effect has been to substitute in\nEurope sickly and precarious for sound and healthy enterprises, and\nto open the door to commercial crises, to stoppages, to instability,\nand finally to Pauperism.\n\nBut I find I am anticipating. What we ought first to do is to [p116]\nacquaint ourselves with the free and natural development of human\nsocieties, and then investigate the Disturbances.\n\n\u2039Moral Force of Exchange.\u203a\u2014We must repeat, at the risk of wounding\nmodern sentimentalism, that Political Economy belongs to the region\nof \u2039business\u203a, and business is transacted under the influence of\n\u2039personal interest\u203a. In vain the puritans of socialism cry out, \u201cThis\nis frightful; we shall change all this.\u201d Such declamations involve a\nflat contradiction. Do we make purchases on the Quai Voltaire in the\nname of Fraternity?\n\nIt would be to fall into another kind of declamation to attribute\nmorality to acts determined and governed by \u2039self-interest\u203a. But\na good and wise Providence may so have arranged the social order\nthat these very acts, destitute of morality in their motives, may\nnevertheless tend to moral results. Is it not so in the case of\nlabour? Now, I maintain that Exchange, whether in the incipient state\nof simple barter, or expanded into a vast and complicated commerce,\ndevelops in society tendencies more noble than the motive which gives\nrise to it.\n\nI have certainly no wish to attribute to only one of our powers\nall that constitutes the grandeur, the glory, and the charm of our\nexistence. As there are two forces in the material world\u2014one which\ngoes from the circumference to the centre, the other from the centre\nto the circumference\u2014there are also two principles in the social\nworld, self-interest and sympathy. It were a misfortune indeed did we\nfail to recognise the benefits and joys of the sympathetic principle,\nas manifested in friendship, love, filial piety, parental tenderness,\ncharity, patriotism, religion, enthusiasm for the good and the\nbeautiful. Some have maintained that the sympathetic principle is\nonly a magnificent form of self-love, that to love others is at\nbottom only an intelligent way of loving ourselves. This is not the\nplace to enter on the solution of that problem. Whether these two\nnative energies are distinct or confounded, it is enough for us to\nknow that, far from being antagonistic, as is constantly said, they\nact in combination, and concur in the realization of one and the same\nresult, the general good.\n\nI have established these two propositions:\u2014\n\n\u2039In a state of isolation, our wants exceed our powers;\u203a\n\n\u2039In consequence of Exchange, our powers exceed our wants.\u203a\n\nThese propositions show the end and purpose of society. There are two\nothers which guarantee its indefinite improvement:\u2014\n\n\u2039In a state of isolation the gain of one may be the loss of another;\u203a\n\n\u2039In consequence of Exchange, the gain of each is the gain of all.\u203a\n\nIs it necessary to prove that, if nature had destined man to a\n[p117] solitary life, the prosperity of one would have been\nincompatible with that of another, and the more numerous men had\nbeen, the less chance would they have had of attaining prosperity?\nAt all events, we see clearly in what way numbers might have been\ninjurious, and we do not see how they could have been beneficial. And\nthen, I would ask, under what form could the principle of sympathy\nhave manifested itself? How, or on what occasion, could it have been\ncalled forth? Could we have even comprehended it?\n\nBut men exchange, and Exchange, as we have seen, implies the\nseparation of employments. It gives birth to professions and trades.\nEach man sets himself to overcome a certain class of obstacles, for\nthe benefit of the Community. Each makes it his business to render a\ncertain description of \u2039services\u203a. Now, a complete analysis of value\ndemonstrates that each service \u2039has value\u203a in the first instance in\nproportion to its intrinsic utility, and afterwards in proportion\nto the wealth of those to whom it is furnished\u2014that is to say, in\nproportion as the community to whom the service is rendered has a\ngreater demand for it, and is in a better situation to pay for it.\nExperience shows us that the artizan, the physician, the lawyer, the\nmerchant, the carrier, the professor, the \u2039savant\u203a, derive greater\nreturns from their services in Paris, in London, or at New York, than\nin the Landes of Gascony, or the mountains of Wales, or the prairies\nof the Far West. And does not this confirm the truth, \u2039that each man\nis more likely to prosper in proportion to the general prosperity of\nthe community in which he lives\u203a?\n\nOf all the harmonies which have come under my observation, this is\nbeyond doubt the most important, the finest, the most decisive, the\nmost suggestive. It sums up and includes all the others. This is why\nI can give only a very incomplete demonstration of it in this place.\nThe whole scope and spirit of this work will establish it; and I\nshall deem it a fortunate thing if its probability at least is made\nso apparent as to induce the reader to convince himself of its truth\nby farther inquiry and reflection.\n\nFor it is beyond question that on this turns our decision between\nnatural and artificial Organizations\u2014that on this, and this alone,\nhangs the solution of the Social Problem. If the prosperity of all\nbe the condition of the prosperity of each, then we can repose\nwith confidence not only on the economic power of free trade, but\non its moral force. If men only understood their true interests,\nrestrictions, mercantile jealousies, commercial wars, monopolies,\nwould go down under the influence of public opinion; [p118] and\nbefore soliciting the interposition of government in any case, the\nquestion would be, not \u201cHow am \u2039I\u203a to be benefited by it?\u201d but\n\u201cWhat advantage is likely to result from it to the community?\u201d This\nlast question, I grant, is sometimes elicited by the principle of\nsympathy; but let men be once enlightened, and it will be called\nforth by Self-interest. Then we shall be enabled to say with truth\nthat the two motive principles of our nature tend towards the same\nresult\u2014the General Good; and it will be impossible to deny Moral\nPower to self-interest, and the transactions which spring from it, as\nfar at least as their effects are concerned.\n\nConsider the relations of man to man, family to family, province to\nprovince, nation to nation, hemisphere to hemisphere, capitalist to\nlabourer, the man of property to the man of no property,\u2014it seems\nevident to me that it is impossible to resolve the social problem\nfrom any one of these points of view, or even to enter upon its\nsolution, before choosing between these two maxims:\u2014\n\n\u2039The profit of one is the loss of another;\u203a\n\n\u2039The profit of one is the gain of another.\u203a\n\nFor if nature has arranged matters so that antagonism is the law\nof free transactions, our only resource is to vanquish nature and\nstifle Freedom. If, on the other hand, these free transactions are\nharmonious, that is to say, if they tend to ameliorate and equalize\nthe conditions of men, our efforts must be confined to allowing\nnature to act, and maintaining the rights of human Liberty.\n\nThis is the reason why I conjure the young people to whom this work\nis dedicated to scrutinize with care the formulas which it lays down,\nand to analyze the peculiar nature and effects of Exchange. I hope\nyet to find at least one among them who will be able to demonstrate\nrigorously this proposition: \u201c\u2039The good of each tends to the good of\nall, as the good of all tends to the good of each\u203a;\u201d and who will,\nmoreover, be able to impress this truth upon men\u2019s minds by rendering\nthe proof of it simple, lucid, and irrefragable. The man who does\nthis will have resolved the social problem, and be the benefactor of\nthe human race.\n\nDepend upon it, that according as this axiom is true or false, the\nnatural laws of society are harmonious or antagonistic; and that\naccording as they are harmonious or antagonistic, it is our interest\nto conform to them or to deviate from them. Were it once thoroughly\ndemonstrated, then, that under the empire of freedom men\u2019s interests\nharmonize and favour each other, all the efforts which we now see\ngovernments making to disturb the [p119] action of these natural\nsocial laws we should see directed to giving them force, or rather,\nno efforts whatever would then be necessary, and all they would\nhave to do would be to abstain from interfering. In what does the\nrestraining action of governments consist? We may infer it from\nthe design they have in view. What is that design? To remedy the\ninequality which is supposed to spring from Liberty. Now, there is\nonly one way of re-establishing the equilibrium, namely, \u2039to take\nfrom one in order to give to another\u203a. Such, in fact, is the mission\nwhich governments have arrogated to themselves, or have received;\nand it is a rigorous consequence of the formula, that \u2039the gain\nof one is the loss of another\u203a. If that axiom be true, Force must\nrepair the evils of Liberty. Thus governments, instituted for the\nprotection of liberty and property, have undertaken the task of\nviolating liberty and property in every shape; and they have done\nso consistently, if it be in liberty and property that the germ and\nprinciple of evil reside. Hence we see them everywhere engaged in the\nartificial displacement and redistribution of labour, capital, and\nresponsibility.\n\nOn the other hand, an incalculable amount of intellectual force is\nthrown away in the pursuit of artificial social organizations. \u2039To\ntake from one in order to give to another\u203a, to violate both liberty\nand property, is a very simple design, but the means of carrying out\nthat design may be varied to infinity. Hence arise multitudes of\nsystems, which strike the producing classes with terror, since from\nthe very nature of the object they have in view, they menace all\nexisting interests.\n\nThus arbitrary and complex systems of government, the negation of\nliberty and property, the antagonism of classes and nations, all\nthese are logically included in the axiom, that \u2039the gain of one\nis the loss of another\u203a. And, for the same reason, simplicity in\ngovernment, respect for individual dignity, freedom of labour and\nexchange, peace among nations, security for person and property, are\nall contained and shut up in this truth\u2014Interests are harmonious.\nThey are so, however, only on one condition, which is, that this\ntruth should be generally admitted.\n\nBut it is very far from being so. On reading what I have said on this\nsubject many people will be led to say, You break through an open\ndoor. Who ever thought of contesting seriously the superiority of\nExchange to Isolation? In what book, unless indeed in the works of\nRousseau, have you encountered this strange paradox?\n\nThose who stop me with this reflection forget only two things, two\n[p120] symptoms, or rather two aspects of modern society, the\ndoctrines with which theorists inundate us, and the practice which\ngovernments impose on us. It is quite impossible that the harmony\nof interests can be universally recognised, since, on the one hand,\npublic force is constantly engaged in interfering to disturb natural\ncombinations, while, on the other, the great complaint which is made\nagainst the ruling power is, that it does not interfere enough.\n\nThe question is this, Are the evils (I do not speak here of evils\nwhich arise from our native infirmity)\u2014are the evils to which society\nis subject imputable to the action of natural social laws, or to our\ndisturbance of that action?\n\nNow, here we have two co-existent facts, Evil,\u2014and Public Force,\nengaged to counteract the natural social laws. Is the first of these\nfacts the consequence of the second? For my own part, I believe so;\nI should even say, I am certain of it. But at the same time I can\nattest this, that in proportion as evil is developed, governments\ninvariably seek for a remedy in new disturbances of the natural laws,\nand theorists reproach them with not going far enough. Am I not\nthence entitled to conclude that they have but little confidence in\nthese laws?\n\nUndoubtedly, if the question is between Isolation and Exchange we are\nat one. But if the question be between free and compulsory exchange,\ndoes the same thing hold? Is there nothing forced, factitious,\nrestrained, constrained, in France, in the manner in which services\nwhich have relation to trade, to credit, to conveyances, to the\narts, to education, to religion, are exchanged? Are labour and\ncapital distributed naturally between agriculture and manufactures?\nWhen existing interests are disturbed, are they allowed of their\nown accord to return to their natural channels? Do we not encounter\ntrammels and obstacles on all sides? Are there not a hundred\nprofessions which are interdicted to the majority of the people?\nIs the Roman-catholic not \u2039forced\u203a to pay for the services of the\nJewish Rabbi, and the Jew for the services of the Catholic priest?\nIs there a single man in France who has received the education which\nhis parents would have given him had they been free? Are not our\nminds, our manners, our ideas, our employments, fashioned under the\n\u2039r\u00e9gime\u203a of the arbitrary, or at least of the artificial? Now, I\nask, whether thus to disturb the free exchange of services is not to\nabjure and deny the harmony of interests? On what ground am I robbed\nof my liberty, unless it be that it is judged hurtful to others? Is\nit pretended that it is injurious to myself? This would be but to add\none antagonism the more. And only think! in what a situation [p121]\nshould we find ourselves if nature had placed in each man\u2019s heart a\npermanent irrepressible spring of action, urging him to injure those\naround him, and at the same time to injure himself?\n\nAlas! we have tried everything\u2014when shall we make trial of the\nsimplest thing of all\u2014Liberty. Liberty in all that does not offend\nagainst justice\u2014liberty to live, advance, improve\u2014the free exercise\nof our faculties\u2014the free interchange of services. A beautiful and\nsolemn spectacle it would have been, had the Power which sprang from\nthe revolution of February thus addressed our citizens:\u2014\n\n\u201cYou have invested me with the public Force. I shall apply it\nexclusively to those things in which the intervention of Force is\npermissible, and there is but one\u2014Justice. I shall force every one\nto confine himself within the bounds of right. You may work freely\nand as you please during the day, and sleep in peace at night. I have\ntaken under my charge the security of person and property\u2014that is my\nmission, and I will fulfil it\u2014\u2039but I accept no other\u203a. Let there then\nbe no longer any misunderstanding between us. Henceforth you shall\npay me only the light tribute which is necessary for the maintenance\nof order and the administration of justice. Keep in mind that\nhenceforth every man must depend upon himself for his subsistence and\nadvancement. Turn no longer your longing eyes to me. Ask me no longer\nfor wealth, for employment, for credit, for education, for religion,\nfor morality. Never forget that the mainspring of your development is\nin yourselves. As for me, I never act but through the intervention\nof force. I have nothing, absolutely nothing, but what I derive from\nyou, and for this reason I cannot confer even the smallest advantage\non one except at the expense of another. Cultivate your fields,\nthen, manufacture and export your products, carry on trade, afford\neach other credit, render and receive services freely, educate your\nchildren, set them out in life, cultivate the arts, improve your\nminds, refine and purify your tastes and sentiments, unite, form\nindustrial and charitable associations, join your efforts for your\nindividual good and that of the public, follow your inclinations,\nfulfil your destinies by the free exercise of your powers, your\nideas, and your foresight. Expect from me only two things\u2014Liberty and\nSecurity\u2014and depend upon it you cannot ask me for a third without\nlosing the other two.\u201d\n\nI am thoroughly persuaded that if the revolution of February had\nproclaimed these principles we never should have had another\nrevolution. Is it possible to conceive that citizens, left perfectly\nfree in all other respects, would conspire to overturn a Power\n[p122] whose action was limited to the satisfaction of the most\npressing, the most deeply felt of all our social requirements, the\nrequirements of Justice?\n\nBut it was unfortunately impossible for the National Assembly to\nadopt this course, or make these sentiments heard. They were not in\naccordance either with the ideas of the Assembly or the expectations\nof the public. They would have terrified society as much as the\nproclamation of Communism. To be responsible to ourselves, forsooth!\nTo trust to the State only for the maintenance of order and peace!\nTo expect from it neither wealth nor knowledge! To be able no longer\nto make it responsible for our faults, our folly, our imprudence! To\ntrust only to ourselves for the means of subsistence and physical\namelioration, or moral and intellectual improvement! What on earth\nis to become of us? Is not society on the eve of being invaded by\npoverty, ignorance, error, irreligion, and perversity?\n\nWe allow that such undoubtedly would have been the fears which\nwould have manifested themselves on all sides had the revolution of\nFebruary proclaimed Liberty, that is to say, the reign of the natural\nlaws of society. Then we were either unacquainted with these laws,\nor we wanted confidence in them. We could not get rid of the idea\nthat the motives and springs of action which God has implanted in the\nmind of man are essentially perverse; that rectitude resides nowhere\nbut in the views and intentions of the governing power; that the\ntendencies of human nature lead to disorganization, to anarchy,\u2014in a\nword, we believed in the inevitable antagonism of interests.\n\nSo far was the revolution of February from displaying any tendency\ntowards a natural organization, that never were the hopes and ideas\nof French society so decidedly turned to artificial combinations\nas at that epoch. Which of these combinations was in most favour?\nI really cannot very well tell. The business, in the language of\nthe day, was to make experiments\u2014\u2039Faciamus experimentum in corpore\nvili\u203a. Such was their contempt for individuality, so thoroughly\ndid they assimilate human nature to inert matter, that they talked\nof making social experiments with men, just as we make chemical\nexperiments with acids and alkalies. The first tentative was begun at\nthe Luxembourg, we know with what success. Erelong the Constituent\nAssembly instituted a Committee of Labour, in which a thousand social\nschemes were engulfed and swallowed up. A Fourierist representative\nseriously demanded lands and money (he would soon have asked for men\nalso) to enable him to manipulate his model society. Another [p123]\n\u2039Egalitaire\u203a representative offered his recipe, which was rejected.\nThe manufacturers were more lucky, and succeeded in maintaining\ntheirs. In the meantime, the Legislative Assembly named a commission\nto organize \u201cassistance.\u201d\n\nNow, what strikes us with surprise in all this is, that the Ruling\nPower, for the sake of its own stability, did not from time to time\nthus enter its protest:\u2014\u201cYou are habituating thirty-six millions\nof men to regard the State as responsible for all the good or evil\nthat may befall them in this world. At this rate, Government is\nimpossible.\u201d\n\nAt any rate, if these various social inventions, dignified with the\nhigh sounding title of organization, differ from each other in their\nmanner of proceeding, they are all founded on the same principle:\nTake from one to give to another. Now such a principle clearly\ncould not meet with such universal sympathy from the people, unless\nthey were thoroughly convinced that men\u2019s interests are naturally\nantagonistic, and that the tendencies of human nature are essentially\nperverse.\n\nTo take from one to give to another! I know well that things have\ngone on in this way for a long time. But before you set yourselves\nto imagine various means of realizing this whimsical principle for\nthe remedy of existing distress, would it not be well to inquire\nwhether that distress has not proceeded from the very fact that this\nprinciple in a certain form has been realized already? Before seeking\na remedy in new disturbances of the natural social laws, should you\nnot make sure that such perturbations do not themselves constitute\nthe very evil from which society suffers, and which it is your object\nto cure?\n\nTo take from one in order to give to another! Just allow me to mark\nhere the danger and the absurdity, in an economical point of view,\nof this so-called \u2039social\u203a aspiration, which, fermenting among the\nmasses of our population, broke forth with so terrific a force in the\nrevolution of February.[27]\n\nWhere society consists of several grades, we are apt to think that\npeople of the highest rank enjoy Privileges or Monopolies at the\nexpense of all the other members of the community. This is odious,\nbut it is not absurd.\n\nThe second grade, the class immediately below the first, will not\nfail to attack and batter down monopolies; and, with the assistance\nof the masses, they will succeed sooner or later in bringing about\na Revolution. In that case, power passes into their hands, and they\nstill think that power implies Monopoly. [p124] This is still\nodious, but it is not absurd, at least it is not impracticable; for\nMonopolies are possible as long as there is, below the grade which\nenjoys them, a lower stratum\u2014namely, the public at large, which\nsupports and feeds them. If the third and fourth grade succeed, in\ntheir turn, in effecting a revolution, they will, if they can, so\narrange as to make the most of the masses, by means of privileges\nor monopolies skilfully combined. But then the masses, emaciated,\nground down, trampled upon, must also have their revolution. Why?\nWhat are they going to do? You think, perhaps, that they are going\nto abolish all monopolies and privileges, and to inaugurate the\nreign of universal justice; that they are about to exclaim\u2014away\nwith restrictions\u2014away with shackles and trammels\u2014away with\nmonopolies\u2014away with Government interferences for the profit of\ncertain classes; begone taxes and grinding impositions; down with\npolitical and diplomatic intrigues? Not at all. They have quite\nanother aim. They become their own solicitors, and in their turn\ndemand to be \u2039privileged\u203a! The public at large, imitating their\nsuperiors, ask for monopolies! They urge their right to employment,\ntheir right to credit, their right to education, their right to\nassistance! But at whose expense? They are easy on that score. They\nfeel only that, if they are ensured employment, credit, education\nfor their children, repose for their old days, and all gratis, they\nwill be exceedingly happy; and, truly, no one disputes it. But is it\npossible? Alas! no; and this is the reason why I say that here the\nodious disappears, and the absurd has reached its climax.\n\nMonopolies to the masses! Good people, reflect a little on the\nvicious circle in which you are placing yourselves. Monopoly implies\nsome one to enjoy it, and some one to pay for it. We can understand a\nprivileged man, or a privileged class, but not a privileged people.\nIs there below you a still lower stratum of society upon which you\ncan throw back the burden? Will you never comprehend the whimsical\nmystification of which you are the dupes? Will you never understand\nthat the state can give you nothing with the one hand but what it\nhas taken from you with the other? that, far from there being for\nyou in this combination any possible increase of prosperity, the\nfinal result of the operation must be an arbitrary Government, more\nvexatious, more exacting, more uncertain, more expensive;\u2014heavier\ntaxes,\u2014more injustice, more offensive favouritism,\u2014liberty more\nrestrained,\u2014power thrown away,\u2014occupations, labour, and capital\ndisplaced,\u2014covetousness excited,\u2014discontent provoked,\u2014and individual\nenergy extinguished? [p125]\n\nThe upper classes have got alarmed, and not without reason, at\nthis unhappy disposition of the masses. They see in it the germ of\nincessant revolutions; for what Government can hold together which\nhas ventured to say\u2014\u201cI am in possession of force, and I will employ\nit to support everybody at the expense of everybody? I undertake\nto become responsible for the general happiness.\u201d But is not the\nalarm which has seized these classes a just and merited punishment?\nHave they not themselves set the people the fatal example of that\ngrasping disposition of which they now complain? Have they not had\ntheir own eyes perpetually turned to the treasury? Have they ever\nfailed to secure some monopoly, some privilege, great or small, to\nmanufactures, to banks, to mines, to landed property, to the arts,\neven to the means of diversion, to the ballet, to the opera, to\neverything and everybody, in short; except to the industry of the\npeople\u2014to manual labour? Have they not multiplied beyond bounds\npublic employments, in order to increase, at the expense of the\npeople, their own resources? and is there at this day a single head\nof a family in France who is not on the outlook for a \u2039place\u203a for\nhis son? Have they ever endeavoured to get rid of any one of the\nacknowledged inequalities of taxation? Have they not for a long time\nturned to account everything, even the electoral franchise? And yet\nthey are astonished and horrified that the people should adopt the\nsame course. When the spirit of mendicity has so long infected the\nwealthy orders, how can we suppose that it will not penetrate to the\nheart of the suffering masses?\n\nHowever, a great revolution has taken place. Political power, the\npower of making the laws, the disposal of the public force, has\npassed virtually, if not yet in fact, into the hands of the people\nalong with universal suffrage. Thus the people, who have proposed the\nproblem for solution, will be called upon to solve it themselves:\nand woe to the country, if, following the example which has been\nset them, they seek its solution in Privilege, which is always an\ninvasion of another\u2019s rights. They will find themselves mistaken, and\nthe mistake will bring with it a great lesson; for if it be possible\nto violate the rights of the many for the benefit of the few, how can\nwe violate the rights of all for the benefit of all? But at what cost\nwill this lesson be taught us? And, in order to obviate so frightful\na danger, what ought the upper classes to do? Two things\u2014renounce\nall privileges and monopolies themselves, and enlighten the masses,\nfor there are only two things which can save society\u2014Justice and\nKnowledge. They ought to inquire with earnestness whether they do not\nenjoy [p126] some monopoly or other, in order that they may renounce\nit\u2014whether they do not profit by some artificial inequalities, in\norder that they may efface them\u2014whether Pauperism is not in some\nmeasure attributable to a disturbance of the natural social laws,\nin order that they may put an end to it. They should be able to\nhold out their hands to the people, and say to them, These hands\nare full, but they are clean. Is this what they actually do? If I\nam not very much mistaken, they do just the reverse. They begin by\nguarding their monopolies, and we have seen them even turning the\nrevolution to profit by attempting to extend these monopolies. After\nhaving deprived themselves of even the possibility of speaking the\ntruth and appealing to principles, they endeavour to vindicate their\nconsistency by engaging to treat the people as they have treated\nthemselves, and dazzle them with the bait of Privilege. Only, they\nthink themselves very knowing in conceding at present only a small\nprivilege, the right to \u201cassistance,\u201d in the hope of diverting them\nfrom demanding a greater one\u2014the right to employment. They do not\nperceive that to extend and systematize more and more the maxim,\n\u201cTake from one to give to another,\u201d is only to strengthen the\nillusion which creates difficulties for the present and dangers for\nthe future.\n\nWe must not exaggerate, however. When the superior classes seek in\nprivilege a remedy for the evils which privilege has caused, they are\nsincere, and act, I am convinced, rather from ignorance than from any\ndesire to commit injustice. It is an irreparable misfortune that the\ngovernments which have succeeded each other in France have invariably\ndiscouraged the teaching of Political Economy. And it is a still\ngreater misfortune that University Education fills all our heads\nwith Roman prejudices; in other words, with all that is repugnant\nto social truth. This is what leads the upper classes astray. It\nis the fashion at present to declaim against these classes. For my\nown part, I believe that at no period have their intentions been\nmore benevolent. I believe that they ardently desire to solve the\nsocial Problem. I believe that they would do more than renounce\ntheir privileges,\u2014that they would sacrifice willingly, in works of\ncharity, a part of the property they have acquired, if by that means\nthey were satisfied that an end could be put to the sufferings of the\nworking classes. It may be said, no doubt, that they are actuated by\ninterest or fear, and that it is no great generosity to abandon a\npart of their fortune to save the remainder,\u2014that it is, in fact, but\nthe vulgar prudence of a man who insures his property against fire.\nBut let us not thus calumniate human nature. Why should we refuse to\n[p127] recognise a motive less egotistical? Is it not very natural\nthat the democratic sentiments which prevail in our country should\nrender men alive to the sufferings of their brethren? But whatever\nmay be the dominant sentiment, it cannot be denied that everything by\nwhich public opinion is influenced\u2014philosophy, literature, poetry,\nthe drama, the pulpit, the tribune, the daily press,\u2014all these organs\nof opinion reveal not only a desire, but an ardent longing, on the\npart of the wealthier classes to resolve the great problem. Why,\nthen, is there no movement on the part of our Legislative Assemblies?\nBecause they are ignorant. Political Economy proposes to them this\nsolution:\u2014\u00abPublic Justice\u00bb,\u2014\u00abPrivate Charity\u00bb. But they go off upon a\nwrong scent, and, obeying socialist influences, without being aware\nof the fact, they give charity a place in the statute-book, thereby\nbanishing justice from it, and destroying by the same act private\ncharity, which is ever prompt to recede before a compulsory poor-rate.\n\nWhy, then, do our legislators thus run counter to all sound notions?\nWhy do they not leave things in their proper place,\u2014Sympathy in its\nnatural domain, which is Liberty,\u2014Justice in its own, which is Law?\nWhy do they not leave law to do its own exclusive work in furthering\njustice? Is it that they have no love of justice? No; it is that they\nhave no confidence in it. Justice is Liberty and Property. But they\nare socialists without knowing it; and for the progressive diminution\nof poverty, and the indefinite expansion of wealth, let them say what\nthey will, they have no faith either in liberty or property, nor,\nconsequently, in justice. This is why we see them, in the sincerity\nof their hearts, seeking the realization of what is Good by the\nperpetual violation of what is Right.\n\n\u2039Natural social laws\u203a are the phenomena, taken in the aggregate, and\nconsidered in reference both to their motives and their results,\nwhich govern the transactions of men in a state of freedom.\n\nThat being granted, the question is, Are we to allow these laws to\nact, or are we to hinder them from acting?\n\nThe question, in fact, comes to this:\n\nAre we to leave every man master of his liberty and property, his\nright to produce, and exchange his produce, as he chooses, whether\nto his benefit or detriment; or are we to interfere by means of\nlaw, which is Force, for the protection of these rights? Or, can we\nhope to secure a greater amount of social happiness by violating\nliberty and property, by interfering with and regulating labour, by\ndisturbing exchanges, and shifting responsibility?\n\nIn other words: [p128]\n\nIs Law to enforce rigorous Justice, or to be the instrument of\nSpoliation, organized with more or less adroitness?\n\nIt is very evident that the solution of these questions depends upon\nour knowledge and study of the natural laws of society. We cannot\npronounce conclusively upon them until we have discovered whether\nproperty, liberty, the combination of services freely and voluntarily\nexchanged, lead to improvement and material prosperity, as the\neconomists believe, or to ruin and degradation, as the socialists\naffirm.\n\nIn the first case, social evils must be attributed to disturbances of\nthe natural laws, to legal violations of liberty and property, and\nthese disturbances and violations must be put an end to. In that case\nPolitical Economy is right.\n\nIn the second case, it may be said, we have not yet had enough of\nGovernment interference. Forced and factitious combinations have not\nyet sufficiently superseded free and natural combinations. These\nthree fatal principles, Justice, Liberty, Property, have still too\npowerful a sway. Our legislators have not yet attacked them boldly\nenough. We have not yet acted sufficiently on the maxim of \u2039taking\nfrom one in order to give to another\u203a. Hitherto we have taken from\nthe many to give to the few. Now, we must take from all to give to\nall. In a word, we must organize Spoliation, and from Socialism must\ncome our salvation.[28]\n\n\u2039Fatal Illusions which spring from Exchange.\u203a\u2014Exchange is society.\nConsequently, economic truth consists in a complete view of Exchange;\neconomic error in a partial view of it.\n\nIf man did not exchange, each economic phenomenon would be\naccomplished in a single individual, and it would be very easy to\ndiscover from observation its good and its bad effects.\n\nBut Exchange has given rise to the separation of occupations, or, in\nother words, to the establishment of trades and professions. Each\nservice (or each product) has, then, two relations, one with the\nperson who furnishes it, and the other with the person who receives\nit.\n\nUndoubtedly, at the end of the evolution, man in a social state,\nlike man in a state of isolation, is at once producer and consumer,\nbut we must see clearly the difference. Man in an isolated state is\nalways the producer of the very thing he consumes, which almost never\nhappens with man in the social state. This is an unquestionable\nfact, which every one can verify for himself. It [p129] follows,\nmoreover, from this that the social state consists in an interchange\nof services.\n\nWe are all producers and consumers, not of the thing, but of the\nvalue, that we have produced. In exchanging commodities we remain\nalways possessed of their value.\n\nIt is this which gives rise to all economic errors and illusions, and\nit may not be useless to mark here the progress of the human mind in\nthis respect.\n\nWe give the general name of \u2039obstacle\u203a to everything which, being\ninterposed between our wants and our satisfactions, calls for the\nintervention of our efforts.\n\nThe relations of these four elements\u2014want, obstacle, effort,\nsatisfaction\u2014are quite apparent, and easily understood in isolated\nman. We should never think of saying\u2014\n\n\u201cIt is a pity that Robinson Crusoe did not encounter more\n\u2039obstacles\u203a, for in that case he would have had more opportunities of\nexerting his energies\u2014he would have been richer.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt is unfortunate that the sea should have cast upon the shore\nof the desert island useful articles, such as timber, provisions,\narms, books; for this deprived him of the opportunity of exerting\nhimself\u2014it made him less rich.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt is to be regretted that Robinson invented nets to take fish and\ngame, for that diminished by so much his efforts in relation to each\ngiven result\u2014it made him less rich.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt is a pity that Robinson was not more frequently sick, for then\nhe must have set to doctoring himself, which is labour; and as all\nwealth comes from labour, he would have been more wealthy on that\naccount.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt is a pity that he succeeded in extinguishing the fire which\nthreatened his cabin. He lost thus a precious opportunity of work\u2014and\nwas so much the poorer.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt is unfortunate that in the desert island the soil was not more\nungrateful, the spring at a greater distance, the day shorter. For\nthen Robinson must have exerted himself more to procure food, drink,\nand light, and he would have been so much the richer by the exertion.\u201d\n\nI say that no one in his senses would ever think of putting forth\nas oracles of truth propositions so absurd. It would be too glaring\nan evidence that wealth does not depend upon the intensity of the\neffort in proportion to the satisfaction obtained, and that it is\njust the contrary which is true. We should then understand that\nwealth consists neither in the Want, nor in the Obstacle, nor in\nthe Effort, but in the Satisfaction; and we should not hesitate to\n[p130] acknowledge that, although Robinson Crusoe was both producer\nand consumer, yet, in order to judge of his progress, we must have\nreference, not to his labour, but to its results. In short, in laying\ndown the axiom that \u201cthe paramount interest is that of the consumer,\u201d\nwe believe we are merely giving utterance to a \u2039truism\u203a.\n\nHappy will it be for nations when they discern clearly how and why\nwhat we have found true or false of man in a state of isolation is\nequally true or false of man in his social state!\n\nIt is absolutely certain, however, that the five or six propositions\nwhich have appeared to us not only false, but absurd, when applied\nto the island of Juan Fernandez, appear, when applied to our own\ncountry, so incontestably true, that they serve as the basis of\nour whole economic legislation. On the other hand, the axiom which\nappears to us to be truth itself when applied to an individual, is\nnever invoked in the name of society without calling forth a smile of\ncontempt.\n\nIs it true, then, that Exchange so alters our individual organization\nthat what makes individual poverty constitutes social riches?\n\nNo, it is not true, but it is plausible\u2014so very plausible as to be\ngenerally believed.\n\nSociety consists in this\u2014that we work for one another. The more\nservices we render, the more services we receive, and we receive more\nin proportion as our own are more appreciated\u2014more in demand. On the\nother hand, the separation of occupations, the division of labour,\ncauses each of us to apply his efforts to the removal of obstacles\nwhich stand in the way of the enjoyments of others. The agricultural\nlabourer combats the obstacle called hunger\u2014the physician, the\nobstacle called disease\u2014the clergyman, the obstacle called vice\u2014the\nauthor, the obstacle called ignorance\u2014the coal miner, the obstacle\ncalled cold, etc., etc.\n\nAnd as those around us are more disposed to remunerate our services\nin proportion as they feel more keenly the particular obstacle which\nstands in their own way, it follows that we are all disposed, in this\npoint of view, and as producers, to magnify the obstacle which it\nis our peculiar business to overcome. We consider ourselves richer\nif such obstacles are multiplied, and we reason from particulars\nto generals\u2014from our own individual advantage to the public\ngood.[29]\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. [p131]\n\n\n\n\n V.\n OF VALUE.\n\n\nAll dissertations are wearisome\u2014a dissertation on Value the most\nwearisome of all.\n\nWhat unpractised writer, who has had to face an Economic problem, but\nhas tried to resolve it without reference to any definition of value?\n\nYet he soon finds he has engaged in a vain attempt. The theory of\nValue is to Political Economy what numeration is to arithmetic. In\nwhat inextricable confusion would not Bezout have landed himself, if,\nto save labour to his pupils, he had undertaken to teach them the\nfour rules and proportion, without having previously explained the\nvalue which the figures derive from their form and position?\n\nThe truth is, if the reader could only foresee the beautiful\nconsequences deducible from the theory of Value, he would undertake\nthe labour of mastering the first principles of Economical Science\nwith the same cheerfulness that one submits to the drudgery of\nGeometry, in prospect of the magnificent field which it opens to our\nintelligence.\n\nBut this intuitive foresight is not to be expected; and the more\npains I should take to establish the distinction between Value and\nUtility, or between Value and Labour, in order to show how natural it\nis that this should form a stumbling-block at the very threshold of\nthe science, the more wearisome I should become. The reader would see\nin such a discussion only barren and idle subtleties, calculated at\nbest to satisfy the curiosity of Economists by profession.\n\nYou are inquiring laboriously, it may be said, whether wealth\nconsists in the Utility of things, or in their Value, or in their\nrarity. Is not this like the question of the schoolmen, Does form\nreside in the substance or in the accident? Are you not afraid\n[p132] that some street Moli\u00e8re will hold you up to public ridicule\nat the Th\u00e9\u00e2tre des Vari\u00e9t\u00e9s?\n\nYet truth obliges me to say that, in an economical point of view,\nSociety is Exchange. The primary element of Exchange is the notion\nof \u2039Value\u203a, so that every truth and every error which this word\nintroduces into men\u2019s minds is a social truth or error.\n\nI undertake in this work to demonstrate the Harmony of those laws\nof Providence which govern human society. What makes these laws\nharmonious and not discordant is, that all principles, all motives,\nall springs of action, all interests, co-operate towards a grand\nfinal result, which humanity will never reach by reason of its native\n\u2039imperfection\u203a, but to which it will always approximate more and more\nby reason of its unlimited \u2039capability of improvement\u203a. And that\nresult is, the indefinite approximation of all classes towards a\nlevel, which is always rising; in other words, the \u2039equalization\u203a of\nindividuals in the general \u2039amelioration\u203a.\n\nBut to attain my object. I must explain two things, namely,\n\n\u20391st\u203a, That \u2039Utility\u203a has a tendency to become more and more\n\u2039gratuitous\u203a, more and more \u2039common\u203a, as it gradually recedes from\nthe domain of individual \u2039appropriation\u203a.\n\n\u20392d\u203a, That \u2039Value\u203a, on the other hand, which alone is capable of\nappropriation, which alone constitutes property legitimately and in\nfact, has a tendency to diminish more and more in relation to the\nutility to which it is attached.\n\nSuch a demonstration\u2014founded on Property, but only on the property\nof which Value is the subject, and on Community, but only on the\ncommunity of utility,\u2014such a demonstration, I say, must satisfy\nand reconcile all schools, by conceding to them that all have had\na glimpse of the truth, but only of partial truth, regarded from\ndifferent points of view.\n\nEconomists! you defend property. There is in the social order no\nother property than that of which \u2039Value\u203a is the subject, and that is\nimmovable and unassailable.\n\nCommunists! you dream of Community. You have got it. The social order\nrenders all \u2039utilities\u203a common, provided the exchange of those values\nwhich have been appropriated is free.\n\nYou are like architects who dispute about a monument of which each\nhas seen only one side. They don\u2019t see \u2039ill\u203a, but they don\u2019t see\n\u2039all\u203a. To make them agree, it is only necessary to ask them to walk\nround the edifice.\n\nBut how am I to reconstruct the social edifice, so as to exhibit\nto mankind all its beautiful harmony, if I reject its two corner\nstones. Utility and Value? How can I bring about the desired [p133]\nreconciliation of various schools upon the platform of truth if I\nshun the analysis of these two ideas, although the dissidence has\narisen from the unhappy confusion which they have caused?\n\nI have felt this kind of introduction necessary, in order, if\npossible, to secure from the reader a moment\u2019s attention, and relieve\nhim from fatigue and ennui. I am much mistaken if the consoling\nbeauty of the consequences will not amply make up for the dryness of\nthe premises. Had Newton allowed himself to be repulsed at the outset\nby a distaste for elementary mathematics, never would his heart\nhave beat with rapture on beholding the harmonies of the celestial\nmechanism; and I maintain that it is only necessary to make our\nway manfully to an acquaintance with certain first principles, in\norder to be convinced that God has displayed in the social mechanism\ngoodness no less touching, simplicity no less admirable, splendour no\nless magnificent.\n\nIn the first chapter we viewed man as both \u2039active\u203a and \u2039passive\u203a,\nand we saw that \u2039Want\u203a and \u2039Satisfaction\u203a, acting on \u2039sensibility\u203a\nalone, were in their own nature personal, peculiar, and\nintransmissible; that \u2039Effort\u203a, on the contrary, the connecting link\nbetween Want and Satisfaction, the \u2039mean\u203a term between the motive\nprinciple of action and the end we have in view, proceeding from our\n\u2039activity\u203a, our spontaneity, our will, was susceptible of conventions\nand of transmission. I know that, metaphysically, no one can contest\nthis assertion, and maintain that Effort also is personal. I have no\ndesire to enter the territory of ideology, and I hope that my view\nof the subject will be admitted without controversy when put in this\nvulgar form:\u2014We cannot \u2039feel\u203a the wants of others\u2014we cannot \u2039feel\u203a\nthe satisfactions of others; but we can \u2039render service\u203a one to\nanother.\n\nIt is this transmission of efforts, this exchange of services, which\nforms the subject of Political Economy; and since, on the other hand,\neconomical science is condensed and summed up in the word \u2039Value\u203a, of\nwhich it is only a lengthened explanation, it follows that the notion\nof value would be imperfectly, erroneously, conceived if we were\nto found it upon the extreme phenomena of our sensibility\u2014namely,\nour \u2039Wants\u203a and \u2039Satisfactions\u203a\u2014phenomena which are personal,\nintransmissible, and \u2039incommensurable\u203a as between two individuals, in\nplace of founding it on the manifestations of our \u2039activity\u203a, upon\n\u2039efforts\u203a, upon reciprocal \u2039services\u203a, which are interchanged because\nthey are susceptible of being compared, appreciated, \u2039estimated\u203a,\nand which are capable of being estimated precisely because they are\ncapable of being interchanged.\n\nIn the same chapter we arrived at the following formulas:\u2014 [p134]\n\n\u201c\u2039Utility\u203a (the property which certain things and certain acts have\nof serving us, of being useful to us) is complex,\u2014one part we owe to\nthe action of nature, another to the action of man.\u201d\u2014\u201cWith reference\nto a given result, the more nature has done the less remains for\nhuman action to do.\u201d\u2014\u201cThe co-operation of nature is essentially\n\u2039gratuitous\u203a\u2014the co-operation of man, whether intellectual or\nmuscular, exchanged or not, collective or solitary, is essentially\n\u2039onerous\u203a, as indeed the word \u2039Effort\u203a implies.\u201d\n\nAnd as what is \u2039gratuitous\u203a cannot possess \u2039value\u203a, since the idea of\n\u2039value\u203a implies \u2039onerous\u203a acquisition, it follows that the notion of\nValue would be still erroneously conceived, if we were to extend it,\nin whole or in part, to the gifts or to the co-operation of nature,\ninstead of restricting it exclusively to human co-operation.\n\nThus, from both sides, by two different roads, we arrive at this\nconclusion, that \u2039value\u203a must have reference to the \u2039efforts\u203a which\nmen make in order to obtain the \u2039satisfaction\u203a of their \u2039wants\u203a.\n\nIn the third chapter we have established that man cannot exist in a\nstate of isolation. But if, by an effort of imagination, we fancy him\nplaced in that chimerical situation, that state \u2039contrary to nature\u203a,\nwhich the writers of the eighteenth century extolled as the \u2039state of\nnature\u203a, we shall not fail to see that it does not disclose to us the\nidea of Value, although it presents the manifestation of the active\nprinciple which we have termed \u2039effort\u203a. The reason is obvious. Value\nimplies comparison, appreciation, \u2039estimation\u203a, measure. In order\nthat two things should measure each other, it is necessary that they\nbe commensurable, and, in order to that, they must be of the same\nkind. In a state of isolation, with what could we compare effort?\nWith want? With satisfaction? In that case, we could go no farther\nthan to pronounce that the effort was more or less appropriate, more\nor less opportune. In the social state, what we compare (and it is\nthis comparison which gives rise to the idea of Value) is the effort\nof one man with the effort of another man,\u2014two phenomena of the same\nnature, and, consequently, \u2039commensurable\u203a.\n\nThus, the definition of the word Value, in order to be exact, must\nhave reference not only to human efforts, but likewise to those\nefforts which are exchanged or exchangeable. Exchange does more than\nexhibit and measure values\u2014it gives them existence. I do not mean\nto say that it gives existence to the acts and the things which are\nexchanged, but it imparts to their existence the notion of \u2039value\u203a.\n\nNow, when two men transfer to each other their present efforts, or\nmake over mutually the results of their anterior [p135] efforts,\nthey \u2039serve\u203a each other; they render each other reciprocal \u2039service\u203a.\n\nI say, then, \u00abValue is the relation of two services exchanged\u00bb.\n\nThe idea of \u2039value\u203a entered into the world the first time that a man\nhaving said to his brother, Do this for me, and I shall do that for\nyou\u2014they have come to an agreement; for then, for the first time, we\ncould say\u2014The two \u2039services\u203a exchanged are \u2039worth each other\u203a.\n\nIt is singular enough that the true theory of value, which we search\nfor in vain in many a ponderous volume, is to be found in Florian\u2019s\nbeautiful fable of \u2039l\u2019Aveugle et le Paralytique\u203a,\u2014\n\n                     Aidons\u2014nous mutuellement,\n  La charge des malheurs en sera plus l\u00e9g\u00e8re.\n              \u00a0    .\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. A nous deux\n  Nous poss\u00e9dons le bien \u00e0 chacun n\u00e9cessaire.\n             J\u2019ai des jambes, et vous des yeux.\n  Moi, je vais vous porter; vous, vous serez mon guide:\n  Ainsi, sans que jamais notre amiti\u00e9 d\u00e9cide\n  Qui de nous deux remplit le plus utile emploi,\n  Je marcherai pour vous, vous y verrez pour moi.\n\nHere you have value discovered and defined. Here you have it in\nits rigorous economic exactitude, excepting the touching trait\nrelative to friendship, which carries us into another sphere, that\nof sympathy. We may conceive two unfortunates rendering each other\nreciprocal \u2039service\u203a, without inquiring too curiously \u2039which of the\ntwo discharged the most useful employment\u203a. The exceptional situation\nimagined by the fabulist explains sufficiently that the principle\nof sympathy, acting with great force, comes to absorb, so to speak,\nthe minute appreciation of the services exchanged\u2014an appreciation,\nhowever, which is indispensable in order to disengage completely\nthe idea of Value. That idea would be complete if all men, or the\nmajority of them, were struck with paralysis or blindness; for the\ninexorable law of supply and demand would then predominate, and,\ncausing the permanent sacrifice accepted by him who fulfils the more\nuseful employment to disappear, would restore the transaction to the\ndomain of justice.\n\nWe are all blind or impotent in some respects, and we soon come to\nunderstand that, by assisting each other, \u2039the burden of misfortune\nis lightened\u203a. Hence \u00abExchange\u00bb. We labour in order to feed, clothe,\nshelter, enlighten, cure, defend, instruct one another. Hence\nreciprocal \u00abServices\u00bb. We compare, we discuss, we \u2039estimate\u203a or\n\u2039appreciate\u203a these services. Hence \u00abValue\u00bb.\n\nA multitude of circumstances may augment the relative importance of a\nService. We find it greater or less, according as it is more or less\nuseful to us\u2014according as a greater or less number of [p136] people\nare disposed to render it to us\u2014according as it exacts from them more\nor less labour, trouble, skill, time, previous study,\u2014and according\nas it saves more or less of these to ourselves. Value depends not\nonly on these circumstances, but on the judgment we form of them; for\nit may happen, and it happens frequently, that we esteem a service\nvery highly because we judge it very useful, while in reality it is\nhurtful. This is the reason why vanity, ignorance, error, exert a\ncertain influence on the essentially elastic and flexible relation\nwhich we denominate \u2039value\u203a; and we may affirm that the appreciation\nof services tends to approximate more to absolute truth and justice\nin proportion as men become more enlightened, more moral, and more\nrefined.\n\nHitherto the principle of Value has been sought for in one of those\ncircumstances which augment or which diminish it, materiality,\ndurableness, utility, scarcity, labour, difficulty of acquisition,\njudgment, etc., and hence a false direction has been given to the\nscience from the beginning; for the accident which modifies the\nphenomenon is not the phenomenon itself. Moreover, each author\nhas constituted himself the sponsor, so to speak, of some special\ncircumstance which he thinks preponderates,\u2014the constant result of\ngeneralizing; for all is in all, and there is nothing which we cannot\ncomprehend under a term by means of extending its sense. Thus the\nprinciple of value, according to Adam Smith, resides in materiality\nand durability; according to Jean Baptiste Say, in utility; according\nto Ricardo, in labour; according to Senior, in rarity; according to\nStorch, in the judgment we form, etc.\n\nThe consequence has been what might have been expected. These authors\nhave unwittingly injured the authority and dignity of the science\nby appearing to contradict each other; while in reality each is\nright, as from his own point of view. Besides, they have involved the\nfirst principles of Political Economy in a labyrinth of inextricable\ndifficulties; for the same words, as used by these authors, no longer\nrepresent the same ideas; and, moreover, although a circumstance\nmay be proclaimed fundamental, other circumstances stand out too\nprominently to be neglected, and definitions are thus constantly\nenlarged.\n\nThe object of the present work is not controversy, but exposition. I\nexplain what I myself see, not what others have seen. I cannot avoid,\nhowever, calling the attention of the reader to the circumstances\nin which the foundation of Value has hitherto been sought for. But,\nfirst of all, I must bring Value itself before him in a series of\nexamples, for it is by divers applications that the mind lays hold of\na theory. [p137]\n\nI shall demonstrate how all is definitely resolved into a barter of\nservices; but it is necessary to keep in mind what has been said\non the subject of barter in the preceding chapter. It is rarely\nsimple\u2014sometimes it forms a circular or round-about transaction among\nseveral parties,\u2014most frequently, by the intervention of money, it\nresolves itself into two factors, \u2039sale\u203a and \u2039purchase\u203a; but as this\ncomplication does not change its nature, I may be permitted, for the\nsake of perspicuity, to assume the barter to be direct and immediate.\nThis will lead to no mistake as to the nature of Value.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWe are all born with an imperious material want, which must be\nsatisfied under pain of death, I mean that of breathing. On the other\nhand, we all exist in a medium which, in general, supplies that want\nwithout the intervention of any effort on our part. Atmospheric air,\nthen, has utility without having \u2039value\u203a. It has no Value, because,\nrequiring no Effort, it gives rise to no service. To render a service\nto any one is to save him trouble; and where it is not necessary to\ntake pains in order to realize a satisfaction, no trouble can be\nsaved.\n\nBut if a man descend to the bottom of a river in a diving-bell, a\nforeign substance is interposed between the air and his lungs, and,\nin order to re-establish the communication, a pump must be employed.\nHere there is an effort to make, pains to take, and the man below\ndesires the exertion, for it is a matter of life or death, and he\ncannot possibly secure to himself a greater \u2039service\u203a.\n\nInstead of making this effort himself, he calls on me to make it for\nhim, and, in order to induce me to do so, he undertakes in turn to\nmake an exertion from which I may reap satisfaction. We discuss the\nmatter, and come to an agreement. Now, what do we discover here? two\nwants, two satisfactions, which are not inconsistent with each other;\ntwo efforts, which are the subject of a voluntary transaction; two\n\u2039services\u203a, which are exchanged,\u2014and \u2039value\u203a makes its appearance.\n\nNow, we are told that utility is the foundation of value; and as\nutility is inherent in the air, we are led to think that it is the\nsame in regard to value. There is here an evident confusion of\nideas. The air, from its nature, has physical properties in harmony\nwith one of our physical organs, the lungs. The portion which I\ndraw from the atmosphere in order to fill the diving-bell does not\nchange its nature\u2014it is still oxygen and azote. No new physical\nquality is combined with it, no reacting power brings out of it a new\nelement called \u2039value\u203a. \u2039That\u203a springs exclusively from the service\nrendered. [p138]\n\nIf, in laying down the general principle, that Utility is the\nfoundation of Value, you mean that the Service has value because it\nis useful to him who receives it and pays for it, I allow the truth\nof what you say. It is a truism implied in the very word \u2039service\u203a.\n\nBut we must not confound the utility of the air with the utility\nof the service. They are two utilities distinct from each other,\ndifferent in nature, different in kind, which bear no proportion to\none another, and have no necessary relation. There are circumstances\nin which, with very slight exertion, by rendering a very small\nservice, or saving very little trouble, I may bring within the reach\nof another an article of very great intrinsic \u2039utility\u203a.\n\nTake the case of the diving-bell, and consider how the parties to\nthe supposed bargain manage to estimate the value of the \u2039service\u203a\nrendered by the one to the other in supplying him with atmospheric\nair. We must have a point of comparison, and that point of comparison\ncan only be in the \u2039service\u203a which the diver renders in return. Their\nreciprocal demands will depend on their relative situation, on the\nintensity of their desires, on the greater or less need they have of\neach other, and on a multitude of circumstances which demonstrate\nthat the value is in the Service, since it increases with the service.\n\nThe reader may easily vary the hypothesis, so as to convince himself\nthat the Value is not necessarily proportionate to the intensity of\nthe efforts,\u2014a remark which I set down here as a connecting link in\nthe chain of reasoning, and of which I shall afterwards have occasion\nto make use; for my object is to prove that Value no more resides in\nlabour than it does in utility.\n\nNature has so constituted me that I must die if I am deprived of an\nopportunity, from time to time, of quenching my thirst, and the well\nis a league from the village. For this reason, I take the trouble\nevery morning to go thither to fetch the water of which I have need,\nfor in water I have recognised those \u2039useful\u203a qualities which are\ncalculated to assuage the suffering called thirst. Want, Effort,\nSatisfaction\u2014we have them all here. I have found Utility\u2014I have not\nyet found Value.\n\nBut, as my neighbour goes also to the fountain, I say to him\u2014\u201c\u2039Save\nme the pains\u203a of this journey\u2014\u2039render me the service\u203a of bringing\nme water. During the time you are so occupied, I shall do something\nfor you, I shall teach your child to spell.\u201d This arrangement suits\nus both. Here is an exchange of two services, and we are enabled to\npronounce that the one is \u2039worth\u203a the other. The things compared here\nare two efforts, not two wants and two [p139] satisfactions; for by\nwhat common standard should we compare the benefit of drinking water\nand that of learning to spell?\n\nBy-and-by I say to my neighbour\u2014\u201cYour child troubles me\u2014I should like\nbetter to do something else for you. You shall continue to bring me\nwater, and I shall give you twopence.\u201d If the proposal is agreed\nto, the Economist may, without fear of mistake, pronounce that \u2039the\nservice\u203a \u00abIS WORTH\u00bb \u2039twopence\u203a.\n\nAfterwards, my neighbour no longer waits to be requested. He knows by\nexperience that every day I want water. He anticipates my wishes. At\nthe same time, he provides water for the other villagers. In short,\nhe becomes a water merchant. It is then that we begin to say, \u2039the\nwater\u203a \u00abIS WORTH\u00bb \u2039twopence\u203a.\n\nHas the water, then, changed its nature? Has the Value, which\nwas but now in the service, become materialized and incorporated\nin the water, as if it were a new chemical element? Has a slight\nmodification in the form of the arrangement between my neighbour and\nme had the power to displace the principle of \u2039value\u203a and change its\nnature? I am not purist enough to find fault with your saying that\nthe \u2039water is worth twopence\u203a, just as you say \u2039the sun sets\u203a. But we\nmust remember that metaphors and metonymies do not affect the truth\nof facts; and that, in strict scientific language, value can no more\nbe said to reside in the water than the sun can be said to go to rest\nin the sea.\n\nLet us attribute, then, to things the peculiar qualities which belong\nto them\u2014to air, to water, \u2039utility\u203a\u2014to services, \u2039value\u203a. We may say\nwith propriety that water is \u2039useful\u203a, because it has the property\nof allaying thirst; and it is the service which \u2039has value\u203a, because\nit is the subject of a convention previously debated and discussed.\nSo true is this, that if the well is brought nearer, or removed to a\ngreater distance, the Utility of the water remains the same, but its\nvalue is diminished or increased. Why? because the \u2039service\u203a is less\nor greater. The \u2039value\u203a, then, is in the \u2039service\u203a, seeing that it\nis increased or diminished according as the service is increased or\ndiminished.\n\nThe \u2039diamond\u203a makes a great figure in works of Political Economy.\nIt is adduced as an illustration of the laws of Value, or of the\nsupposed disturbance of those laws. It is a brilliant weapon with\nwhich all the schools do battle. The English school asserts that\n\u201cValue resides in labour.\u201d The French school exhibits a diamond,\nand says\u2014\u201cHere is a commodity which exacts no labour and yet is of\nimmense value.\u201d The French school affirms that the foundation of\nvalue is utility, and the English school immediately brings forward\nthe diamond in opposition to the [p140] illustrations drawn from\nair, light, and water. \u201cThe air is very useful,\u201d says the English\nEconomist, \u201cbut it possesses no value; the \u2039utility\u203a of the diamond\nis almost inappreciable, and yet it possesses more \u2039value\u203a than\nthe whole atmosphere;\u201d and the reader is inclined to say with\nHenri Quatre\u2014\u201cIn sooth, they are both right.\u201d They end by landing\nthemselves in an error more fatal than both the others, and are\nforced to avow that \u2039value\u203a resides in the works of nature, and that\nthat value is \u2039material\u203a.\n\nMy definition, as it seems to me, gets rid of these anomalies, and is\nconfirmed rather than invalidated by the illustration which has been\nadduced.\n\nI take a walk along the sea-beach, and I find by chance a magnificent\ndiamond. I am thus put in possession of a great \u2039value\u203a. Why? Am I\nabout to confer a great benefit on the human race? Have I devoted\nmyself to a long and laborious work? Neither the one nor the other.\nWhy, then, does this diamond possess so much value? Undoubtedly\nbecause the person to whom I transfer it considers that I have\nrendered him a great \u2039service\u203a,\u2014all the greater that many rich\npeople desire it, and that I alone can render it. The grounds of\nhis judgment may be controverted\u2014be it so. It may be founded on\npride, on vanity\u2014granted again. But this judgment has, nevertheless,\nbeen formed by a man who is disposed to act upon it, and that is\nsufficient for my argument.\n\nFar from the judgment being based on a reasonable appreciation\nof \u2039utility\u203a, we may allow that the very reverse is the case.\nOstentation makes great sacrifices for what is utterly \u2039useless\u203a.\n\nIn this case, the value, far from bearing a necessary proportion to\nthe labour \u2039performed\u203a by the person who renders the service, may be\nsaid rather to bear proportion to the labour \u2039saved\u203a to the person\nwho receives it. This general law of value, which has not, so far as\nI know, been observed by theoretical writers, nevertheless prevails\nuniversally in practice. We shall explain afterwards the admirable\nmechanism by which value tends to proportion itself to labour when it\nis free; but it is not the less true that it has its principle and\nfoundation less in the effort of the person who \u2039serves\u203a than in the\neffort saved to him who \u2039is served\u203a.\n\nThe transaction relative to the diamond may be supposed to give rise\nto the following dialogue:\u2014\n\n\u201cGive me your diamond, Sir.\u201d\n\n\u201cWith all my heart; give me in exchange your labour for an entire\nyear.\u201d [p141]\n\n\u201cYour acquisition has not cost you a minute\u2019s work.\u201d\n\n\u201cVery well, Sir, try to find a similar lucky minute.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes; but, in strict equity, the exchange ought to be one of \u2039equal\nlabour\u203a.\u201d\n\n\u201cNo; in strict equity, you put a value on your own services, and\nI upon mine; I don\u2019t force you; why should you lay a constraint\nupon me? Give me a whole year\u2019s labour, or seek out a diamond for\nyourself.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut that might entail upon me ten years\u2019 work, and would probably\nend in nothing. It would be wiser and more profitable to devote these\nten years to another employment.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt is precisely on that account that I imagined I was rendering you\na \u2039service\u203a in asking for only one year\u2019s work. I thus save you nine,\nand that is the reason why I attach great \u2039value\u203a to the \u2039service\u203a.\nIf I appear to you exacting, it is because you regard only the labour\nwhich I have performed; but consider also the labour which I save\nyou, and you will find me reasonable in my demand.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt is not the less true that you profit by a work of nature.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd if I were to give away what I have found for little or nothing,\nit is you who would profit by it. Besides, if this diamond possesses\ngreat value, it is not because nature has been elaborating it since\nthe beginning of time: she does as much for a drop of dew.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes; but if diamonds were as common as dew-drops, you could no\nlonger lay down the law to me, and make your own conditions.\u201d\n\n\u201cVery true; because, in that case, you would not address yourself to\nme, or would not be disposed to recompense me highly for a \u2039service\u203a\nwhich you could easily perform for yourself.\u201d\n\nThe result of this dialogue is, that Value no more resides in the\ndiamond than in the air or in the water. It resides exclusively in\nthe \u2039services\u203a which we suppose to be rendered and received with\nreference to these things, and is determined by the free bargaining\nof the parties who make the exchange.\n\nTake up the \u2039Collection des \u00c9conomistes\u203a, and read and compare\nall the definitions which you will find there. If there be one of\nthem which meets the cases of the air and the diamond, two cases\nin appearance so opposite, throw this book into the fire. But if\nthe definition which I propose, simple as it is, solves, or rather\nobviates, the difficulty, you are bound in conscience, gentle reader,\nto go on to the end of the work, or it is in vain that we have placed\nan inviting sign-board over the vestibule of the science.\n\nAllow me to give some more examples, in order to elucidate clearly\nmy thoughts, and familiarize the reader with a new definition.\nBy exhibiting this fundamental principle in different aspects,\n[p142] we shall clear the way for a thorough comprehension of the\nconsequences, which I venture to predict will be found no less\nimportant than unexpected.\n\nAmong the wants to which our physical constitution subjects us is\nthat of food; and one of the articles best fitted to satisfy that\nwant is Bread.\n\nAs the need of food is personal to me, I should, naturally, myself\nperform all the operations necessary to provide the needful supply of\nbread. I can the less expect my fellow-men to render me gratuitously\nthis service, that they are themselves subject to the same want, and\ncondemned to the same exertion.\n\nWere I to make my own bread, I must devote myself to a labour\ninfinitely more complicated, but strictly analogous to that which the\nnecessity of fetching water from the spring would have imposed upon\nme. The elements of bread exist everywhere in nature. As J. B. Say\nhas judiciously remarked, it is neither possible nor necessary for\nman to create anything. Gases, salts, electricity, vegetable life,\nall exist; my business is to unite them, assist them, combine them,\ntransport them, availing myself of that great laboratory called the\nearth, in which mysteries are accomplished from which human science\nhas scarcely raised the veil. If the operations to which I must\ndevote myself in the pursuit of my design are in the aggregate very\ncomplicated, each of them, taken singly, is as simple as the act of\ndrawing water from the fountain. Every effort I make is simply a\nservice which I render to myself; and if, in consequence of a bargain\nfreely entered into, it happens that other persons save me some of\nthese efforts, or the whole of them, these are so many \u2039services\u203a\nwhich I receive. The aggregate of these services, compared with those\nwhich I render in return, constitute the value of the Bread and\ndetermine its amount.\n\nA convenient intermediate commodity intervenes to facilitate\nthis exchange of services, and even to serve as a measure of\ntheir relative importance\u2014Money. But this makes no substantial\ndifference,\u2014the principle remains exactly the same, just as in\nmechanics the transmission of forces is subject to the same law,\nwhether there be one or several intermediate wheels.\n\nThis is so true that, when the loaf is worth fourpence, for example,\nif a good bookkeeper wishes to analyze its value, he will succeed in\ndiscovering, amid the multiplicity of transactions which go to the\naccomplishment of the final result, all those whose services have\ncontributed to form that value,\u2014all those who have saved labour to\nthe man who finally pays for it as the consumer. He discovers, first\nof all, the baker, who retains his five per cent., [p143] and from\nthat percentage remunerates the mason who has built his oven, the\nwood-cutter who prepares his billets, etc. Then comes the miller, who\nreceives not only the recompense of his own labour, but the means\nof remunerating the quarryman who has furnished his millstones, the\nlabourer who has formed his dam, etc. Other portions of the total\nvalue go to the thresher, the reaper, the labourer, the sower, until\nyou account for the last farthing. No part of it assuredly goes to\nremunerate God and nature. The very idea is absurd, and yet this is\nrigorously implied in the theory of the Economists, who attribute\na certain portion of the value of a product to matter or natural\nforces. No; we still find that what \u2039has value\u203a is not the Loaf, but\nthe series of \u2039services\u203a which have put me in possession of it.\n\nIt is true that, among the elementary parts of the value of the\nloaf, our book-keeper will find one which he will have difficulty in\nconnecting with a \u2039service\u203a, at least a service implying effort. He\nwill find of the fourpence, of which the price is made up, a part\ngoes to the proprietor of the soil, to the man who has the keeping\nof the laboratory. That small portion of the value of the loaf\nconstitutes what is called the \u2039rent of land\u203a; and, misled by the\nform of expression, by the metonymy which again makes its appearance\nhere, our calculator may be tempted to think that this portion is\nallotted to natural agents\u2014to the soil itself.\n\nI maintain that, if he exercises sufficient skill, he will find that\nthis is still the price of real \u2039services\u203a\u2014services of the same\nkind as all the others. This will be demonstrated with the clearest\nevidence when we come to treat of \u2039landed property\u203a. At present, I\nshall only remark, that I am not concerned here with property, but\nwith \u2039value\u203a. I don\u2019t inquire whether all services are real and\nlegitimate, or whether men do not sometimes succeed in getting paid\nfor services which they do not render. The world, alas! is full of\nsuch injustices, but \u2039rent\u203a must not be included among them.\n\nAll that I have to demonstrate here is, that the pretended value of\n\u2039commodities\u203a is only the value of \u2039services\u203a, real or imaginary,\nreceived and rendered in connexion with them\u2014that value does not\nreside in the commodities themselves, and is no more to be found\nin the loaf than in the diamond, the water, or the air\u2014that no\npart of the remuneration goes to nature\u2014that it proceeds from the\nfinal consumer of the article, and is distributed exclusively among\nmen,\u2014and that it would not be accorded to them by him for any other\nreason than that they have rendered him services, unless, indeed, in\nthe case of violence or fraud.\n\nTwo men agree that ice is a good thing in summer, and coal a [p144]\nstill better thing in winter. They supply two of our wants\u2014the one\ncools, the other warms us. We do not fail to remark that the Utility\nof these commodities consists in certain \u2039material\u203a properties\nsuitably adapted to our \u2039material\u203a organs. We remark, moreover, that\namong those properties, which physics and chemistry might enumerate,\nwe do not find \u2039value\u203a, or anything like it. How, then, have we come\nto regard value as inherent in matter and material?\n\nIf the two men we have supposed wished to obtain the satisfaction\nof their wants, without acting in concert, each would labour to\nprovide for himself both the articles wanted. If they came to an\nunderstanding, the one would provide coal for two from the coal-mine,\nthe other ice for two from the mountain. This presupposes a bargain.\nThey must then adjust the relation of the two services exchanged.\nThey would take all circumstances into account\u2014the difficulties to\nbe overcome, the dangers to be braved, the time to be spent, the\npains to be taken, the skill to be displayed, the risks to be run,\nthe possibility of providing for their wants in some other way, etc.,\netc. When they came to an understanding, the Economist would say, The\ntwo \u2039services\u203a exchanged \u2039are worth\u203a each other. In common language,\nit would be said by metonymy\u2014Such a quantity of coal \u2039is worth\u203a such\na quantity of ice, as if the value had passed physically into these\nbodies. But it is easy to see that if the common form of expression\nenables us to state the results, the scientific expression alone\nreveals to us the true causes.\n\nIn place of two services and two persons, the agreement may embrace\na greater number, substituting a complex Exchange for simple Barter.\nIn that case, money would intervene to facilitate the exchange.\nNeed I say that the principle of value would be neither changed nor\ndisplaced?\n\nBut I must add here a single observation \u2039\u00e0propos\u203a of coal. It may be\nthat there is only one coal-mine in a country, and that an individual\nhas got possession of it. If so, this man will make conditions; that\nis to say, he will put a high price upon his \u2039services\u203a, or pretended\n\u2039services\u203a.\n\nWe have not yet come to the question of right and justice, to the\ndistinction between true and loyal services, and those that are\nfraudulent and pretended. What concerns us at this moment is, to\nconsolidate the true theory of value, and to disembarrass it of one\nerror with which Economical science is infected. When we say that\nwhat nature has done or given, she has done or given \u2039gratuitously\u203a,\nand that the notion of \u2039value\u203a is excluded, we are answered by an\nanalysis of the price of coal, or some other natural product. It is\nacknowledged, indeed, that the greater part of this [p145] price is\nthe remuneration of the services of man. One man has excavated the\nground, another has drained away the water, another has raised the\nfuel to the surface, another has transported it to its destination;\nand it is the aggregate of these works, it is allowed, which\nconstitutes \u2039nearly\u203a the entire \u2039value\u203a. Still there remains one\nportion of the \u2039value\u203a which does not correspond with any labour or\n\u2039service\u203a. This is the value of the coal as it lies under the soil,\nstill virgin, and untouched by human labour. It forms the share of\nthe proprietor; and, since this portion of Value is not of human\ncreation, it follows necessarily that it is the creation of nature.\n\nI reject that conclusion, and I premonish the reader that, if he\nadmits it to a greater or less extent, he cannot proceed a single\nstep farther in the science. No; the action of nature does not create\nValue, any more than the action of man creates matter. Of two things\none: either the proprietor has usefully co-operated towards the final\nresult, and has rendered real services, and then the portion of value\nwhich he has conferred on the coal enters into my definition; or else\nhe obtrudes himself as a parasite, and, in that case, he has had\nthe address to get paid for \u2039services\u203a which he has not rendered,\nand the price of the coal is unduly augmented. That circumstance\nmay prove, indeed, that injustice has entered into the transaction;\nbut it cannot overturn the theory so as to authorize us to say that\nthis portion of value is material,\u2014that it is combined as a physical\nelement with the gratuitous gifts of Providence. Here is the proof\nof it. Cause the injustice to cease, if injustice there be, and\nthe corresponding value will disappear, which it assuredly would\nnot have done had the value been inherent in matter and of natural\ncreation.[30]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLet us now pass to one of our most imperious wants, that of\n\u2039security\u203a.\n\nA certain number of men land upon an inhospitable coast. They begin\nto work. But each of them finds himself constantly drawn away from\nhis employment by the necessity of defending himself against wild\nbeasts, or men still more savage. Besides the time and the exertion\nwhich he devotes directly to the work of defence, he has to provide\nhimself with arms and munitions. At length it is discovered that, on\nthe whole, infinitely less power and effort would be wasted if some\nof them, abandoning other work, were to devote themselves exclusively\nto this \u2039service\u203a. This [p146] duty is assigned to those who are\nmost distinguished for address, courage, and vigour\u2014and they improve\nin an art which they make their exclusive business. Whilst they watch\nover the public safety, the community reaps from its labours, now\nno longer interrupted, more satisfactions \u2039for all\u203a than it loses\nby the diversion of ten men from other avocations. This arrangement\nis in consequence made. What do we see in it but a new progress in\nthe \u2039division of occupations\u203a, inducing and requiring an exchange of\n\u2039services\u203a?\n\nAre the services of these soldiers, guards, militiamen, or whatever\nyou may call them, \u2039productive\u203a? Undoubtedly they are, seeing that\nthe sole object of the arrangement is to increase the proportion\nwhich the aggregate Satisfactions of the community bear to the\ngeneral efforts.\n\nHave they \u2039Value\u203a? They must have it, since we esteem them,\nappreciate them, \u2039estimate\u203a their worth, and, in fine, pay for them\nwith other \u2039services\u203a with which they are compared.\n\nThe form in which this remuneration is stipulated for, the mode of\nlevying it, the process we adopt in adjusting and concluding the\narrangement, make no alteration on the principle. Are there efforts\nsaved to some men by others? Are there satisfactions procured\nfor some by others? In that case there are \u2039services\u203a exchanged,\ncompared, \u2039estimated\u203a;\u2014there is \u2039Value\u203a.\n\nThe kind of services we are now discussing, when social complications\noccur, lead sometimes to frightful consequences. The very nature\nof the services which we demand from this class of functionaries\nrequires us to put into their hands Power,\u2014power sufficient to\nsubdue all resistance,\u2014and it sometimes happens that they abuse it,\nand turn it against the very community which employs them. Deriving\nfrom the community services proportioned to the want we have of\n\u2039security\u203a, they themselves may cause insecurity, in order to display\ntheir own importance, and, by a too skilful diplomacy, involve their\nfellow-citizens in perpetual wars.\n\nAll this has happened, and still happens. Great disturbances of the\njust equilibrium of reciprocal services are the result of it. But it\nmakes no change in the fundamental principle and scientific theory of\nValue.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI must still give another example or two; but I pray the reader\nto believe that I feel quite as much as he can how tiresome and\nfatiguing this series of hypotheses must be\u2014throwing us back, as\nthey all do, on the same kind of proof, tending to the same [p147]\nconclusion, expressed in the same terms. He must understand,\nhowever, that this process, if not the most interesting, is at least\nthe surest way of establishing the true theory of Value, and of thus\nclearing the road we have to traverse.\n\nWe suppose ourselves in Paris. In that great metropolis there is a\nvast fermentation of desires, and abundant means also of satisfying\nthem. Multitudes of rich men, or men in easy circumstances, devote\nthemselves to industry, to the arts, to politics\u2014and in the evening\nthey are all eager to obtain an hour\u2019s recreation. Among the\namusements which they relish most is the pleasure of hearing the\nmusic of Rossini sung by Malibran, or the admirable poetry of Racine\ninterpreted by Rachel. There are in the world only two women who can\nfurnish these noble and delicate kinds of entertainment, and unless\nwe could subject them to torture, which would probably not succeed,\nwe have no other way of procuring their services but by addressing\nourselves to their good will. Thus the services which we expect from\nMalibran and Rachel are possessed of great \u2039Value\u203a. This explanation\nis prosaic enough, but it is true.\n\nIf an opulent banker should desire to gratify his vanity by having\nthe performances of one of these great \u2039artistes\u203a in his \u2039salons\u203a,\nhe will soon find by experience the full truth of my theory. He\ndesires a rich treat, a lively satisfaction\u2014he desires it eagerly\u2014and\nonly one person in the world can furnish it. He cannot procure it\notherwise than by offering a large remuneration.\n\nBetween what extreme limits will the transaction oscillate? The\nbanker will go on till he reaches the point at which he prefers\nrather to lose the satisfaction than to pay what he deems an\nextravagant price for it; the singer to that point at which she\nprefers to accept the remuneration offered, rather than not be\nremunerated at all. This point of equilibrium determines the value\nof this particular service, as it does of all others. It may be\nthat in many cases custom fixes this delicate point. There is too\nmuch taste in the \u2039beau monde\u203a to \u2039higgle\u203a about certain services.\nThe remuneration may even be gracefully disguised, so as to veil\nthe vulgarity of the economic law. That law, however, presides over\nthis transaction, just as it does over the most ordinary bargain;\nand Value does not change its nature because experience or urbanity\ndispenses with discussing it formally on every occasion.\n\nThis explains how \u2039artistes\u203a above the usual standard of excellence\nsucceed in realizing great fortunes. Another circumstance favours\nthem. Their services are of such a nature that they can render them,\nat one and the same time, and by one and the same effort, to [p148]\na multitude of individuals. However large the theatre, provided\nthe voice of Rachel can fill it, each spectator enjoys the full\npleasure of her inimitable declamation. This is the foundation of a\nnew arrangement. Three or four thousand people, all experiencing the\nsame desire, may come to an understanding, and raise the requisite\nsum; and the contribution of each to the remuneration of the great\n\u2039tragedienne\u203a constitutes the equivalent of the unique service\nrendered by her to all at once. Such is \u2039Value\u203a.\n\nAs a great number of auditors may combine in order to witness an\nentertainment of this description, so a number of actors may combine\nin order to perform in an opera or play. Managers may intervene,\nto save them the trouble of a multiplicity of trifling accessory\narrangements. Value is thus multiplied, ramified, distributed, and\nrendered complex\u2014but it does not change its nature.\n\nWe shall finish with some exceptional cases. Such cases form the best\ntest of a sound theory. When the rule is correct, exceptions do not\ninvalidate, but confirm it.\n\nAn aged priest moves slowly along, pensive, with staff in hand,\nand breviary under his arm. His air is serene, his countenance\nexpressive,\u2014he looks inspired! Where is he going? Do you see that\nchurch in the distance? The youthful village parson, distrustful\nas yet of his own powers, has called to his assistance the old\nmissionary. But first of all he has some arrangements to make. The\npreacher will find, indeed, food and shelter at the parsonage\u2014but\nhe must live from one year\u2019s end to another. Mons. le Cur\u00e9, then,\nhas promoted a subscription among the rich people of the village,\nmoderate in amount, but sufficient; for the aged pastor is not\nexacting, and answered the person who wrote to him\u2014\u201cDu pain pour moi,\nvoil\u00e0 mon n\u00e9cessaire; une obole pour le pauvre, voil\u00e0 mon superflu.\u201d\n\nThus are the economic preliminaries complied with; for this meddling\nPolitical Economy creeps into everything, and is to be found\neverywhere\u2014\u2039Nil humani a me alienum puto\u203a.\n\nLet us enlarge a little on this example, which is very apposite to\nwhat we are now discussing.\n\nHere you have an exchange of services. On the one hand you have an\nold man who devotes his time, his strength, his talents, his health,\nto enlighten the minds of a few villagers, and raise them to a higher\nmoral level. On the other hand, bread for a few days, and a hat and\ncassock, are assured to the man of eloquence.\n\nBut there is something more here. There is a rivalry of sacrifices.\nThe old priest refuses everything that is not absolutely\nindispensable. Of that poor pittance the cur\u00e9 takes one half on his\n[p149] own shoulders; the village Cr\u0153suses exempt their brethren\nfrom the other half, who nevertheless profit by the sermons.\n\nDo these sacrifices invalidate our definition of value? Not at\nall. Each is free to render his services only on such terms as are\nagreeable to himself. If these conditions are made easy, or if\nnone are stipulated for, what is the consequence? The \u2039service\u203a,\npreserving its utility, loses its value. The old priest is persuaded\nthat his services will find their reward in another world, and he\ncares not for their being recompensed here below. He feels, no doubt,\nthat he is rendering a service to his auditors in addressing them,\nbut he also feels that they do him a service in listening to him.\nHence it follows that the transaction is based upon advantage to\none of the contracting parties, with the full consent of the other.\nThat is all. In general, exchanges are determined and estimated by\nreference to self-interest; but, thank God, that is not always the\ncase: they are sometimes based on the principle of sympathy, and\nin that case we either transfer to another a satisfaction which\nwe might have reserved for ourselves, or we make an effort for\nhim which we might have devoted to our own profit and advantage.\nGenerosity, devotion, self-sacrifice, are impulses of our nature,\nwhich, like many other circumstances, influence the actual \u2039value\u203a of\na particular service, but they make no change on the general law of\n\u2039values\u203a.\n\nIn contrast to this consoling example, I might adduce another of\na very opposite character. In order that a service should possess\nvalue, in the economical sense of the word, it is not at all\nindispensable that it should be a real, conscientious, and useful\nservice; it is sufficient that it is accepted, and paid for by\nanother service. The world is full of people who palm upon the public\nservices of a quality more than doubtful, and make the public pay for\nthem. All depends on the \u2039judgment\u203a which we form in each case; and\nthis is the reason why morals will be always the best auxiliary of\nPolitical Economy.\n\nImpostors succeed in propagating a false belief. They represent\nthemselves as the ambassadors of Heaven. They open at pleasure the\ngates of heaven or of hell. When this belief has once taken firm\nroot, \u201cHere,\u201d say they, \u201care some little images to which we have\ncommunicated the virtue of securing eternal happiness to those who\ncarry them about their persons. In bestowing upon you one of these\nimages, we render you an immense \u2039service\u203a. You must render us, then,\ncertain \u2039services\u203a in return.\u201d Here you have a \u2039Value\u203a created. It is\nfounded on a false appreciation, you say, and that is true. We might\nsay as much of many material things [p150] which possess a certain\nvalue, for they would find purchasers if set up to auction. Economic\nscience would become impossible if we admitted as values only values\ncorrectly and judiciously appreciated. At every step we must begin\na new course of the moral and physical sciences. In a state of\nisolation, depraved desires and a warped intelligence may cause a man\nto pursue with great effort and exertion a chimerical satisfaction\u2014a\ndelusion. In like manner, in the social state, it sometimes happens,\nas the philosopher says, that we buy regret too dear. But if truth is\nnaturally more in keeping with the human mind than error, all these\nfrauds are destined to disappear\u2014all these delusive services to be\nspurned and lose their \u2039value\u203a. Civilisation will, in the long-run,\nput everybody and everything in the right place.\n\nBut we must conclude this analysis, which has already extended to too\ngreat a length. Among the various wants of our nature, respiration,\nhunger, thirst\u2014and the wants and desires which take their rise in\nour vanity, in our heads, hearts, and opinions, in our hopes for the\nfuture, whether well or ill grounded\u2014everywhere we have sought for\nValue\u2014and we have found it wherever an \u2039exchange of service\u203a takes\nplace. We have found it everywhere of the same nature, based upon a\nprinciple clear, simple, absolute, although influenced by a multitude\nof varying circumstances. We might have passed in review all our\nother wants; we might have cited the carpenter, the mason, the\nmanufacturer, the tailor, the physician, the officer of justice, the\nlawyer, the merchant, the painter, the judge, the president of the\nrepublic, and we should have found exactly the same thing. Frequently\na material substance; sometimes forces furnished \u2039gratuitously\u203a by\nnature; always human services interchanged, measuring each other,\nestimating, appreciating, \u2039valuing\u203a one another, and exhibiting\nsimply the result of that Valuation\u2014or \u00abValue\u00bb.\n\nThere is, however, one of our wants, very special in its nature,\nthe cement of society, at once the cause and the effect of all our\ntransactions, and the everlasting problem of Political Economy, of\nwhich it is necessary to say something in this place\u2014I allude to the\nwant of \u2039Exchanging\u203a.\n\nIn the preceding chapter we have described the marvellous effects\nof Exchange. They are such that men must naturally feel a desire to\nfacilitate it, even at the expense of considerable sacrifices. It is\nfor this end that we have roads, canals, railways, carriages, ships,\nmerchants, tradesmen, bankers; and it is impossible to believe that\nsociety would submit to such enormous draughts upon its forces for\nthe purpose of facilitating [p151] exchange, if it did not find in\nexchange itself an ample compensation.\n\nWe have also seen that direct \u2039barter\u203a could give rise only to\ntransactions at once inconvenient and restrained.\n\nIt is on that account that men have thought of resolving barter into\ntwo factors, \u2039sale\u203a and \u2039purchase\u203a, by means of an intermediate\ncommodity, readily divisible, and, above all, possessed of \u2039value\u203a,\nin order to secure public confidence. This intermediate commodity is\nMoney.\n\nAnd it is worthy of remark that what, by an ellipsis or metonymy,\nwe designate the value of gold and silver rests on exactly the same\nfoundation as that of the air, the water, the diamond, the sermons of\nour old missionary, or the roulades of Malibran\u2014that is to say, upon\nservices rendered and received.\n\nThe gold, indeed, which we find spread on the favoured banks of the\nSacramento, derives from nature many precious qualities\u2014ductility,\nweight, beauty, brilliancy, utility even, if you will. But there is\none quality which nature has not given it, because nature has nothing\nto do with that\u2014\u2039Value\u203a. A man knows that gold supplies a want which\nis sensibly felt, and that it is much coveted. He goes to California\nto seek for gold, just as my neighbour went to the spring to fetch\nwater. He devotes himself to hard work\u2014he digs, he excavates, he\nwashes, he melts down\u2014and then he comes to me and says: I will render\nyou the service of transferring to you this gold; what service will\nyou render me in return? We discuss the matter, we weigh all the\ncircumstances which should influence our determination;\u2014at last we\nconclude a bargain, and Value is manifested and fixed. Misled by this\ncurt form of expression, \u201cGold is \u2039valuable\u203a,\u201d we might suppose that\nthe value resides in the gold, just as the qualities of ductility\nand specific gravity reside in it, and that nature has put it there.\nI hope the reader is already satisfied that this is a mistake.\nBy-and-by he will be convinced that it is a deplorable fallacy.\n\nAnother misconception exists on the subject of gold, or rather\nof money. As it is the constant medium which enters into all\ntransactions, the mean term between the two factors of \u2039compound\nbarter\u203a, it is always with its value that we compare the value of the\ntwo services to be exchanged; and hence we are led to regard gold or\nmoney as a \u2039measure\u203a of value. In practice it cannot be otherwise.\nBut science ought never to forget that money, so far as its value\nis concerned, is subject to the same fluctuations as any other\nproduct or service. Science does forget this sometimes; nor is it\nsurprising. Everything tends to make us consider money [p152] as the\nmeasure of value, in the same way as the \u2039litre\u203a (or quart) is the\nmeasure of capacity. It plays an analogous part in actual business.\nOne is not aware of its own fluctuations, because the franc, like its\nmultiples and sub-multiples, always retains the same denomination.\nAnd arithmetic itself tends to propagate the confusion by ranking the\nfranc as a measure, along with the measures of quantity in daily use.\n\nI have given a definition of Value, at least of value according\nto my idea of it. I have subjected that definition to the test of\ndivers facts. None of them, so far as I can see, contradict it; and\nthe scientific signification which I have given to the word agrees\nwith its vulgar acceptation, which is no small advantage, no slight\nguarantee\u2014for what is science but experience classified? What is\ntheory but the methodical exposition of universal practice?\n\nI may now be permitted to glance rapidly at the systems which have\nhitherto prevailed. It is not in a spirit of controversy, much less\nof criticism, that I enter upon this examination, and I should\nwillingly avoid it were I not convinced that it will throw new light\nupon the fundamental principles which I am advocating.\n\nWe have seen that writers on Political Economy have sought for the\nprinciple of Value in one or more of the accidents which exercise\na notable influence over it, such as materiality, conservability,\nutility, rarity, labour, etc.; just like a physiologist who should\nseek the principle of life in one or more of the external phenomena\nwhich are necessary to its development, as air, water, light,\nelectricity, etc.\n\n\u2039Materiality.\u203a\u2014\u201cMan,\u201d says M. de Bonald, \u201cis mind served by organs.\u201d\nIf the economists of the materialist school had simply meant that men\ncan render reciprocal services to each other only through the medium\nof their bodily organs, and had thence concluded that there is always\nsomething material in these services, and, consequently, in Value,\nI should not have proceeded a step farther, as I have a horror at\nword-catching and subtilties, which wit revels in.\n\nBut they have not thus understood it. What they believe is that Value\nhas been communicated to matter, either by the labour of man or by\nthe action of nature. In a word, deceived by the elliptical form\nof expression, gold \u2039is worth\u203a so much, corn \u2039is worth\u203a so much,\nthey think they see in matter a quality called \u2039Value\u203a, just as the\nnatural philosopher sees in it resistance and weight\u2014and yet these\nattributes have been disputed.\n\nBe that as it may, I dispute formally the existence of Value as an\nattribute of matter. [p153]\n\nAnd first of all, it cannot be denied that Matter and Value are\noften found separated. When we say to a man\u2014Carry that letter to\nits destination\u2014fetch me some water\u2014teach me this science or that\nmanufacturing process\u2014give me advice as to my sickness, or my\nlaw-suit\u2014watch over my security, while I give myself up to labour\nor to sleep,\u2014what we demand is a Service, and in that service we\nacknowledge in the face of the world that there resides a \u2039Value\u203a,\nseeing that we pay for it voluntarily by an \u2039equivalent\u203a service.\nIt would be strange that we should refuse to admit in theory what\nuniversal consent admits in practice.\n\nTrue, our transactions have reference frequently to material objects;\nbut what does that prove? Why, that men, by exercising foresight,\nprepare to render services which they know to be in demand. I\npurchase a coat ready made, or I have a tailor to come to my house to\nwork by the day; but does that change the principle of Value, so as\nto make it reside at one time in the coat and at another time in the\nservice?\n\nOne might ask here this puzzling question\u2014Must we not see the\nprinciple of Value first of all in the material object, and then\nattribute it by analogy to the services? I say that it is just the\nreverse. We must recognise it first of all in the services, and\nattribute it afterwards, if we choose, by a figure of speech, by\nmetonymy, to the material objects.\n\nThe numerous examples which I have adduced render it unnecessary\nfor me to pursue this discussion further. But I cannot refrain from\njustifying myself for having entered on it, by showing to what fatal\nconsequences an error, or, if you will, an incomplete truth, may\nlead, when placed at the threshold of a science.\n\nThe least inconvenience of the definition which I am combating has\nbeen to curtail and mutilate Political Economy. If Value resides\nin matter, then where there is no matter there can be no Value.\nThe \u2039Physiocrates\u203a[31] designated three-fourths of the entire\npopulation as \u2039sterile\u203a, and Adam Smith, softening the expression, as\n\u2039unproductive\u203a classes.\n\nBut as facts in the long run are stronger than definitions, it became\nnecessary in some way to bring back these classes, and make them\nre-enter the circle of economic studies. They were introduced by\nway of analogy; but the language of the science, formed beforehand\non other definitions, had been so materialized as to render this\nextension repulsive. What mean such phrases as these: \u201cTo consume\nan immaterial product? Man is accumulated capital? Security is a\ncommodity?\u201d etc., etc. [p154]\n\nNot only was the language of the science materialized beyond\nmeasure, but writers were forced to surcharge it with subtile\ndistinctions, in order to reconcile ideas which had been erroneously\nseparated. Hence Adam Smith\u2019s expression of \u2039Value in use\u203a, in\ncontradistinction to \u2039Value in exchange\u203a, etc.\n\nA greater evil still has been that, in consequence of this confusion\nof two great social phenomena, \u2039property\u203a and \u2039community\u203a, the one\nhas seemed incapable of justification, and the other has been lost\nsight of.\n\nIn fact, if Value resides in matter, it becomes mixed up with the\nphysical qualities of bodies which render them useful to man. Now,\nthese qualities are frequently placed there by nature. Then nature\nco-operates in creating \u2039Value\u203a, and we find ourselves attributing\nvalue to what is essentially \u2039common\u203a and \u2039gratuitous\u203a. On what\nbasis, then, do you place \u2039property\u203a? When the remuneration which\nI give in order to obtain a material product, corn for example, is\ndistributed among all the labourers, near or at a distance, who have\nrendered me a \u2039service\u203a in the production of that commodity,\u2014who\nis to receive that portion of the \u2039value\u203a which corresponds to\nthe action of nature, and with which man has nothing to do? Is it\nProvidence who is to receive it? No one will say so, for we never\nheard of Nature demanding wages. Is man to receive it? What title has\nhe to it, seeing that, by the hypothesis, he has done nothing?\n\nDo not suppose that I am exaggerating, and that, for the sake of my\nown definition, I am torturing the definition of the economists, and\ndeducing from it too rigorous conclusions. No, these consequences\nthey have themselves very explicitly deduced, under the pressure of\nlogic.\n\nThus, Senior has said that \u201cthose who have appropriated natural\nagents receive, under the form of rent, a recompense without having\nmade any sacrifice. They merely hold out their hands to receive the\nofferings of the rest of the community.\u201d Scrope tells us that \u201clanded\nproperty is an artificial restriction imposed upon the enjoyment\nof those gifts which the Creator has intended for the satisfaction\nof the wants of all.\u201d J. B. Say has these words: \u201cArable lands\n\u2039would seem\u203a to form a portion of natural wealth, seeing that they\nare not of human creation, and that nature has given them to man\n\u2039gratuitously\u203a. But as this description of wealth is not fugitive,\nlike air and water,\u2014as a field is a space fixed and marked out which\n\u2039certain\u203a men have succeeded in appropriating, to the exclusion of\nall others who have given their consent to this appropriation, land,\nwhich was natural [p155] and \u2039gratuitous\u203a property, has now \u2039become\u203a\nsocial wealth, the use of which must be paid for.\u201d\n\nTruly, if it be so, Proudhon is justified in proposing this terrible\nquestion, followed by an affirmation still more terrible:\u2014\n\n\u201cTo whom belongs the rent of land? To the producer of land, without\ndoubt. Who made the land? God. Then, proprietor, begone!\u201d\n\nYes, by a vicious definition, Political Economy has handed over logic\nto the Communists. I will break this terrible weapon in their hands,\nor rather they shall surrender it to me cheerfully. The consequences\nwill disappear when I have annihilated the principle. And I undertake\nto demonstrate that if, in the production of wealth, the action of\nnature is combined with the action of man, the first\u2014gratuitous and\ncommon in its own nature\u2014remains gratuitous and common in all our\ntransactions; that the second alone represents \u2039services\u203a, \u2039value\u203a;\nthat the action of man alone is remunerated; and that it alone is the\nfoundation, explanation, and justification of Property. In a word, I\nmaintain that, relatively to each other, men are proprietors only of\nthe value of things, and that in transferring products from hand to\nhand, what they stipulate for exclusively is value, that is to say,\nreciprocal services:\u2014all the qualities, properties, and utilities,\nwhich these products derive from nature being obtained by them into\nthe bargain.\n\nIf Political Economy hitherto, in disregarding this fundamental\nconsideration, has shaken the guardian principle of property, by\nrepresenting it as an artificial institution, necessary, indeed, but\nunjust, she has by the same act left in the shade, and completely\nunperceived, another admirable phenomenon the most touching\ndispensation of Providence to the creature\u2014the phenomenon of\n\u2039progressive community\u203a.\n\nWealth, taking the word in its general acceptation, results from the\ncombination of two agencies\u2014the action of nature, and the action\nof man. The first is \u2039gratuitous\u203a and \u2039common\u203a by the destination\nof Providence, and never loses that character. The second alone is\n\u2039provided with value\u203a, and, consequently, \u2039appropriated\u203a. But with\nthe development of intelligence, and the progress of civilisation,\nthe one takes a greater and greater part, the other a less and less\npart, in the realization of each given utility; whence it follows\nthat the domain of the Gratuitous and the Common is continually\nexpanding among men relatively to the domain of Value and Property;\na consoling and suggestive view of the subject, entirely hidden from\nthe eye of science, so long as we continue to attribute Value to the\nco-operation of nature. [p156]\n\nMen of all religions thank God for His benefits. The father of a\nfamily blesses the bread which he breaks and distributes to his\nchildren\u2014a touching custom, that reason would not justify were the\nliberality of Providence other than gratuitous.\n\n\u2039Durableness\u203a, \u2039conservability\u203a\u2014that pretended \u2039sine qu\u00e2 non\u203a\nof Value, is connected with the subject which I have just been\ndiscussing. It is necessary to the very existence of value, as Adam\nSmith thinks, that it should be fixed and realized in something which\ncan be exchanged, accumulated, preserved, consequently in something\n\u2039material\u203a.\n\n\u201cThere is one sort of labour which adds[32] to the value of the\nsubject upon which it is bestowed. There is another which has no such\neffect.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe labour of the manufacturer,\u201d he adds, \u201cfixes and realizes itself\nin some particular subject or vendible commodity, \u2039which lasts for\nsome time at least\u203a after the labour is past. The labour of the\nmenial servant, on the contrary\u201d (to which the author assimilates in\nthis respect that of soldiers, magistrates, musicians, professors,\netc.), \u201cdoes not fix or realize itself in any particular subject or\nvendible commodity. His services perish in the very instant of their\nperformance, and leave no trace of \u2039value\u203a behind them.\u201d\n\nHere we find \u2039Value\u203a connected rather with the modifications of\nmatter than with the satisfactions of men\u2014a profound error; for the\nsole good to be obtained from the modification of material things is\nthe attainment of that satisfaction which is the design, the end,\nthe \u2039consommation\u203a[33] of every Effort. If, then, we realize that\nsatisfaction by a direct and immediate effort, the result is the\nsame; and if that effort can be made the subject of transactions,\nexchanges, \u2039estimation\u203a, it includes the principle of \u2039Value\u203a.\n\nAs regards the interval which may elapse between the effort and the\nsatisfaction, surely Adam Smith attributes far too much importance\nto it, when he says that the existence or non-existence of Value\ndepends upon it. \u201cThe value of a vendible commodity,\u201d he says,\n\u201c\u2039lasts for some time at least\u203a.\u201d Undoubtedly it lasts until the\ncommodity has answered its purpose, which is to satisfy a want; and\nexactly the same thing may be said of a service. As long as that\nplate of strawberries remains on the sideboard it preserves its\n\u2039value\u203a. Why? Because it is the result of a service [p157] which I\nhave designed to render to myself, or that another has rendered to\nme by way of compensation, and \u2039of which I have not yet made use\u203a.\nThe moment I have made use of it, by eating the strawberries, the\nvalue will disappear. \u2039The service will vanish and have no trace of\nvalue behind.\u203a The very same thing holds of personal services. The\nconsumer makes the value disappear, for it has been created only for\nthat purpose. It is of little consequence, as regards the principle\nof value, whether the service is undertaken to satisfy a want to-day,\nto-morrow, or a year hence.\n\nTake another case. I am afflicted with a cataract. I call in an\noculist. The instrument he makes use of has \u2039value\u203a, because it has\ndurability; the operation he performs, it is said, has none, and\nyet I pay for it, and I have made choice of one among many rival\noperators, and arranged his remuneration beforehand. To maintain\nthat this service has no value is to run counter to notorious facts\nand notions universally received. And of what use, I would ask, is\na theory which, far from taking universal practice into account,\nignores it altogether?\n\nI would not have the reader suppose that I am carried away by an\ninordinate love of controversy. If I dwell upon these elementary\nnotions, it is to prepare his mind for consequences of the highest\nimportance, which will be afterwards developed. I know not whether\nit be to violate the laws of method to indicate these consequences\nby anticipation, but I venture to depart slightly from the regular\ncourse, in order to obviate the danger of becoming tedious. This is\nthe reason why I have spoken prematurely of Property and Community;\nand for the same reason I shall here say a word respecting \u2039Capital\u203a.\n\nAs Adam Smith made value to reside in matter, he could not conceive\nCapital as existing otherwise than in an accumulation of material\nobjects. How, then, can we attribute Value to Services not\nsusceptible of being accumulated or converted into capital?\n\nAmong the different descriptions of Capital, we give the first\nplace to tools, machines, instruments of labour. They serve to make\nnatural forces co-operate in the work of production, and, attributing\nto these forces the faculty of creating value, people were led to\nimagine that instruments of labour, as such, were endowed with\nthe same faculty, independently of any human services. Thus the\nspade, the plough, the steam-engine, were supposed to co-operate\nsimultaneously with natural agents and human forces in creating\nnot only Utility, but Value also. But all value is remunerated by\nexchange. Who, then, is to receive that portion of value which is\nindependent of all human service? [p158]\n\nIt is thus that the school of Proudhon, after having brought the\n\u2039rent of land\u203a into question, has contested also the \u2039interest of\ncapital\u203a\u2014a larger thesis, because it includes the other. I maintain\nthat the Proudhonian error, viewed scientifically, has its root in\nthe prior error of Adam Smith. I shall demonstrate that capital,\nlike natural agents, considered in itself, and with reference to\nits own proper action, creates utility, but never creates value.\nThe latter is essentially the fruit of a legitimate \u2039service\u203a. I\nshall demonstrate also that, in the social order, capital is not an\naccumulation of material objects, depending on material durability,\nbut an accumulation of \u2039Values\u203a, that is to say, of \u2039services\u203a. This\nwill put an end (virtually at least, by removing its foundation) to\nthe recent attack upon the productiveness of capital, and in a way\nsatisfactory to the objectors themselves; for if I prove that there\nis nothing in the business of exchange but a \u2039mutuality of services\u203a,\nM. Proudhon must own himself vanquished by my victory over his\nprinciple.\n\n\u2039Labour.\u203a\u2014Adam Smith and his disciples have assigned the principle of\nValue to Labour under the condition of Materiality. This is contrary\nto the other opinion that natural forces play a certain part in the\nproduction of Value. I have not here to combat the contradictions\nwhich become apparent in all their fatal consequences when these\nauthors come to discuss the rent of land and the interest of capital.\n\nBe that as it may, when they refer the principle of Value to Labour,\nthey would be very near the truth if they did not allude to manual\nlabour. I have said, in fact, at the beginning of this chapter, that\nValue must have reference to \u2039Effort\u203a,\u2014an expression which I prefer\nto the word Labour, as more general, and embracing the whole sphere\nof human activity. But I hasten to add that it can spring only from\nefforts exchanged\u2014from reciprocal Services; because value is not a\nthing having independent existence, but a relation.\n\nThere are then, strictly speaking, two flaws in Adam Smith\u2019s\ndefinition. The first is, that it does not take exchange into\naccount, without which value can be neither produced nor conceived.\nThe second is, that it makes use of too restricted a term\u2014\u2039labour\u203a;\nunless we give to that term an unusual extension, and include in it\nthe ideas not only of intensity and duration, but of skill, sagacity,\nand even of good or bad fortune.\n\nThe word \u2039service\u203a, which I substitute in my definition, removes\nthese defects. It implies, necessarily, the idea of transmission,\nfor no service can be rendered which is not received; and it implies\n[p159] also the idea of Effort, without taking for granted that the\nvalue is proportionate.\n\nIt is in this, above all, that the definition of the English\nEconomists is vicious. To say that Value resides in Labour induces\nus to suppose that Value and Labour are proportional, and serve as\nreciprocal measures of each other. This is contrary to fact, and a\ndefinition which is contrary to fact must be defective.\n\nIt often happens that an exertion, considered insignificant in\nitself, passes with the world as of enormous \u2039value\u203a. (Take, for\nexample, the diamond, the performance of the prima donna, a dash\nof a banker\u2019s pen, a fortunate privateering adventure, a touch of\nRaphael\u2019s pencil, a bull of plenary indulgence, the easy duty of an\nEnglish queen, etc.) It still more frequently happens that laborious\nand overwhelming labour tends to what is absolutely \u2039valueless\u203a; and\nif it be so, how can we establish co-relation and proportion between\n\u2039Value\u203a and \u2039Labour\u203a?\n\nMy definition removes the difficulty. It is clear that in certain\ncircumstances one can render a great service at the expense of a very\nsmall exertion, and that in others, after great exertion, we render\nno service at all. And this is another reason why, in this respect,\nit is correct to say that the Value is in the Service rendered,\nrather than in the Labour bestowed, seeing that it bears proportion\nto the one and not to the other.\n\nI go further. I affirm that value is estimated as much by the labour\nsaved to the recipient as by the labour performed by the \u2039c\u00e9dant\u203a\n[the man who cedes or makes it over]. Let the reader recall the\ndialogue which we supposed to take place between the two parties\nwho bargained for the diamond. In substance, it has reference to\nno accidental circumstances, but enters, tacitly, into the essence\nand foundation of all transactions. Keep in mind that we here take\nfor granted that the two parties are at entire liberty to exercise\ntheir own will and judgment. Each of them, in making the exchange, is\ndetermined by various considerations, among which we must certainly\nrank, as of the greatest importance, the difficulty experienced by\nthe recipient in procuring for himself, by a direct exertion, the\nsatisfaction which is offered to him. Both parties have their eyes\non that difficulty, the one with the view of being more yielding,\nthe other with the view of being more exacting. The labour undergone\nby the \u2039c\u00e9dant\u203a also exerts an influence on the bargain. It is one\nof the elements of it, but it is not the only one. It is not, then,\nexact to say that value is determined by labour. It is determined by\na multitude of considerations, all comprised in the word \u2039service\u203a.\n[p160]\n\nWhat may be affirmed with great truth is this; that, in consequence\nof competition, Value \u2039tends\u203a to become more proportioned to\nEffort\u2014recompense to merit. It is one of the beautiful Harmonies of\nthe social state. But, as regards Value, this equalizing pressure\nexercised by competition is quite external, and it is not allowable\nin strict logic to confound the influence which a phenomenon\nundergoes, from an external cause, with the phenomenon itself.[34]\n\n\u2039Utility.\u203a\u2014J. B. Say, if I am not mistaken, was the first who threw\noff the yoke of \u2039materiality\u203a. He made out value very expressly\n[p161] to be a \u2039moral quality\u203a,\u2014an expression which perhaps goes too\nfar, for value can scarcely be said to be either a physical or a\nmoral quality\u2014it is simply a relation.\n\nBut the great French Economist has himself said, that \u201cIt is not\ngiven to any one to reach the confines of science, and Philosophers\nmount on each other\u2019s shoulders to explore a more and more extended\nhorizon.\u201d Perhaps the glory of M. Say (in what regards the special\nquestion with which we are now occupied, for his titles to glory in\nother respects are as numerous as they are imperishable) is to have\nbequeathed to his successors a view of the subject which is prolific\nand suggestive.\n\nM. Say\u2019s principle was this\u2014\u201c\u2039Value is founded on Utility.\u203a\u201d\n\nIf we had here to do with utility as connected with human \u2039services\u203a,\nI should not contest this principle. At most I could only observe\nthat it is superfluous, as being self-evident. It is very clear,\nas matter of fact, that no one consents to remunerate a \u2039service\u203a,\nunless right or wrong, he judges it to be useful. The word service\nincludes the idea of \u2039utility\u203a\u2014so much so that it is nothing else\nthan a literal reproduction of the Latin word \u2039uti\u203a; in French,\n\u2039servir\u203a.\n\nBut, unfortunately, it is not in this sense that Say understands\nit. He discovers the principle of value not only in human services,\nrendered by means of material things, but in the \u2039useful\u203a qualities\nput by nature into the things themselves. In this way he places\nhimself once more under the yoke of materiality, and is very far,\nwe are obliged to confess, from clearing away the mist in which the\nEnglish Economists had enveloped the question of Property.\n\nBefore discussing Say\u2019s principle on its own merits, I must explain\nits logical bearing, in order to avoid the reproach of landing myself\nand the reader in an idle discussion.\n\nWe cannot doubt that the Utility of which Say speaks is that which\nresides in material objects. If corn, timber, coal, broad cloth, have\nvalue, it is because these products possess qualities which render\nthem proper for our use, fit to satisfy the want we experience of\nfood, fuel, and clothing.\n\nHence, as nature has created Utility, it is inferred that she has\ncreated also Value\u2014a fatal confusion of ideas, out of which the\nenemies of property have forged a terrible weapon.\n\nTake a commodity, corn for example. I purchase it at the \u2039Halle au\nBl\u00e9\u203a for sixteen francs. A great portion of these sixteen francs\nis distributed\u2014in infinite ramifications, and an inextricable\ncomplication of advances and reimbursements\u2014among all the men,\n[p162] here or abroad, who have co-operated in furnishing this corn.\nPart goes to the labourer, the sower, the reaper, the thrasher, the\ncarter,\u2014part to the blacksmith and plough-wright, who have prepared\nthe agricultural implements. Thus far all are agreed, whether\nEconomists or Communists.\n\nBut I perceive that four out of the sixteen francs go to the\nproprietor of the soil, and I have a good right to ask if that\nman, like the others, has rendered me a Service to entitle him\nincontestably, like them, to remuneration.\n\nAccording to the doctrine which the present work aspires to\nestablish, the answer is categorical. It consists of a peremptory\n\u2039yes\u203a. The proprietor \u2039has\u203a rendered me a service. What is it?\nThis, that he has by himself, or his ancestor, cleared and enclosed\nthe field\u2014he has cleared it of weeds and stagnant water\u2014he has\nenriched and thickened the vegetable mould\u2014he has built a house\nand a homestead. All this presupposes much labour executed by him\nin person; or, what comes to the same thing, by others whom he has\npaid. These are services, certainly, which, according to the just\nlaw of reciprocity, must be reimbursed to him. Now, this proprietor\nhas never been remunerated, at least to the full extent. He cannot\nbe so by the first man who comes to buy from him a bag of corn.\nWhat is the arrangement, then, that takes place? Assuredly the most\ningenious, the most legitimate, the most equitable arrangement which\nit is possible to imagine. It consists in this\u2014That whoever wishes\nto purchase a sack of corn shall pay, besides the services of the\nvarious labourers whom we have enumerated, a small portion of the\n\u2039services\u203a rendered by the proprietor. In other words, the \u2039Value\u203a\nof the proprietor\u2019s \u2039services\u203a is spread over all the sacks of corn\nwhich are produced by this field.\n\nNow, it may be asked if the supposed remuneration of four francs be\ntoo great or too small. I answer that Political Economy has nothing\nto do with that. That science establishes that the value of the\nservices rendered by the landed proprietor are regulated by exactly\nthe same laws as the value of other services, and that is enough.\n\nIt may be a subject of surprise, too, that this bit-by-bit\nreimbursement should not at length amount to a complete liquidation,\nand, consequently, to an extinction of the proprietor\u2019s claim. They\nwho make this objection do not reflect that it is of the nature of\nCapital to produce a perpetual return, as we shall see in the sequel.\n\nI shall not dwell longer on that question in this place; and shall\n[p163] simply remark, that there is not in the entire price of\nthe corn a single farthing which does not go to remunerate human\nservices,\u2014not one which corresponds to the \u2039value\u203a that nature is\nsupposed to have given to the corn by imparting to it \u2039utility\u203a.\n\nBut if, adhering to the principle of Say and the English Economists,\nyou assert that, of the sixteen francs, there are twelve which go to\nthe labourers, sowers, reapers, carters, etc.\u2014two which recompense\nthe personal services of the proprietor; and finally, that there\nare two others which represent a value which has for its foundation\nthe \u2039utility\u203a created by God, by natural agents, and without any\nco-operation of man, do you not perceive that you immediately lay\nyourself open to be asked, Who is to profit by this portion of\n\u2039value\u203a? Who has a title to this remuneration? Nature does not demand\nit, and who dare take nature\u2019s place.\n\nThe more Say tries to explain Property on this hypothesis, the more\nhe exposes himself to attack. He sets out by justly comparing nature\nto a laboratory, in which various chemical operations take place,\nthe result of which is useful to man. \u201cThe soil, then,\u201d he adds, \u201cis\nthe \u2039producer of utility\u203a, and when \u00abIT\u00bb (the soil) receives payment\nin the form of a profit or a rent \u2039to its proprietor\u203a, it is not\nwithout giving something to the consumer in exchange for what he\npays \u00abIT\u00bb (the soil). \u00abIt\u00bb (still the soil) gives him the utility it\nhas produced, and it is in producing this utility that \u2039the earth is\nproductive as well as labour\u203a.\u201d\n\nThis assertion is unmistakable. Here we have two pretenders, who\npresent themselves to share the remuneration due by the consumer of\ncorn\u2014namely, the earth and labour. They urge the same title, for the\nsoil, M. Say affirms, is productive as well as labour. Labour asks to\nbe remunerated for a \u2039service\u203a; the soil demands to be remunerated\nfor a \u2039utility\u203a, and this remuneration it demands not for itself (for\nin what form should we give it?) but for \u2039its proprietor\u203a.\n\nWhereupon Proudhon summons the proprietor, who represents himself as\nhaving the powers of the soil at his disposal, to exhibit his title.\n\nYou wish me to pay; in other words, to render a service, in order\nthat I may receive the \u2039utility\u203a produced by natural agents,\nindependently of the assistance of man, already paid for separately.\n\nBut, I ask again, Who is to profit by my service?\n\nIs it the producer of utility,\u2014that is to say, the soil? That is\nabsurd\u2014the fear of any demand from that quarter need give no great\nuneasiness. [p164]\n\nIs it man? but by what title does he demand it? If for having\nrendered me a service, well and good. In that case, we are at one. It\nis the human service which \u2039has value\u203a, not the natural service; and\nthat is just the conclusion to which I desire to bring you.\n\nThat, however, is contrary to your hypothesis. You say that all\nthe human services are remunerated with fourteen francs, and that\nthe two francs which make up the price of the corn correspond to\nthe value created by nature. In that case, I repeat my question\u2014By\nwhat title does any one present himself to receive them? Is it not,\nunfortunately, too clear that if you give specially the name of\n\u2039proprietor\u203a to the man who claims right to these two francs, you\njustify the too famous saying that \u2039Property is theft\u203a?\n\nAnd don\u2019t imagine that this confusion between utility and value\nshakes only the foundation of landed property. After having led you\nto contest the \u2039rent of land\u203a, it leads you to contest also the\n\u2039interest of capital\u203a.\n\nIn fact, machines, the instruments of labour, are, like the soil,\nproducers of \u2039utility\u203a. If that utility has \u2039value\u203a, it is paid for,\nfor the word value implies right to payment. But to whom is the\npayment made? To the proprietor of the machine, without doubt. Is it\nfor a personal service? Then say at once that the value is in the\nservice. But if you say that it is necessary to make a payment first\nfor the service, and a second payment for the utility produced by the\nmachine independently of the human action, which has been already\nrecompensed, then I ask you to whom does this second payment go, and\nhow has the man who has been already remunerated for all his services\na right to demand anything more?\n\nThe truth is, that the utility which is produced by nature is\n\u2039gratuitous\u203a, and therefore \u2039common\u203a, like that produced by the\ninstruments of labour. It is gratuitous and common on one condition,\nthat we take the trouble, that we render ourselves the service of\nappropriating it; or, if we give that trouble to or demand that\nservice from another, that we cede to him in return an \u2039equivalent\u203a\nservice. It is in these services, thus compared, that value resides,\nand not at all in natural utility. The exertion may be more or less\ngreat\u2014that makes a difference in the value, not in the utility.\nWhen we stand near a spring, water is gratuitous for us all on\ncondition that we stoop to lift it. If we ask our neighbour to take\nthat trouble for us, then a convention, a bargain, a \u2039value\u203a makes\nits appearance, but that does not make the water otherwise than\ngratuitous. If we are an hour\u2019s walk from the spring, the basis of\nthe transaction will be different; but the difference is one of\ndegree, not of principle. The value has not, on that account, passed\ninto [p165] the water or into its utility. The water continues still\n\u2039gratuitous\u203a on condition of fetching it, or of remunerating those\nwho, by a bargain freely made and discussed, agree to spare us that\nexertion by making it themselves.\n\nIt is the same thing in every case. We are surrounded by utilities,\nbut we must \u2039stoop to appropriate them\u203a. That exertion is sometimes\nvery simple, and often very complicated. Nothing is more easy, in\nthe general case, than to draw water, the utility of which has been\nprepared by nature beforehand. It is not so easy to obtain corn, the\nutility of which nature has equally prepared. This is why these two\nefforts differ in degree though not in principle. The service is more\nor less onerous; therefore more or less \u2039valuable\u203a\u2014the utility is,\nand remains always, \u2039gratuitous\u203a.\n\nSuppose an instrument of labour to intervene, what would be the\nresult? That the utility would be more easily obtained. The service\nhas thus less \u2039value\u203a. We certainly pay less for our books since the\ninvention of printing. Admirable phenomenon, too little understood!\nYou say that the instruments of labour produce Value\u2014you are\nmistaken\u2014it is Utility, and gratuitous Utility, you should say. As to\nValue, instead of producing it, they tend more and more to annihilate\nit.\n\nIt is quite true that the person who made the machine has rendered\na service. He receives a remuneration by which the value of the\nproduct is augmented. This is the reason why we fancy we recompense\nthe utility which the machine produces. It is an illusion. What we\nremunerate is the \u2039services\u203a which all those who have co-operated in\nmaking and working the machine have rendered to us. So little does\nthe value reside in the utility produced, that even after having\nrecompensed these new \u2039services\u203a, we acquire the utility on easier\nand cheaper terms than before.\n\nLet us accustom ourselves to distinguish Utility from Value. Without\nthis there can be no Economic science. I give utterance to no paradox\nwhen I affirm that Utility and Value, so far from being identical,\nor oven similar, are ideas opposed to one another. Want, Effort,\nSatisfaction: here we have man regarded in an Economic point of\nview. The relation of utility is with Want and Satisfaction. The\nrelation of Value is with Effort. Utility is the Good, which puts\nan end to the want by the satisfaction. Value is the Evil, for it\nsprings from the obstacle which is interposed between the want and\nthe satisfaction. But for these obstacles, there would have been no\nEffort either to make or in exchange; Utility would be infinite,\ngratuitous, and common, \u2039without condition\u203a, and the notion of Value\nwould never have [p166] entered into the world. In consequence of\nthese obstacles, Utility is gratuitous only on condition of Efforts\nexchanged, which, when compared with each other, give rise to Value.\nThe more these obstacles give way before the liberality of nature\nand the progress of science, the more does utility approximate to\nthe state of being absolutely common and gratuitous, for the onerous\ncondition, and, consequently, the \u2039value\u203a, diminish as the obstacles\ndiminish. I shall esteem myself fortunate if, by these dissertations,\nwhich may appear subtle, and of which I am condemned to fear at\nonce the length and the conciseness, I succeed in establishing this\nencouraging truth\u2014\u2039the legitimate property of value\u203a,\u2014and this other\ntruth, equally consoling\u2014\u2039the progressive community of utility\u203a.\n\nOne observation more. All that \u2039serves\u203a us is \u2039useful\u203a (\u2039uti\u203a,\n\u2039servir\u203a), and in this respect it is extremely doubtful whether\nthere be anything in the universe (whether in the shape of forces or\nmaterials) which is not \u2039useful\u203a to man.\n\nWe may affirm at least, without fear of mistake, that a multitude of\nthings possess a utility which is unknown to us. Were the moon placed\neither higher or lower than she is, it is very possible that the\ninorganic kingdom, consequently the vegetable kingdom, consequently\nalso the animal kingdom, might be profoundly modified. But for that\nstar which shines in the firmament while I write, it may be that the\nhuman race had not existed. Nature has surrounded us with utilities.\nThe quality of being \u2039useful\u203a we recognise in many substances and\nphenomena;\u2014in others, science and experience reveal it to us every\nday,\u2014in others, again, it may exist in perfection, and yet we may\nremain for ever ignorant of it.\n\nWhen these substances and phenomena exert upon us, but \u2039independently\nof us\u203a, their useful action, we have no interest in comparing the\ndegree of their utility to mankind; and, what is more, we have\nscarcely the means of making the comparison. We know that oxygen and\nazote are useful to us, but we don\u2019t try, and probably we should\ntry in vain, to determine in what proportion. We have not here the\nelements of appreciation\u2014the elements of value. I should say as much\nof the salts, the gases, the forces which abound in nature. When all\nthese agents are moved and combined so as to produce for us, but\n\u2039without our co-operation\u203a, utility, that utility we enjoy without\n\u2039estimating\u203a its value. It is when our co-operation comes into play,\nand, above all, when it comes to be exchanged,\u2014it is then, and then\nonly, that Estimation and Value make their appearance, in connexion\nnot with the utility of the substances or phenomena, of which we are\noften ignorant, but with the co-operation itself. [p167]\n\nThis is my reason for saying that \u201cValue is the appreciation of\nservices exchanged.\u201d These services may be very complicated; they\nmay have exacted a multitude of operations recent or remote; they\nmay be transmitted from one generation or one hemisphere to another\ngeneration or another hemisphere, embracing countless contracting\nparties, necessitating credits, advances, various arrangements,\nuntil a general balance is effected. But the principle of \u2039value\u203a\nis always in the services, and not in the utility of which these\nservices are the vehicle,\u2014utility which is gratuitous in its nature\nand essence, and which passes from hand to hand, if I may be allowed\nthe expression, \u2039into the bargain\u203a.\n\nAfter all, if you persist in seeing in Utility the foundation of\nValue, I am very willing, but it must be distinctly understood that\nit is not that utility which is in things and phenomena by the\ndispensation of Providence or the power of art, but the utility of\nhuman services compared and exchanged.\n\n\u2039Rarity.\u203a\u2014According to Senior, of all the circumstances which\ndetermine value, rarity is the most decisive. I have no objection\nto make to that remark, if it is not that the form in which it is\nmade presupposes that value is inherent in things themselves\u2014a\nhypothesis the very appearance of which I shall always combat. At\nbottom, the word \u2039rarity\u203a, as applied to the subject we are now\ndiscussing, expresses in a concise manner this idea, that, \u2039c\u00e6teris\nparibus\u203a, a service has more value in proportion as we have more\ndifficulty in rendering it to ourselves; and that, consequently, a\nlarger equivalent is exacted from us when we demand it from another.\nRarity is one of these difficulties. It is one \u2039obstacle\u203a more to\nbe surmounted. The greater it is, the greater remuneration do we\naward to those who surmount it for us. Rarity gives rise frequently\nto large remunerations, and this is my reason for refusing to admit\nwith the English Economists that Value is proportional to Labour. We\nmust take into account the parsimony with which nature treats us in\ncertain respects. The word \u2039service\u203a embraces all these ideas and\nshades of ideas.\n\n\u2039Judgment.\u203a\u2014Storch sees \u2039value\u203a in the judgment by which we recognise\nit. Undoubtedly, whenever we have to do with \u2039relation\u203a, it is\nnecessary to compare and to \u2039judge\u203a. Nevertheless, the relation is\none thing and the judgment is another. When we compare the height of\ntwo trees, their magnitude, and the difference of their magnitude,\nare independent of our appreciation.\n\nBut in the determination of value, what is the relation of which\nwe have to form a judgment? It is the relation of two services\nexchanged. The business is to discover what the services rendered\n[p168] \u2039are worth\u203a in relation to those received, in connexion\nwith acts or things exchanged, and taking all circumstances into\naccount,\u2014not what intrinsic utility resides in these acts or things,\nfor this utility may, to some extent, be altogether independent of\nhuman exertion, and, consequently, devoid of \u2039value\u203a.\n\nStorch falls into the error which I am now combating when he says,\u2014\n\n\u201cOur judgment enables us to discover the relation which exists\nbetween our wants and the utility of things. The determination which\nour judgment forms upon the \u2039utility of things\u203a constitutes their\n\u2039value\u203a.\u201d\n\nAnd, farther on, he says,\u2014\n\n\u201cIn order to create a value, we must have the conjunction of these\nthree circumstances:\u2014\u20391st\u203a, That man experiences or conceives a want;\n\u20392d\u203a, That there exists something calculated to satisfy that want;\nand, \u20393d\u203a, That a judgment is pronounced in favour of the \u2039utility of\nthe thing\u203a. Then the value of things is their relative \u2039utility\u203a.\u201d\n\nDuring the day I experience the want of seeing clearly. There exists\none thing calculated to satisfy that want\u2014namely, the light of the\nsun. My judgment pronounces in favour of the utility of that thing,\nand\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. it has no value. Why? Because I enjoy it without calling\nfor the services of any one.\n\nAt night I experience the same want. There exists one thing capable\nof satisfying it very imperfectly, a wax candle. My judgment\npronounces in favour of the utility, but far inferior utility, of\nthat thing\u2014and it \u2039has value\u203a. Why? Because the man who has taken\nthe trouble to make the candle will not give it to me except upon\ncondition of my rendering him an equivalent service.\n\nWhat we have, then, to compare and to judge of, in order to determine\nValue, is not the \u2039relative utility\u203a of things, but the relation of\ntwo services.\n\nOn these terms, I do not reject Storch\u2019s definition.\n\nPermit me to recapitulate a little, in order to show clearly that\nmy definition contains all that is true in the definitions of my\npredecessors, and eliminates everything in them which is erroneous\neither through excess or defect.\n\nThe principle of Value, we have seen, resides in a human \u2039service\u203a,\nand results from the appreciation of two services compared.\n\nValue must have relation to Effort. \u2039Service\u203a implies a certain\nEffort.\n\nValue supposes a comparison of Efforts exchanged, at least\nexchangeable. \u2039Service\u203a implies the terms to give and to receive.\n[p169]\n\nValue is not, however, in fact proportional to the intensity of the\nEfforts. \u2039Service\u203a does not necessarily imply that proportion.\n\nA multitude of external circumstances influence value without\nconstituting value itself. The word \u2039service\u203a takes all these\ncircumstances in due measure into account.\n\n\u2039Materiality.\u203a\u2014When the service consists in transferring a material\nthing, nothing hinders us from saying, by metonymy, that it is the\nthing which \u2039has value\u203a. But we must not forget that this is a figure\nof speech, by which we attribute to things themselves the value of\nthe services which produced them.\n\n\u2039Conservability.\u203a\u2014Without reference to the consideration of\nmateriality, value endures until the satisfaction is obtained, and\nno longer. Whether the satisfaction follows the effort more or less\nnearly\u2014whether the service is personal or real, makes no change in\nthe nature of value.\n\n\u2039Capability of Accumulation.\u203a\u2014In a social point of view, what is\naccumulated by saving is not matter, but value or services.[35]\n\n\u2039Utility.\u203a\u2014I admit, with M. Say, that Utility is the foundation of\nValue, provided it is granted me that we have no concern with the\nutility which resides in commodities, but with the relative utility\nof services.\n\n\u2039Labour.\u203a\u2014I admit, with Ricardo, that Labour is the foundation\nof Value, provided, first of all, the word labour is taken in\nthe most general sense, and that you do not afterwards assert a\nproportionality which is contrary to fact; in other words, provided\nyou substitute for the word \u2039labour\u203a the word \u2039service\u203a.\n\n\u2039Rarity.\u203a\u2014I admit, with Senior, that rarity influences \u2039value\u203a. But\nwhy? Because it renders the \u2039service\u203a so much more precious.\n\n\u2039Judgment.\u203a\u2014I admit, with Storch, that value results from a judgment\nformed, provided it is granted me that the judgment so formed is not\nupon the utility of things, but on the utility of \u2039services\u203a.\n\nThus I hope to satisfy Economists of all shades of opinion. I [p170]\nadmit them all to be right, because all have had a glimpse of the\ntruth in one of its aspects. Error is no doubt on the reverse of\nthe medal; and it is for the reader to decide whether my definition\nincludes all that is true, and rejects all that is false.\n\nI cannot conclude without saying a word on that \u2039quadrature\u203a of\nPolitical Economy\u2014\u2039the measure of value\u203a; and here I shall repeat,\nand with still more force, the observation with which I terminated\nthe preceding chapters.\n\nI said that our wants, our desires, our tastes, have neither limit\nnor exact measure.\n\nI said also that our means of providing for our wants\u2014the gifts\nof nature, our faculties, activity, discernment, foresight\u2014had no\nprecise measure. Each of these elements is variable in itself\u2014it\ndiffers in different men\u2014it varies from hour to hour in the same\nindividual,\u2014so that the whole forms an aggregate which is mobility\nitself.\n\nIf, again, we consider what the circumstances are which influence\nvalue\u2014utility, labour, rarity, judgment\u2014and reflect that there is not\none of these circumstances which does not vary \u2039ad infinitum\u203a, we may\nwell ask why men should set themselves so pertinaciously to try to\ndiscover a fixed measure of Value?\n\nIt would be singular, indeed, if we were to find fixity in a mean\nterm composed of variable elements, and which is nothing else than a\nRelation between two extreme terms more variable still!\n\nThe Economists, then, who go in pursuit of an \u2039absolute measure of\nvalue\u203a are pursuing a chimera; and, what is more, a thing which, if\nfound, would be positively useless. Universal practice has adopted\ngold and silver as standards, although practical men are not ignorant\nhow variable is the value of these metals. But of what importance\nis the variability of the measure, if, affecting equally and in\nthe same manner the two objects which are exchanged, it does not\ninterfere with the fairness and equity of the exchange? It is a \u2039mean\nproportional\u203a, which may rise or fall, without, on that account,\nfailing to perform its office, which is to show the \u2039Relation\u203a of two\nextremes.\n\nThe design of the science is not, like that of exchange, to\ndiscover the \u2039present Relation of two services\u203a, for, in that case,\nmoney would answer the purpose in view. What the science aims at\ndiscovering is \u2039the Relation between Effort and Satisfaction\u203a; and\nfor this purpose, a measure of value, did it exist, would teach us\nnothing, for the effort brings always to the satisfaction a varying\nproportion of gratuitous utility which has no value. It is because\nthis element of our well-being has been lost sight of that the\n[p171] majority of writers have deplored the absence of a measure\nof Value. They have not reflected that it would not enable them\nto answer the question proposed\u2014What is the comparative Wealth or\nprosperity of two classes, of two countries, of two generations?\n\nIn order to resolve that question, the science would require a\nmeasure which should reveal to it not only \u2039the relation of two\nservices\u203a, which might be the vehicle of very different amounts\nof gratuitous utility, but the relation \u2039of the Effort to the\nSatisfaction\u203a, and that measure could be no other than the effort\nitself, or labour.\n\nBut how can labour serve as a measure? Is it not itself a most\nvariable element? Is it not more or less skilful, laborious,\nprecarious, dangerous, repugnant? Does it not require, more or less,\nthe intervention of certain intellectual faculties, of certain moral\nvirtues? and, according as it is influenced by these circumstances,\nis it not rewarded by a remuneration which is in the highest degree\nvariable?\n\nThere is one species of labour which, at all times, and in all\nplaces, is identically the same, and it is that which must serve as a\ntype. I mean labour the most simple, rude, primitive, muscular,\u2014that\nwhich is freest from all natural co-operation\u2014that which every man\ncan execute\u2014that which renders services of a kind which one can\nrender to himself\u2014that which exacts no exceptional force or skill,\nand requires no apprenticeship,\u2014industry such as is found in the\nvery earliest stages of society: the work, in short, of the simple\nday-labourer. That kind of labour is everywhere the most abundantly\nsupplied, the least special, the most homogeneous, and the worst\nremunerated. Wages in all other departments are proportioned and\ngraduated on this basis, and increase with every circumstance which\nadds to its importance.\n\nIf, then, we wish to compare two social states with each other, we\ncannot have recourse to a \u2039standard of value\u203a, and for two reasons,\nthe one as logical as the other\u2014first, because there is none; and,\nsecondly, because, if there were, it would give a wrong answer to\nour question, neglecting, as it must, a considerable and progressive\nelement in human prosperity\u2014gratuitous utility.\n\nWhat we must do, on the contrary, is to put Value altogether out of\nsight, particularly the consideration of money; and ask the question,\nWhat, in such and such a country, and, at such and such an epoch, is\nthe amount of each kind of special utility, and the sum total of all\nutilities, which correspond to a given amount of unskilled labour? In\nother words, what amount of material comfort and prosperity can an\nunskilled workman earn as the reward of his daily toil? [p172]\n\nWe may affirm that the natural social order is harmonious, and goes\non improving, if, on the one hand, the number of unskilled labours,\nreceiving the smallest possible remuneration, continues to diminish;\nand if, on the other, that remuneration, measured not in value or\nin money, but in real satisfactions, continues constantly on the\nincrease.[36]\n\nThe ancients have well described all the combinations of Exchange:\u2014\n\n\u2039Do ut des\u203a (commodity against commodity), \u2039Do ut facias\u203a (commodity\nagainst service), \u2039Facio ut des\u203a (service against commodity), \u2039Facio\nut facias\u203a (service against service).[37]\n\nSeeing that products and services are thus exchanged for one another,\nit is quite necessary that they should have something in common,\nsomething by which they can be compared and estimated\u2014namely, \u2039Value\u203a.\n\nBut value is always identically the same. Whether it be in the\nproduct or in the service, it has always the same origin and\nfoundation.\n\nThis being so, we may ask, is Value originally and essentially in the\n\u2039commodity\u203a, and is it only by analogy that we extend the notion to\nthe \u2039service\u203a?\n\nOr, on the contrary, does Value reside in the service, and is it not\nmixed up and amalgamated with the product, simply and exclusively\nbecause the service is so?\n\nSome people seem to think that this is a question of pure subtilty.\nWe shall see by-and-by. At present I shall only observe, that it\nwould be strange if, in Political Economy, a good or a bad definition\nof Value were a matter of indifference.\n\nI cannot doubt that, at the outset, Political Economists thought they\ndiscovered value rather in the product, as such, than in the matter\nof the product. The Physiocrates [the \u2039\u00c9conomistes\u203a of Quesnay\u2019s\nschool] attributed value exclusively to land, and stigmatized as\n\u2039sterile\u203a such classes as added nothing to matter,\u2014so strictly in\ntheir eyes were \u2039value\u203a and \u2039matter\u203a bound up together.\n\nAdam Smith ought to have discarded this idea, since he makes \u2039value\u203a\nflow from \u2039labour\u203a. Do not pure services, services \u2039per se\u203a, exact\nlabour, and, consequently, do they not imply value? Near to the\ntruth as Smith had come, he did not make himself master of it; for,\nbesides pronouncing formally that labour, in order to possess value,\nmust be applied to matter, to something physically [p173] tangible\nand capable of accumulation, we know that, like the Physiocrates,\nhe ranked those who simply render services among the unproductive\nclasses.\n\nThese classes, in fact, occupy a prominent position in the Wealth of\nNations. But this only shows us that the author, after having given a\ndefinition, found himself straitened by it, and, consequently, that\nthat definition is erroneous. Adam Smith would not have gained his\ngreat and just renown had he not written his magnificent chapters on\nEducation, on the Clergy, and on Public Services, and if he had, in\ntreating of Wealth, confined himself within the limits of his own\ndefinition. Happily, by this inconsistency, he freed himself from the\nfetters which his premises imposed upon him. This always happens.\nA man of genius who sets out with a false principle never escapes\ninconsistency, without which he would get deeper and deeper into\nerror, and, far from appearing a man of genius, would show himself no\nlonger a man of sense.\n\nAs Adam Smith advanced a step beyond the Physiocrates, Jean Baptiste\nSay advanced a step beyond Smith. By degrees Say was led to refer\nvalue to services, but only by way of analogy. It is in the product\nthat he discovers true value, and nothing shows this better than\nhis whimsical denomination of services as \u201cimmaterial products\u201d\u2014two\nwords which absolutely shriek out on finding themselves side by side.\nSay, in the outset, agrees with Smith; for the entire theory of the\nmaster is to be found in the first ten lines of the work of the\ndisciple.[38] But he thought and meditated on the subject for thirty\nyears, and he made progress. He approximated more and more to the\ntruth, without ever fully attaining it.\n\nMoreover, we might have imagined that Say did his duty as an\nEconomist as well by referring the value of the service to the\nproduct, as by referring the value of the product to the service,\nif the Socialist propaganda, founding on his own deductions, had\nnot come to reveal to us the insufficiency and the danger of his\nprinciple.\n\nThe question I propose, then, is this:\u2014Seeing that certain products\nare possessed of value, seeing that certain services are possessed\nof value, and seeing that value is one and identical, and can have\nbut one origin, one foundation, one explanation,\u2014is this origin, this\nexplanation to be found in the product or in the service?\n\nThe reply to that question is obvious, and for this unanswerable\n[p174] reason, that every product which has value implies service,\nbut every service does not necessarily imply a product.\n\nThis appears to me mathematically certain\u2014conclusive.\n\nA service, as such, has value, whether it assume a material form or\nnot.\n\nA material object has value if, in transferring it to another, we\nrender him a service,\u2014if not, it has no value.\n\nThen value does not proceed from the material object to the service,\nbut from the service to the material object.\n\nNor is this all. Nothing is more easily explained than this\npre-eminence, this priority, given to the service over the product,\nso far as value is concerned. We shall immediately see that this is\nowing to a circumstance which might have been easily perceived, but\nwhich has not been observed, just because it is under our eyes. It\nis nothing else than that foresight which is natural to man, and in\nvirtue of which, in place of limiting himself to the services which\nare demanded of him, he prepares himself beforehand to render those\nservices which he foresees are likely to be demanded. It is thus\nthat the \u2039facio ut facias\u203a transforms itself into the \u2039do ut des\u203a,\nwithout its ceasing to be the dominant fact which explains the whole\ntransaction.\n\nJohn says to Peter, I want a cup. I could make it for myself, but if\nyou will make it for me, you will render me a service, for which I\nwill pay you by an equivalent service.\n\nPeter accepts the offer, and, in consequence, sets out in quest of\nsuitable materials, mixes them, manipulates them, and, in fine, makes\nthe article which John wants.\n\nIt is very evident that here it is the service which determines the\nvalue. The dominant word in the transaction is \u2039facio\u203a. And if,\nafterwards, the value is incorporated with the product, it is only\nbecause it flows from the service, which combines the labour executed\nby Peter with the labour saved to John.\n\nNow, it may happen that John may make frequently the same proposal\nto Peter, and that other people may also make it; so that Peter can\nforesee with certainty the kind of services which will be demanded\nof him, and prepare himself for rendering them. He may say, I have\nacquired a certain degree of skill in making cups. Experience\ntells me that cups supply a want which must be satisfied, and I am\ntherefore enabled to manufacture them beforehand.\n\nHenceforth John says no longer to Peter, \u2039facio ut facias\u203a, but\n\u2039facio ut des\u203a. If he in turn has foreseen the wants of Peter, and\nlaboured beforehand to provide for them, he can then say \u2039do ut\ndes\u203a. [p175]\n\nBut in what respect, I ask, does this progress, which flows from\nhuman foresight, change the nature and origin of value? Does service\ncease to be its foundation and measure? As regards the true idea of\nvalue, what difference does it make whether Peter, before he makes\nthe cup, waits till there is a demand for it, or, foreseeing a future\ndemand, manufactures the article beforehand?\n\nThere is another remark which I would make here. In human life,\ninexperience and thoughtlessness precede experience and foresight.\nIt is only in the course of time that men are enabled to foresee\neach other\u2019s wants, and to make preparations for satisfying them.\nLogically, the \u2039facio ut facias\u203a must precede the \u2039do ut des\u203a. The\nlatter is at once the fruit and the evidence of a certain amount of\nknowledge diffused, of experience acquired, of political security\nobtained, of a certain confidence in the future,\u2014in a word, of\na certain degree of civilisation. This social prescience, this\nfaith in a future \u2039demand\u203a, which causes us to provide a present\n\u2039supply\u203a; this sort of intuitive acquaintance with statistics which\neach possesses in a greater or less degree, and which establishes a\nsurprising equilibrium between our wants and the means of supplying\nthem, is one of the most powerful and efficacious promoters of\nhuman improvement. To it we owe the division of labour, or at least\nthe separation of trades and professions. To it we owe one of the\nadvantages which men seek for with the greatest ardour, the fixity\nof remuneration, under the form of \u2039wages\u203a as regards labour,\nand \u2039interest\u203a as regards capital. To it we are indebted for the\ninstitution of credit, transactions having reference to the future,\nthose which are designed to equalize risk, etc. It is surprising,\nin an Economical point of view, that this noble attribute of man,\nForesight, has not been made more the subject of remark. This arises,\nas Rousseau has said, from the difficulty we experience in observing\nthe medium in which we live and move, and which forms our natural\natmosphere. We notice only exceptional appearances and abnormal\nfacts, while we allow to pass unperceived those which act permanently\naround us, upon us, and within us, and which modify profoundly both\nindividual men and society at large.\n\nTo return to the subject which at present engages us. It may be that\nhuman foresight, in its infinite diffusion, tends more and more to\nsubstitute the \u2039do ut des\u203a for the \u2039facio ut facias\u203a; but we must\nnever forget that it is in the primitive and \u2039necessary\u203a form of\nexchange that the notion of value first makes its appearance, that\nthis primitive form is that of reciprocal service; and that, after\nall, [p176] as regards exchange, the product is only a \u2039service\nforeseen\u203a and provided for.\n\nBut although I have shown that value is not inherent in matter, and\ncannot be classed among its attributes, I am far from maintaining\nthat it does not pass from the \u2039service\u203a to the \u2039product\u203a, so as (if\nI may be allowed the expression) to become incorporated with it. I\nhope my opponents will not believe that I am pedant enough to wish to\nexclude from common language such phrase as these\u2014gold \u2039has value\u203a,\nwheat \u2039has value\u203a, land \u2039has value\u203a. But I have a right to demand of\nscience why this is so? and if I am answered, because gold, wheat,\nand land possess in themselves intrinsic \u2039value\u203a, then I think I\nhave a right to say\u2014\u201cYou are mistaken, and your error is dangerous.\nYou are mistaken, for there are gold and land which are destitute of\nvalue, gold and land which have not yet had any human labour bestowed\nupon them. Your error is dangerous, for it leads men to regard what\nis simply a right to a reciprocity of services as a usurpation of the\ngratuitous gifts of God.\u201d\n\nI am quite willing, then, to acknowledge that products are possessed\nof value, provided you grant me that it is not essential to them, and\nthat it attaches itself to services, and proceeds from them.\n\nThis is so true, that a very important consequence, and one which is\nfundamental in Political Economy, flows from it\u2014a consequence which\nhas not been, and indeed could not be remarked. It is this:\u2014\n\n\u2039Where value has passed from the service to the product, it undergoes\nin the product all the risks and chances to which it is subject in\nthe service itself.\u203a\n\nIt is not fixed in the product, as it would have been had it been one\nof its own intrinsic qualities. It is essentially variable; it may\nrise indefinitely, or it may fall until it disappears altogether,\njust as the species of service to which it owes its origin would have\ndone.\n\nThe man who makes a cup to-day for the purpose of selling it a year\nhence, confers value on it, and that value is determined by that of\nthe service\u2014not the value which the service possesses at the present\nmoment, but that which it will possess at the end of the year. If\nat the time when the cup comes to be sold such services are more in\ndemand, the cup will be worth more, or it will be depreciated in the\nopposite case.\n\nThis is the reason why man is constantly stimulated to exercise\nforesight, in order to turn it to account. He has always in [p177]\nperspective a possible rise or fall of value,\u2014a recompense for just\nand sagacious prevision, and chastisement when it is erroneous. And,\nobserve, his success or failure coincides with the public good or the\npublic detriment. If his foresight has been well directed, if he has\nmade preparations beforehand to give society the benefit of services\nwhich are more in request, more appreciated, more efficacious,\nwhich supply more adequately wants which are deeply felt, he has\ncontributed to diminish the scarcity, to augment the abundance, of\nthat description of service, and to bring it within the reach of a\ngreater number of persons at less expense. If, on the other hand, he\nis mistaken in his calculations for the future, he contributes, by\nhis competition, to depress still farther those services for which\nthere is little demand. He only effects, and at his own expense, a\nnegative good,\u2014he advertises the public that a certain description of\nwants no longer call for the exertion of much social activity, which\nactivity must now take another direction, or go without recompense.\n\nThis remarkable fact\u2014that \u2039value\u203a, \u2039incorporated\u203a in a product,\ndepends on the value of the kind of service to which it owes its\norigin\u2014is of the very highest importance, not only because it\ndemonstrates more and more clearly the theory that the principle of\nvalue resides in the service, but because it explains, easily and\nsatisfactorily, phenomena which other systems regard as abnormal and\nexceptional.\n\nWhen once the product has been thrown upon the market of the world,\ndo the general tendencies of society operate towards elevating or\ntowards depressing its \u2039value\u203a? This is to ask whether the particular\nkind of services which have engendered this value are liable to\nbecome more or less appreciated, and better or worse remunerated.\nThe one is as possible as the other, and it is this which opens an\nunlimited field to human foresight.\n\nThis we may remark at least, that the general law of beings, capable\nof making experiments, of acquiring information, and of rectifying\nmistakes, is progress. The probability, then, is, that at any given\nperiod a certain amount of time and pains will effect greater\nresults than were effected by the same agency at an anterior period:\nwhence we may conclude that the prevailing tendency of \u2039value\u203a,\n\u2039incorporated\u203a with a commodity, is to fall. If, for example, we\nsuppose the cup which I took by way of illustration, and as a symbol\nof other products, to have been made many years ago, the probability\nis that it has undergone depreciation, inasmuch as we have at the\npresent day more resources for the manufacture of such articles,\nmore skill, better tools, capital [p178] obtained on easier terms,\nand a more extended division of labour. In this way the person who\nwishes to obtain the cup does not say to its possessor, Tell me the\nexact amount of labour (quantity and quality both taken into account)\nwhich that cup has cost you, in order that I may remunerate you\naccordingly. No, he says, Now-a-days, in consequence of the progress\nof art, I can make for myself, or procure by exchange, a similar cup\nat the expense of so much labour of such a quality; and that is the\nlimit of the remuneration which I can consent to give you.\n\nHence it follows that all labour incorporated with commodities, in\nother words, all accumulated labour, all capital, has a tendency to\nbecome depreciated in presence of services naturally improvable and\nincreasingly and progressively productive; and that, in exchanging\npresent labour against anterior labour, the advantage is generally on\nthe side of present labour, as it ought to be, seeing that it renders\na greater amount of service.\n\nThis shows us how empty are the declamations which we hear\ncontinually directed against the value of landed property. That value\ndiffers from other values in nothing\u2014neither in its origin, nor in\nits nature, nor in the general law of its slow depreciation, as\ncompared with the labour which it originally cost.\n\nIt represents anterior services,\u2014the clearing away of trees and\nstones, draining, enclosing, levelling, manuring, building: it\ndemands the recompense of these services. But that recompense is\nnot regulated with reference to the labour which has been actually\nperformed. The landed proprietor does not say. \u201cGive me in exchange\nfor this land as much labour as it has received from me.\u201d (But he\nwould so express himself if, according to Adam Smith\u2019s theory, value\ncame from labour, and were proportional to it.) Much less does he\nsay, as Ricardo and a number of economists suppose, \u201cGive me first\nof all as much labour as this land has had bestowed upon it, and a\ncertain amount of labour over and above, as an equivalent for the\nnatural and inherent powers of the soil.\u201d No, the proprietor, who\nrepresents all the possessors of the land who have preceded him, up\nto those who made the first clearance, is obliged, in their name, to\nhold this humble language:\u2014\n\n\u201cWe have prepared services, and what we ask is to exchange these\nfor equivalent services. We worked hard formerly, for in our days\nwe were not acquainted with your powerful means of execution\u2014there\nwere no roads\u2014we were forced to do everything by muscular exertion.\nMuch sweat and toil, many human lives, are buried under these\nfurrows. But we do not expect from you [p179] labour for labour\u2014we\nhave no means of effecting an exchange on those terms. We are quite\naware that the labour bestowed on land now-a-days, whether in this\ncountry or abroad, is much more perfect and much more productive than\nformerly. All that we ask, and what you clearly cannot refuse us,\nis that our anterior labour and the new labour shall be exchanged,\nnot in proportion to their comparative duration and intensity, but\nproportionally to their results, so that we may both receive the same\nremuneration for the same service. By this arrangement we are losers\nas regards labour, seeing that three or four times more of ours than\nof yours is required to accomplish the same service; but we have no\nchoice, and can no longer effect the exchange on any other terms.\u201d\n\nAnd, in point of fact, this represents the actual state of things.\nIf we could form an exact estimate of the amount of efforts, of\nincessant labour, and toil, expended in bringing each acre of our\nland to its present state of productiveness, we should be thoroughly\nconvinced that the man who purchases that land does not give labour\nfor labour\u2014at least in ninety-nine cases out of the hundred.\n\nI add this qualification, because we must not forget that an\n\u2039incorporated service\u203a may gain value as well as lose it. And\nalthough the general tendency be towards depreciation, nevertheless\nthe opposite phenomenon manifests itself sometimes, in exceptional\ncircumstances, as well in the case of land as of anything else, and\nthis without violating the law of justice, or affording adequate\ncause for the cry of monopoly.\n\nServices always intervene to bring out the principle of value. In\nmost cases the anterior labour probably renders a less amount of\nservice than the new labour, but this is not an absolute law which\nadmits of no exception. If the anterior labour renders a less amount\nof service than the new, as is nearly always the case, a greater\nquantity of the first than of the second must be thrown into the\nscale to establish the equiponderance, seeing that the equiponderance\nis regulated by services. But if it happen, as it sometimes may, that\nthe anterior labour renders greater service than the new, the latter\nmust make up for this by the sacrifice of quantity. [p180]\n\n\n\n\n VI.\n WEALTH.\n\n\nWe have seen that in every commodity which is adapted to satisfy\nour wants and desires, there are two things to be considered\nand distinguished: what nature does, and what man does,\u2014what is\ngratuitous, and what is onerous\u2014the gift of God and the service\nof man\u2014\u2039utility\u203a and \u2039value\u203a. In the same commodity the one may\nbe immense, and the other imperceptible. The former remaining\ninvariable, the latter may be indefinitely diminished; and is\ndiminished, in fact, as often as an ingenious process or invention\nenables us to obtain the same result with less effort.\n\nOne of the greatest difficulties, one of the most fertile sources of\nmisunderstanding, controversy, and error, here presents itself to us\nat the very threshold of the science\u2014\n\nWhat is \u2039wealth\u203a?\n\nAre we \u2039rich\u203a in proportion to the utilities which we have at our\ndisposal,\u2014that is, in proportion to the wants and desires which we\nhave the means of satisfying? \u201cA man is rich or poor,\u201d says Adam\nSmith, \u201caccording as he possesses a greater or smaller amount of\n\u2039useful\u203a commodities which minister to his enjoyments.\u201d\n\nAre we \u2039rich\u203a in proportion to the \u2039values\u203a which we possess,\u2014that\nis to say, the \u2039services\u203a which we can command? \u201cWealth,\u201d says J. B.\nSay, \u201cis in proportion to Value. It is great if the sum of the value\nof which it is composed is great\u2014it is small if the value be small.\u201d\n\nThe vulgar employ the word Wealth in two senses. Sometimes we hear\nthem say\u2014\u201cThe abundance of water is Wealth to such a country.\u201d In\nthis case, they are thinking only of utility. But when one wishes to\nreckon up his own wealth, he makes what is called an Inventory, in\nwhich only commercial Value is taken into account.\n\nWith deference to the \u2039savants\u203a, I believe that the vulgar are\n[p181] right for once. Wealth is either \u2039actual\u203a or \u2039relative\u203a. In\nthe first point of view, we judge of it by our satisfactions. Mankind\nbecome richer in proportion as they acquire a greater amount of ease\nor material prosperity, whatever be the commodities by which it is\nprocured. But do you wish to know what proportional share each man\nhas in the general prosperity; in other words, his \u2039relative wealth\u203a?\nThis is simply a relation, which value alone reveals, because value\nis itself a relation.\n\nOur science has to do with the general welfare and prosperity of men,\nwith the proportion which exists between their Efforts and their\nSatisfactions,\u2014a proportion which the progressive participation\nof gratuitous utility in the business of production modifies\nadvantageously. You cannot, then, exclude this element from the\nidea of Wealth. In a scientific point of view, actual or effective\nwealth is not the sum of values, but the aggregate of the utilities,\ngratuitous and onerous, which are attached to these values. As\nregards satisfactions,\u2014that is to say, as regards actual results of\nwealth, we are as much enriched by the value annihilated by progress\nas by that which still subsists.\n\nIn the ordinary transactions of life, we cease to take utility into\naccount, in proportion as that utility becomes \u2039gratuitous\u203a by the\nlowering of value. Why? because what is gratuitous is \u2039common\u203a, and\nwhat is common alters in no respect each man\u2019s share or proportion\nof actual or effective wealth. We do not exchange what is common to\nall; and as in our every-day transactions we only require to be made\nacquainted with the proportion which value establishes, we take no\naccount of anything else.\n\nThis subject gave rise to a controversy between Ricardo and J. B.\nSay. Ricardo gave to the word Wealth the sense of Utility\u2014Say,\nthat of Value. The exclusive triumph of one of these champions was\nimpossible, since the word admits of both senses, according as we\nregard wealth as actual or relative.\n\nBut it is necessary to remark, and the more so on account of the\ngreat authority of Say in these matters, that if we confound \u2039wealth\u203a\n(in the sense of actual or effective prosperity) with \u2039value\u203a; above\nall, if we affirm that the one is proportional to the other, we\nshall be apt to give the science a wrong direction. The works of\nsecond-rate Economists, and those of the Socialists, show this but\ntoo clearly. To set out by concealing from view precisely that which\nforms the fairest patrimony of the human race, is an unfortunate\nbeginning. It leads us to consider as annihilated that portion of\nwealth which progress renders common to all, and exposes us to the\ndanger of falling into a \u2039petitio principii\u203a, and studying [p182]\nPolitical Economy backwards,\u2014the \u2039end\u203a, the design, which it is our\nobject to attain, being perpetually confounded with the \u2039obstacle\u203a\nwhich impedes our efforts.\n\nIn truth, but for the existence of obstacles, there could be no\nsuch thing as Value, which is the sign, the symptom, the witness,\nthe proof of our native weakness. It reminds us incessantly of the\ndecree which went forth in the beginning\u2014\u201cIn the sweat of thy face\nshalt thou eat bread.\u201d With reference to Omnipotence, the words\n\u2039Effort\u203a, \u2039Service\u203a, and, consequently, \u2039Value\u203a, have no meaning. As\nregards ourselves, we live in an atmosphere of \u2039utilities\u203a, of which\nutilities the greater part are gratuitous, but there are others which\nwe can acquire only by an onerous title. Obstacles are interposed\nbetween these utilities and the wants to which they minister. We are\ncondemned either to forego the Utility, or vanquish these obstacles\nby Efforts. Sweat must drop from the brow before bread can be eaten,\nwhether the toil be undergone by ourselves or by others for our\nbenefit.\n\nThe greater the amount of value we find existing in a country, the\ngreater evidence we have that obstacles have been surmounted, but the\ngreater evidence we also have that there are obstacles to surmount.\nAre we to go so far as to say that these obstacles constitute Wealth,\nbecause, apart from them, Value would have no existence?\n\nWe may suppose two countries. One of them possesses the means of\nenjoyment to a greater extent than the other with a less amount of\nValue, because it is favoured by nature, and it has fewer obstacles\nto overcome. Which is the richer?\n\nOr, to put a stronger case, let us suppose the same people at\ndifferent periods of their history. The obstacles to be overcome\nare the same at both periods. But, now-a-days, they surmount these\nobstacles with so much greater facility; they execute, for instance,\nthe work of transport, of tillage, of manufactures, at so much\nless an expense of effort that values are considerably reduced.\nThere are two courses, then, which a people in such a situation may\ntake,\u2014they may content themselves with the same amount of enjoyments\nas formerly,\u2014progress in that case resolving itself simply into\nthe attainment of additional leisure; and, in such circumstances,\nshould we be authorized to say that the Wealth of the society had\nretrograded because it is possessed of a smaller amount of value?\nOr, they may devote the efforts which progress and improvement\nhave rendered disposable to the increase and extension of their\nenjoyments; but should we be warranted to conclude that, because the\namount of values had remained [p183] stationary, the wealth of the\nsociety had remained stationary also? It is to this result, however,\nthat we tend if we confound the two things, \u2039Riches\u203a and \u2039Value\u203a.\n\nPolitical Economists may here find themselves in a dilemma. Are we to\nmeasure wealth by Satisfactions realized, or by Values created?\n\nWere no obstacles interposed between utilities and desires, there\nwould be neither efforts, nor services, nor Values in our case, any\nmore than in that of God and nature. In such circumstances, were\nwealth estimated by the satisfactions realized, mankind, like nature,\nwould be in possession of infinite riches; but, if estimated by the\nvalues created, they would be deprived of wealth altogether. An\neconomist who adopted the first view might pronounce us \u2039infinitely\nrich\u203a,\u2014another, who adopted the second view, might pronounce us\n\u2039infinitely poor\u203a.\n\nThe infinite, it is true, is in no respect an attribute of humanity.\nBut mankind direct their exertions to certain ends; they make\nefforts, they have tendencies, they gravitate towards progressive\nWealth or progressive Poverty. Now, how could Economists make\nthemselves mutually intelligible if this successive diminution of\neffort in relation to result, of labour to be undergone or to be\nremunerated; in a word, if this successive diminution of Value were\nconsidered by some of them as a progress towards Wealth, and by\nothers as a descent towards Poverty?\n\nDid the difficulty, indeed, concern only Economists, we might say,\nlet them settle the matter among themselves. But legislators and\ngovernments have every day to introduce measures which exercise a\nserious influence on human affairs; and in what condition should we\nbe if these measures were taken in the absence of that light which\nenables us to distinguish Riches from Poverty?\n\nI affirm that the theory which defines Wealth as Value is only\nthe glorification of Obstacles. Its syllogism is this: \u201cWealth is\nin proportion to Value, value to efforts, efforts to obstacles;\n\u2039ergo\u203a, wealth is in proportion to obstacles.\u201d I affirm also that,\nby reason of the division of labour, which includes the case of\nevery one who exercises a trade or profession, the illusion thus\ncreated is very difficult to be got rid of. We all of us see that\nthe services which we render are called forth by some obstacle, some\nwant, some suffering,\u2014those of the physician by disease, those of\nthe agricultural labourer by hunger, those of the manufacturer of\nclothing by cold, those of the carrier by distance, those of the\nadvocate by injustice, those of the soldier by danger to his country.\nThere is not, in fact, a single obstacle, the disappearance of which\ndoes not [p184] prove very inopportune and very troublesome to\nsomebody, or which does not even appear fatal in a public point of\nview, because it seems to dry up a source of employment, of services,\nof values, of wealth. Very few Economists have been able to preserve\nthemselves entirely from this illusion; and if the science shall\never succeed in dispelling it, its practical mission will have been\nfulfilled. For I venture to make a third affirmation\u2014namely, that\nour official practice is saturated with this theory, and that when\ngovernments believe it to be their duty to favour certain classes,\ncertain professions, or certain manufactures, they have no other mode\nof accomplishing their object than by setting up Obstacles, in order\nto give to particular branches of industry additional development,\nin order to enlarge artificially the circle of services to which the\ncommunity is forced to have recourse,\u2014and thus to increase Value,\nfalsely assumed as synonymous with Wealth.\n\nAnd, in fact, it is quite true that such legislation is useful to the\nclasses which are favoured by it\u2014they exult in it\u2014congratulate each\nother upon it,\u2014and what is the consequence? Why this, that the same\nfavours are successively accorded to all other classes.\n\nWhat more natural than to confound Utility with Value, and Value\nwith Riches! The science has never encountered a snare which she has\nless suspected. For what has happened? At every step of progress the\nreasoning has been this: \u201cThe obstacle is diminished, then effort\nis lessened, then value is lessened, then utility is lessened, then\nwealth is lessened,\u2014then we are the most unfortunate people in the\nworld to have taken it into our heads to invent and exchange, to have\nfive fingers in place of three, and two hands in place of one; and\nthen it is necessary to engage government, which is in possession of\nforce, to take order with this abuse.\u201d\n\nThis Political Economy \u2039\u00e0 rebours\u203a\u2014this Political Economy read\nbackwards\u2014is the staple of many of our journals, and the life of\nlegislative assemblies. It has misled the candid and philanthropic\nSismondi, and we find it very logically set forth in the work of M.\nde Saint-Chamans.\n\n\u201cThere are two kinds of national wealth,\u201d he tells us. \u201cIf we have\nregard only to \u2039useful\u203a products with reference to their quantity,\ntheir abundance, we have to do with a species of wealth which\nprocures enjoyments to society, and which I shall denominate \u2039the\nWealth of enjoyment\u203a.\n\n\u201cIf we regard products with reference to their exchangeable Value, or\nsimply with reference to their value, we have to do with [p185] a\nspecies of Wealth which procures values to society, and which I call\n\u2039the Wealth of value\u203a.\n\n\u201c\u2039It is this last species of Wealth which forms the special subject\nof Political Economy, and it is with it, above all, that governments\nhave to do.\u203a\u201d\n\nThis being so, how are Economists and Statesmen to proceed? The first\nare to point out the means of increasing this species of riches, this\n\u2039wealth of value\u203a; the second to set about adopting these means.\n\nBut this kind of wealth bears proportion to efforts, and efforts\nbear proportion to obstacles. Political Economy, then, is to teach,\nand Government to contrive, how to multiply obstacles. M. de\nSaint-Chamans does not flinch in the least from this consequence.\n\nDoes exchange facilitate our acquiring more of the \u2039wealth of\nenjoyment\u203a with less of the \u2039wealth of value\u203a? We must, then,\ncounteract this tendency of exchange.[39]\n\nIs there any portion of gratuitous Utility which we can replace by\nonerous Utility; for example, by prohibiting the use of a tool or a\nmachine? We must not fail to do so; for it is very evident, he says,\nthat if machinery augments the \u2039wealth of enjoyment\u203a, it diminishes\nthe \u2039wealth of value\u203a. \u201c\u2039Let us bless the obstacles\u203a which the\ndearness and scarcity of fuel in this country has opposed to the\nmultiplication of steam-engines.\u201d[40]\n\nHas nature favoured us in any particular respect? It is our\nmisfortune; for, by that means, we are deprived of the opportunity of\nexerting ourselves. \u201cI avow that I could desire to see manufactured\nby manual labour, forced exertion, and the sweat of the brow, things\nthat are now produced without trouble and spontaneously.\u201d[41]\n\nWhat a misfortune, then, is it for us that we are not obliged to\nmanufacture the water which we drink! It would have been a fine\nopportunity of producing the \u2039wealth of value\u203a. Happily we take our\nrevenge upon wine. \u201cDiscover the secret of drawing wine from springs\nin the earth as abundantly as you draw water, and you will soon see\nthat this fine order of things will ruin a fourth part of France.\u201d[42]\n\nAccording to the ideas which this Economist sets forth with such\n\u2039na\u00efvet\u00e9\u203a, there are many methods, and very simple methods too, of\nobliging men to create what he terms the \u2039wealth of value\u203a.\n\nThe first is to deprive them of what they have. \u201cIf taxation [p186]\nlays held of money where it is plentiful, to distribute it where it\nis scarce, it is useful, and far from being a loss, \u2039it is a gain\u203a,\nto the state.\u201d[43]\n\nThe second is to dissipate what you take. \u201cLuxury and prodigality,\nwhich are so hurtful to individual fortunes, \u2039benefit\u203a public\nwealth. You teach me a fine moral lesson, it may be said\u2014I have no\nsuch pretension\u2014my business is with Political Economy, and not with\nmorals. You seek the means of rendering nations richer, and I preach\nup luxury.\u201d[44]\n\nA more prompt method still is to destroy the wealth which you take\nfrom the tax-payer by good sweeping wars. \u201cIf you grant me that the\nexpenditure of prodigals is as productive as any other, and that the\nexpenditure of governments is equally productive, .\u00a0.\u00a0. you will no\nlonger be astonished at the wealth of England after so expensive a\nwar.\u201d[45]\n\nBut, as tending to promote the creation of this \u2039Wealth of value\u203a,\nall these means\u2014taxes, luxury, wars\u2014must hide their diminished\nheads before an expedient infinitely more efficacious\u2014namely,\n\u2039conflagration\u203a.\n\n\u201cTo build is a great source of wealth, because it supplies revenues\nto proprietors, who furnish the materials, to workmen, and to divers\nclasses of artisans and artists. Melon cites Sir William Petty, who\nregards, as a \u2039national profit\u203a, the labour employed in rebuilding\nthe streets of London after the great fire which consumed two-thirds\nof the city, and he estimates it (the profit!) at a million sterling\nper annum (in money of 1666) during four years, and this without the\nleast injury having been done to other branches of trade. Without\nregarding this pecuniary estimate \u2039of profit\u203a as quite accurate,\u201d\nadds M. de Saint-Chamans, \u201cit is certain at least that this event\nhad no detrimental effect upon the wealth of England at that\nperiod.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. The result stated by Sir W. Petty is not impossible,\nseeing that the necessity of rebuilding London must have created a\nlarge amount of new revenues.\u201d[46]\n\nAll Economists, who set out by confounding \u2039wealth\u203a with \u2039value\u203a,\nmust infallibly arrive at the same conclusions, if they are logical;\nbut they are not logical; for on the road of absurdity men of any\ncommon sense always sooner or later stop short. M. de Saint-Chamans\nseems himself to recede a little before the consequences of his\nprinciple, when it lands him in a eulogium on conflagration. We see\nthat he hesitates, and contents himself with a negative panegyric.\nHe should have carried out his principle to [p187] its logical\nconclusions, and told us roundly what he so clearly indicates.\n\nOf all our Economists, M. de Sismondi has succumbed to the difficulty\nnow under consideration in the manner most to be regretted. Like\nM. de Saint-Chamans, he set out with the idea that value forms an\nelement of wealth; and, like him, he has built upon this datum a\nPolitical Economy \u2039\u00e0 rebours\u203a, denouncing everything which tends\nto diminish value. Sismondi, like Saint-Chamans, exalts obstacles,\nproscribes machinery, anathematizes exchange, competition, and\nliberty, extols luxury and taxation, and arrives at length at this\nconclusion, that the more we possess the poorer we become.[47]\n\nFrom beginning to end of his work, however, M. de Sismondi seems to\nhave a lurking consciousness that he is mistaken, and that a dark\nveil may have interposed itself between his mind and the truth. He\ndoes not venture, like M. de Saint-Chamans, to announce roughly\nand bluntly the consequences of his principle\u2014he hesitates, and is\ntroubled. He asks himself sometimes if it is possible that all men\nfrom the beginning of the world have been in error, and on the road\nto self-destruction, in seeking to diminish the proportion which\nEffort bears to Satisfaction,\u2014that is to say, \u2039value\u203a. At once the\nfriend and the enemy of liberty, he fears it, since the abundance\nwhich depreciates value leads to universal poverty, and yet he knows\nnot how to set about the destruction of this fatal liberty. He thus\narrives at the confines of socialism and artificial organization, and\ninsinuates that government and science should regulate and control\neverything. Then he sees the danger of the advice he is giving,\nretracts it, and ends by falling into despair, exclaiming\u2014\u201cLiberty\nleads to the abyss of poverty\u2014Constraint is as impossible as it is\nuseless\u2014there is no escape.\u201d In truth and reality, there is none, if\nValue be Riches; in other words, if the obstacle to prosperity be\nprosperity itself,\u2014that is to say, if Evil be Good.\n\nThe latest writer, as far as I know, who has stirred this question\n[p188] is M. Proudhon. It made the fortune of his book, \u2039Des\nContradictions \u00c9conomiques\u203a. Never was there a finer opportunity\nof seizing a paradox by the forelock, and snapping his fingers\nat science. Never was there a fairer occasion of asking\u2014\u201cDo you\nsee in the increase of value a good or an evil? \u2039Quidquid dixeris\nargumentabor.\u203a\u201d Just think what a treat![48]\n\n\u201cI call upon any earnest Economist to explain to me, otherwise\nthan by varying and repeating the question, why value diminishes\nin proportion as production increases, and \u2039vice versa\u203a.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. In\ntechnical phrase, value in use and value in exchange, although\nnecessary to each other, are in an inverse ratio to each\nother.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. Value in use and value in exchange remain, then,\nfatally enchained, although in their own nature they tend to exclude\neach other.\u201d\n\n\u201cFor this contradiction, which is inherent in the notion of value,\nno cause can be assigned, nor is any explanation of it possible.\u00a0.\u00a0.\nFrom the data, that man has need of a great variety of commodities,\nand that he must provide them by his labour, the necessary conclusion\nis, that there exists an antagonism between value in use and value\nin exchange, and from this antagonism a contradiction arises at the\nvery threshold of Political Economy. No amount of intelligence, no\nagency, divine or human, can make it otherwise. In place, then, of\nbeating about for a useless explanation, let us content ourselves\nwith pointing out clearly the \u2039necessity of the contradiction\u203a.\u201d\n\nWe know that the grand discovery of M. Proudhon is, that everything\nis at once true and false, good and bad, legitimate and illegitimate,\nthat there exits no principle which is not self-contradictory, and\nthat contradiction lurks not only in erroneous theories, but in the\nvery essence of things,\u2014\u201cit is the pure expression of necessity,\nthe peculiar law of existence,\u201d etc.; so that it is inevitable,\nand would be incurable, rationally, but for \u2039progression\u203a,\nand, practically, but for the \u2039Banque du Peuple\u203a. Nature is a\ncontradiction, liberty a contradiction, competition a contradiction,\nproperty a contradiction,\u2014value, credit, monopoly, community, all\ncontradictions. When M. Proudhon achieved this wonderful discovery\nhis heart must have leaped for joy; for since contradiction is\neverywhere and in everything, he can never want something to gainsay,\nwhich for him is the supreme good. He said to me one day, \u201cI should\nrather like to go to heaven, but I [p189] fear that everybody there\nwill be of one mind, and I should find nobody to argue with.\u201d\n\nWe must confess that the subject of Value gave him an excellent\nopportunity of indulging his taste. But, with great deference to\nhim, the contradictions and paradoxes to which the word Value has\ngiven rise are to be found in the false theories which have been\nconstructed, and not at all, as he would have us believe, in the\nnature of things.\n\nTheorists have set out, in the first instance, by confounding\nValue with Utility,\u2014that is to say, evil with good; for utility is\nthe desired result, and value springs from the obstacle which is\ninterposed between the desire and the result. This was their first\nerror, and, when they perceived the consequences of it, they thought\nto obviate the difficulty by imagining a distinction between value in\nuse and value in exchange\u2014an unwieldy tautology, which had the great\nfault of attaching the same word\u2014Value\u2014to two opposite phenomena.\n\nBut if, putting aside these subtilties, we adhere strictly to facts,\nwhat do we perceive? Nothing, assuredly, but what is quite natural\nand consistent.\n\nA man, we shall suppose, works exclusively for himself. If he acquire\nskill, if his force and intelligence are developed, if nature becomes\nmore liberal, or if he learns how to make nature co-operate better in\nhis work, he obtains \u2039more wealth with less trouble\u203a. Where is the\ncontradiction, and what is there in this to excite so much wonder?\n\nWell, then, in place of remaining an isolated being, suppose this man\nto have relations with his fellow-men. They exchange; and I repeat\nmy observation,\u2014in proportion as they acquire skill, experience,\nforce, and intelligence,\u2014in proportion as nature (become more\nliberal or brought more into subjection) lends them more efficacious\nco-operation, they obtain \u2039more wealth with less trouble\u203a; they have\nat their disposal a greater amount of gratuitous utility; in their\ntransactions they transfer to one another a greater sum of useful\nresults in proportion to a given amount of labour. Where, then, is\nthe contradiction?\n\nIf, indeed, following the example of Adam Smith and his successors,\nyou commit the error of applying the same denomination\u2014\u2039value\u203a\u2014both\nto the results obtained and to the exertion made; in that case, an\nantinomy or contradiction will show itself. But be assured that that\ncontradiction is not at all in the facts, but in your own erroneous\nexplanation of those facts.\n\nM. Proudhon ought, then, to have shaped his proposition thus: [p190]\nIt being granted that man has need of a great variety of products,\nthat he can only obtain them by his labour, and that he has the\nprecious gift of educating and improving himself, nothing in the\nworld is more natural than the sustained increase of results in\nrelation to efforts; and there is nothing at all contradictory in a\ngiven value serving as the vehicle of a greater amount of realized\nutility.\n\nLet me repeat, once more, that for man Utility is the fair side\nof the medal and Value the reverse. Utility has relation only to\nour Satisfactions, Value only with our Pains. Utility realizes our\nenjoyments, and is proportioned to them; Value attests our native\nweakness, springs from obstacles, and is proportioned to those\nObstacles.\n\nIn virtue of the law of human perfectibility, gratuitous utility\ntends more and more to take the place of onerous utility, expressed\nby the word \u2039value\u203a. Such is the phenomenon, and it presents\nassuredly nothing contradictory.\n\nBut the question recurs\u2014Should the word Wealth comprehend these two\nkinds of utility united, or only the last?\n\nIf we could form, once for all, two classes of utilities, putting\non the one side all those which are gratuitous, and on the other\nall those which are onerous, we should form, at the same time, two\nclasses of Wealth, which we should denominate, with M. Say, \u2039Natural\nWealth\u203a and \u2039Social Wealth\u203a; or else, with M. de Saint-Chamans, the\n\u2039Wealth of Enjoyment\u203a and the \u2039Wealth of Value\u203a; after which, as\nthese authors propose, we should have nothing mere to do with the\nfirst of these classes.\n\n\u201cThings which are accessible to all,\u201d says M. Say, \u201cand which\neveryone may enjoy at pleasure, without being forced to acquire them,\nand without the fear of exhausting them, such as air, water, the\nlight of the sun, etc., are the gratuitous gifts of nature, and may\nbe denominated \u2039Natural Wealth\u203a. As these can be neither produced nor\ndistributed, nor consumed by us, \u2039they come not within the domain of\nPolitical Economy\u203a.\n\n\u201cThe things which this science has to do with are things which we\npossess, and which have a recognised value. These we denominate\n\u2039Social Wealth\u203a, because they exist only among men united in society.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt is the \u2039Wealth of Value\u203a,\u201d says M. de Saint-Chamans, \u201c\u2039which\nforms the special subject of Political Economy\u203a, and whenever in\nthis work I mention Wealth without being more specific, I mean that\ndescription of it.\u201d\n\nNearly all Economists have taken the same view. [p191]\n\n\u201cThe most striking distinction,\u201d says Storch, \u201cwhich presents itself\nin the outset, is, that there are certain kinds of value which are\ncapable of appropriation, and other kinds which are not so.[49] \u2039The\nfirst alone are the subject of Political Economy\u203a, for the analysis\nof the others would furnish no result worthy of the attention of the\nstatesman.\u201d\n\nFor my own part, I think that that portion of utility which, in the\nprogress of society, ceases to be onerous and to possess value,\nbut which does not on that account cease to be utility, and is\nabout to fall into the domain of the \u2039common\u203a and \u2039gratuitous\u203a, is\nprecisely that which should constantly attract the attention of the\nstatesman and of the Economist. If it do not, in place of penetrating\nand comprehending the great results which affect and elevate the\nhuman race, the science will be left to deal with what is quite\ncontingent and flexible\u2014with what has a tendency to diminish, if not\nto disappear\u2014with a relation merely; in a word, with Value. Without\nbeing aware of it, Economists are thus led to consider only labour,\nobstacles, and the interest of the producer; and, what is worse, they\nare led to confound the interest of the producer with the interest\nof the public,\u2014that is to say, to mistake evil for good, and, under\nthe guidance of the Sismondis and Saint-Chamans, to land at length in\nthe Utopia of the socialists, or the \u2039Syst\u00e8me des Contradictions\u203a of\nProudhon.\n\nAnd, then, is not this line of demarcation, which you attempt to\ndraw between the two descriptions of utility, chimerical, arbitrary,\nand impossible? How can you thus disjoin the co-operation of nature\nand that of man when they combine and get mixed up everywhere, much\nmore when the one tends constantly to replace the other, which is\nprecisely what constitutes progress? If economical science, so dry in\nsome respects, in other aspects elevates and fascinates the mind, it\nis just because it describes the laws of this association between man\nand nature,\u2014it is because it shows gratuitous utility substituting\nitself more and more for onerous utility, enjoyments bearing a\ngreater and greater proportion to labour and fatigue, obstacles\nconstantly lessening, and, along with them, value; the perpetual\nmistakes and miscalculations of producers more than compensated by\nthe increasing prosperity of consumers; natural wealth, \u2039gratuitous\u203a\nand \u2039common\u203a, coming more and more to take the place of wealth which\nis \u2039personal\u203a and \u2039appropriated\u203a. What! are we to exclude from\nPolitical Economy what constitutes its religious Harmony? [p192]\n\nAir, light, water, are gratuitous, you say. True, and if we enjoyed\nthem under their primitive form, without making them co-operate in\nany of our works, we might exclude them from Political Economy just\nas we exclude from it the possible and probable utility of comets.\nBut observe the progress of man. At first he is able to make air,\nlight, water, and other natural agents co-operate very imperfectly.\nHis satisfactions were purchased by laborious personal efforts, they\nexacted a large amount of labour, and they were transferred to others\nas important \u2039services\u203a; in a word, they were possessed of great\n\u2039value\u203a. By degrees, this water, this air, this light, gravitation,\nelasticity, calorie, electricity, vegetable life, have abandoned\nthis state of relative inactivity. They mingle more and more with\nour industry. They are substituted for human labour. They do for us\ngratuitously what labour does only for an onerous consideration.\nThey annihilate value without diminishing our enjoyments. To speak\nin common language, what cost us a hundred francs, costs us only\nten\u2014what required ten days\u2019 labour now demands only one. The whole\nvalue thus annihilated has passed from the domain of Property to that\nof Community. A considerable proportion of human efforts has been\nset free, and placed at our disposal for other enterprises; so that\nwith equal labour, equal services, equal value, mankind have enlarged\nprodigiously the circle of their enjoyments; and yet you tell me that\nI must eliminate and banish from the science this utility, which is\ngratuitous and common, which alone explains progress, as well upward\nas forward, if I may so speak, as well in wealth and prosperity as in\nfreedom and equality!\n\nWe may, then, legitimately attach to the word Wealth two meanings.\n\n\u2039Effective Wealth\u203a, real, and realizing satisfactions, or the\naggregate of utilities which human labour, aided by the co-operation\nof natural agents, places within the reach of Society.\n\n\u2039Relative Wealth\u203a,\u2014that is to say, the proportional share of each in\nthe general Riches, a share which is determined by Value.\n\nThis Economic Harmony, then, may be thus stated:\n\nBy labour the action of man is combined with the action of nature.\n\nUtility results from that co-operation.\n\nEach man receives a share of the general utility proportioned to\nthe value he has created,\u2014that is to say, to the services he has\nrendered; in other words, to the utility he has himself produced.[50]\n[p193]\n\n\u2039Morality of Wealth.\u203a\u2014We have just been engaged in studying wealth\nin an economical point of view; it may not perhaps be useless to say\nsomething here of its Moral effects.\n\nIn all ages, wealth, in a moral point of view, has been the subject\nof controversy. Certain philosophers and certain religionists have\ncommanded us to despise it; others have greatly prided themselves on\nthe golden mean, \u2039aurea mediocritas\u203a. Few, if any, have admitted as\nmoral an ardent longing after the goods of fortune.\n\nWhich are right? Which are wrong? It does not belong to Political\nEconomy to treat of individual morality. I shall make only one\nremark: I am always inclined to think that in matters which lie\nwithin the domain of everyday practice, theorists, savants,\nphilosophers, are much less likely to be right than this universal\npractice itself, when we include in the meaning of the word practice,\nnot only the actions of the generality of men, but their sentiments\nand ideas.\n\nNow, what does universal practice demonstrate in this case? It\nshows us all men endeavouring to emerge from their original state\nof poverty,\u2014all preferring the sensation of satisfaction to the\nsensation of want, riches to poverty; all, I should say, or almost\nall, without excepting even those who declaim against wealth.\n\nThe desire for wealth is ardent, incessant, universal, irrepressible.\nIn almost every part of the globe it has triumphed over our natural\naversion to toil. Whatever may be said to the contrary, it displays\na character of avidity still baser among savage than among civilized\nnations. All our navigators who left Europe in the eighteenth\ncentury, imbued with the fashionable ideas of Rousseau, and expecting\nto find the men of nature at the antipodes disinterested, generous,\nhospitable, were struck with the devouring rapacity of these\nprimitive barbarians. Our military men can tell us, in our own day,\nwhat we are to think of the boasted disinterestedness of the Arab\ntribes.\n\nOn the other hand, the opinions of all men, even of those who do not\nact up to their opinions, concur in honouring disinterestedness,\ngenerosity, self-control, and in branding that ill-regulated,\ninordinate love of wealth which causes men not to shrink from any\nmeans of obtaining it. The same public opinion surrounds with\nesteem the man who, in whatever rank of life, devotes his honest\nand persevering labour to ameliorating the lot and elevating the\ncondition of his family. It is from this combination of facts, ideas,\nand sentiments, it would seem to me, that we must form our judgment\non wealth in connexion with individual morality. [p194]\n\nFirst of all, we must acknowledge that the motive which urges us\nto the acquisition of riches is of providential creation,\u2014natural,\nand consequently \u2039moral\u203a. It has its source in that original and\ngeneral destitution which would be our lot in everything, if it\ndid not create in us the desire to free ourselves from it. We must\nacknowledge, in the second place, that the efforts which men make to\nemerge from their primitive destitution, provided they keep within\nthe limits of justice, are estimable and respectable, seeing that\nthey are universally esteemed and respected. No one, moreover, will\ndeny that labour is in itself of a moral nature. This is expressed\nin the common proverb which we find in all countries,\u2014Idleness is\nthe parent of vice. And we should fall into a glaring contradiction\nwere we to say, on the one hand, that labour is indispensable to the\nmorality of men, and, on the other, that men are immoral when they\nseek to realize wealth by their labour.\n\nWe must acknowledge, in the third place, that the desire of wealth\nbecomes immoral when it goes the length of inducing us to depart\nfrom the rules of justice, and that avarice becomes more unpopular\nin proportion to the wealth of those who addict themselves to that\npassion.\n\nSuch is the judgment pronounced, not by certain philosophers or\nsects, but by the generality of men; and I adopt it.\n\nI must guard myself, however, by adding that this judgment may be\ndifferent at the present day from what it was in ancient times,\nwithout involving a contradiction.\n\nThe Essenians and Stoics lived in a state of society where wealth\nwas always the reward of oppression, of pillage, and of violence.\nNot only was it deemed immoral in itself, but, in consequence of\nthe immoral means employed in its acquisition, it revealed the\nimmorality of those who possessed it. A reaction, even an exaggerated\nreaction, against riches and rich men was to be expected. Modern\nphilosophers who declaim against wealth, without taking into account\nthis difference in the means of acquiring wealth, believe themselves\nSenecas, while they are only parrots, repeating what they do not\nunderstand.\n\nBut the question which Political Economy proposes is this: Is wealth\nfor mankind a moral good or a moral evil? Does the progressive\ndevelopment of wealth imply, in a moral point of view, improvement or\ndecadence?\n\nThe reader anticipates my answer, and will understand that I must\nsay a few words on the subject of individual morality, in order\nto get quit of the contradiction, or rather of the impossibility,\n[p195] which would be implied in asserting that what is individual\nimmorality is general morality.\n\nWithout having recourse to statistics, or the records of our prisons,\nwe must handle a problem which may be enunciated in these terms:\u2014\n\nIs man degraded by exercising more power over nature\u2014by constraining\nnature to serve him\u2014by obtaining additional leisure\u2014by freeing\nhimself from the more imperious and pressing wants of his\norganization\u2014by being enabled to rouse from sleep and inactivity his\nintellectual and moral faculties,\u2014faculties which assuredly have not\nbeen given him to remain in eternal lethargy?\n\nIs man degraded by being removed from a state the most inorganic, so\nto speak, and raised to a state of the highest spiritualism which it\nis possible for him to reach?\n\nTo enunciate the problem in this form is to resolve it.\n\nI willingly grant, that when wealth is acquired by means which are\nimmoral, it has an immoral influence, as among the Romans.\n\nI also allow that when it is developed in a very unequal manner,\ncreating a great gulf between classes, it has an immoral influence,\nand gives rise to revolutionary passions.\n\nBut does the same thing hold when wealth is the fruit of honest\nindustry and free transactions, and is uniformly distributed over all\nclasses? That would be a doctrine which it is impossible to maintain.\n\nSocialist works, nevertheless, are crammed with declamations against\nthe rich.\n\nI really cannot comprehend how these schools, so opposite in\nother respects, but so unanimous in this, should not perceive the\ncontradiction into which they fall.\n\nOn the one hand, wealth, according to the leaders of these schools,\nhas a deleterious and demoralizing action, which debases the soul,\nhardens the heart, and leaves behind only a taste for depraved\nenjoyments. The rich have all manner of vices. The poor have\nall manner of virtues\u2014they are just, sensible, disinterested,\ngenerous,\u2014such is the favourite theme of these authors.\n\nOn the other hand, all the efforts of the Socialists\u2019 imagination,\nall the systems they invent, all the laws they wish to impose\nupon us, tend, if we are to believe them, to convert poverty into\nriches.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\nMorality of wealth proved by this maxim; the profit of one is\nthe profit of another.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. [p196]\n\n\n\n\n VII.\n CAPITAL.\n\n\nThe economic laws will be found to act on the same principle,\nwhether we take the case of a numerous agglomeration of men or of\nonly two individuals, or even of a single individual condemned by\ncircumstances to live in a state of isolation.\n\nSuch an individual, if he could exist for some time in an isolated\nstate, would be at once capitalist, employer, workman, producer,\nand consumer. The whole economic evolution would be accomplished\nin him. Observing each of the elements of which that evolution is\nmade up\u2014want, effort, satisfaction\u2014gratuitous utility, and onerous\nutility\u2014he would be enabled to form an idea of the entire mechanism,\neven when thus reduced to its greatest simplicity.\n\nOne thing is obvious enough, that he could never confound what\nwas gratuitous with what exacted efforts; for that would imply a\ncontradiction in terms. He would know at once when a material or a\nforce was furnished to him by nature without the co-operation of his\nlabour, even when his own labour was assisted by natural agents, and\nthus rendered more productive.\n\nAn isolated individual would never think of applying his own labour\nto the production of a commodity as long as he could procure it\ndirectly from nature. He would not travel a league to fetch water\nif he had a well at his door. For the same reason, whenever his own\nlabour was called into requisition, he would endeavour to substitute\nfor it, as much as he possibly could, the co-operation of natural\nagents.\n\nIf he constructed a canoe, he would make it of the lightest\nmaterials, in order to take advantage of the specific gravity of\nwater. He would furnish it with a sail, that the wind might save him\nthe trouble of rowing, etc. [p197]\n\nIn order to obtain in this way the co-operation of natural agent,\ntools and instruments would be wanted.\n\nAnd here the isolated individual would begin to calculate. He would\nask himself this question: At present I obtain a satisfaction at the\nexpense of a given effort: when I am in possession of the proper tool\nor instrument, shall I obtain the same satisfaction with less effort,\ntaking into account the labour required for the construction of the\ninstrument itself?\n\nNo one will throw away his labour for the mere pleasure of throwing\nit away. Our supposed Robinson Crusoe, then, will be induced to set\nabout constructing the instrument only if he sees clearly that, when\ncompleted, he will obtain an equal satisfaction at a smaller expense\nof effort, or a greater amount of satisfaction with the same effort.\n\nOne circumstance will form a great element in his calculation\u2014the\nnumber of commodities in the production of which this instrument will\nassist while it lasts. He has a primary standard of comparison\u2014the\npresent labours to which he is subjected every time he wishes\nto procure the satisfaction directly and without assistance. He\nestimates how much labour the tool or instrument will save him on\neach occasion; but labour is required to make the tool, and this\nlabour he will in his own mind spread over all the occasions on which\nsuch an instrument can be made available. The greater the number\nof these occasions, the stronger will be his motive for seeking\nthe co-operation of natural agents. It is here\u2014in this spreading\nof an \u2039advance\u203a over an aggregate of products\u2014that we discover the\nprinciple and foundation of Interest.\n\nWhen Robin Crusoe has once made up his mind to construct the\ninstrument, he perceives that his willingness to make it, and the\nadvantage it is to bring him, are not enough. Tools are necessary to\nthe manufacture of tools\u2014iron must be hammered with iron\u2014and so you\ngo on, mounting from difficulty to difficulty, till you reach the\nfirst difficulty of all, which appears to be insuperable. This shows\nus the extreme slowness with which Capital must have been formed\nat the beginning, and what an enormous amount of human labour each\nsatisfaction must originally have cost.\n\nAgain, in order to construct the instruments of labour, not only\ntools, but \u2039materials\u203a are wanted. If these materials, as for\ninstance stones, are furnished gratuitously by nature, we must\nstill combine them, which costs labour. But the possession of these\nmaterials supposes, in almost every case, anterior labour both long\nand complicated, as in the manufacture of wool, flax, iron, lead, etc.\n\nNor is this all. Whilst a man is thus working for the exclusive\n[p198] purpose of facilitating his ulterior labour, he can do\nnothing to supply his present wants. Now, here we encounter an order\nof phenomena in which there can be no interruption. Each day the\nlabourer must be fed, clothed, and sheltered. Robinson will perceive,\nthen, that he can undertake nothing for the purpose of procuring the\nco-operation of natural forces until he has previously accumulated\na stock of \u2039provisions\u203a. He must every day redouble his activity in\nthe chase, and store up a portion of the game he kills, and subject\nhimself to present privations, in order that he may have at his\ndisposal the time requisite for the construction of the instrument he\nhas projected. In such circumstances, it is most probable that all he\nwill accomplish will be the construction of an instrument which is\nrude and imperfect, and not very well fitted for the purpose he has\nin view.\n\nAfterwards, he will obtain greater facilities. Reflection and\nexperience will teach him to work better; and the first tool he\nmakes will furnish him with the means of fabricating others, and of\naccumulating provisions with greater promptitude.\n\nTools, materials, provisions\u2014these, doubtless, Robinson will\ndenominate his \u2039Capital\u203a; and he will readily discover that the more\nconsiderable his capital becomes, the greater command will he obtain\nover natural agents\u2014that the more he makes such agents co-operate in\nhis labour, the more will he augment his satisfactions in proportion\nto his efforts.\n\nLet us now vary the hypothesis, and place ourselves in the midst\nof the social order. Capital is still composed of instruments of\nlabour, materials, and provisions, without which no enterprise of any\nmagnitude can be undertaken, either in a state of isolation, or in\na social state. Those who are possessed of capital have been put in\npossession of it only by their labour, or by their privations; and\nthey would not have undergone that labour (which has no connexion\nwith present wants), they would not have imposed on themselves those\nprivations, but with the view of obtaining ulterior advantages\u2014with\nthe view, for example, of procuring in larger measure the future\nco-operation of natural agents. On their part, to give away this\ncapital would be to deprive themselves of the special advantage they\nhave in view; it would be to transfer this advantage to others; it\nwould be to render others a \u2039service\u203a. We cannot, then, without\nabandoning the most simple principles of reason and justice, fail\nto see that the owners of capital have a perfect right to refuse\nto make this transfer unless in exchange for another \u2039service\u203a,\nfreely bargained for and voluntarily agreed to. No man in the world,\nI believe, will dispute [p199] the equity of the \u2039mutuality of\nservices\u203a, for mutuality of services is, in other words, equity.\nWill it be said that the transaction cannot be free and voluntary,\nbecause the man who is in possession of capital is in a position to\nlay down the law to the man who has none? But how is a bargain to be\nmade? In what way are we to discover the \u2039equivalence of services\u203a\nif it be not in the case of an exchange voluntarily effected on\nboth sides? Do you not perceive, moreover, that the man who borrows\ncapital, being free either to borrow it or not, will refuse to do so\nunless he sees it to be for his advantage, and that the loan cannot\nmake his situation worse? The question he asks himself is evidently\nthis: Will the employment of this capital afford me advantages which\nare more than sufficient to make up for the conditions which are\ndemanded of me? Or this: Is the effort which I am now obliged to\nmake, in order to obtain a given satisfaction, greater or less than\nthe sum of the efforts which the loan will entail upon me\u2014first of\nall, in rendering the \u2039services\u203a which are demanded of me by the\nlender, and afterwards in procuring the special satisfaction I have\nin view with the aid of the capital borrowed? If, taking all things\ninto account, there be no advantage to be got, he will not borrow,\nhe will remain as he is, and what injury is done him? He may be\nmistaken, you will say. Undoubtedly he may. One may be mistaken in\nall imaginable transactions. Are we then to abandon our liberty? If\nyou go that length, tell us what we are to substitute for free will\nand free consent. Constraint? for if we give up liberty, what remains\nbut constraint? No, you say\u2014the judgment of a third party. Granted,\non these conditions: First, that the decision of this third party,\nwhatever name you give him, shall not be put in force by constraint.\nSecondly, that he be infallible, for to substitute one fallible man\nfor another would be to no purpose; and the parties whose judgment\nI should least distrust in such a matter are the parties who are\ninterested in the result. The third and last condition is, that\nthis arbitrator shall not be paid for his services; for it would\nbe a singular way of manifesting his sympathy for the borrower,\nfirst of all to take away from him his liberty, and then to lay\non his shoulders an additional burden as the recompense of this\nphilanthropical service. But let us leave the question of right, and\nreturn to Political Economy.\n\nA Capital which is composed of materials, provisions, and\ninstruments, presents two aspects\u2014Utility and Value. I must have\nfailed in my exposition of the theory of value, if the reader does\nnot understand that the man who transfers capital is paid only for\nits \u2039value\u203a, that is to say, for the service rendered in [p200]\ncreating that capital; in other words, for the pains taken by the\n\u2039c\u00e9dant\u203a combined with the pains saved to the recipient. Capital\nconsists of commodities or products. It assumes the name of capital\nonly by reason of its ulterior destination. It is a great mistake\nto suppose that capital, as such, is a thing having an independent\nexistence. A sack of corn is still a sack of corn, although one man\nsells it for revenue, and another buys it for capital. Exchange\ntakes place on the invariable principle of value for value, service\nfor service; and the portion of gratuitous utility which enters\ninto the commodity is so much into the bargain. At the same time,\nthe portion which is gratuitous has no value, and value is the only\nthing regarded in bargains. In this respect, transactions which have\nreference to capital are in no respect different from others.\n\nThis consideration opens up some admirable views with reference to\nthe social order, but which I cannot do more than indicate here.\nMan, in a state of isolation, is possessed of capital only when he\nhas brought together materials, provisions, and tools. The same\nthing does not hold true of man in the social state. It is enough\nfor the latter to have rendered \u2039services\u203a, and to have thus the\npower of drawing upon society, by means of the mechanism of exchange,\nfor equivalent services. I mean by the mechanism of exchange,\nmoney, bills, bank-notes, and even bankers themselves. Whoever has\nrendered a \u2039service\u203a, and has not yet received the corresponding\n\u2039satisfaction\u203a, is the bearer of a warrant, either possessed of\nvalue, as money, or fiduciary, like bank-notes, which warrant gives\nhim the power of receiving back from society, when he will, where he\nwill, and in what form he will, an equivalent \u2039service\u203a. This impairs\nneither in principle, nor in effect, nor in an equitable point of\nview, the great law which I seek to elucidate, that \u2039services are\nexchanged for services\u203a. It is still the embryo barter, which has\nbeen developed, enlarged, and rendered more complex, but without\nlosing its identity.\n\nThe bearer of such a warrant as I have just described may then demand\nback from society, at pleasure, either an immediate satisfaction,\nor an object which, in another aspect, may be regarded as capital.\nThe person who lends or transfers has nothing to do with that. He\nsatisfies himself as to the \u2039equivalence of the services\u203a\u2014that is all.\n\nAgain, he may transfer this warrant to another, to use it as he\npleases, under the double condition of \u2039restitution\u203a, and of a\n\u2039service\u203a, at a fixed date. If we go to the bottom of the matter,\nwe shall find that in this case the person who lends or transfers\ncapital [p201] \u2039deprives himself\u203a, in favour of the cessionary or\nrecipient, either of an immediate satisfaction, which he defers for\nsome years, or of an instrument of labour which would have increased\nhis power of production, procured him the co-operation of natural\nagents, and augmented, to his profit, the proportion of satisfactions\nto efforts. He strips himself of these advantages, in order to invest\nanother with them. This is undoubtedly to render a \u2039service\u203a, and\nin equity this service is entitled to a return. Mere restitution\nat the year\u2019s end cannot be considered as the remuneration of this\nspecial service. Observe that the transaction here is not a sale,\nwhere the delivery of the thing sold is immediate, and the return\nor remuneration is immediate also. What we have to do with here is\ndelay. And this delay is \u2039in itself\u203a a special service, seeing that\nit imposes a sacrifice on the person who accords it, and confers\nan advantage on the person who asks for it. There must, then, be\nremuneration, or we must give up that supreme law of society,\n\u2039service for service\u203a. This remuneration is variously denominated,\naccording to circumstances\u2014\u2039hire\u203a, \u2039rent\u203a, yearly \u2039income\u203a\u2014but its\ngeneric name is \u2039Interest\u203a.[51]\n\nEvery \u2039service\u203a then is, or may become, a Capital, an admirable\nphenomenon due to the mechanism of exchange. If workmen are to\ncommence the construction of a railway ten years hence, we could\nnot at the present moment store up in kind the corn which is to\nfeed them, the stuff which is to clothe them, and the barrows and\nimplements of which they will have need during that protracted\noperation. But we can save up and transmit to them the \u2039value\u203a of\nthese things. For this purpose it is enough that we render present\nservices to society, and obtain for these services the warrants,\nin money or credits of which I have spoken, which can be converted\ninto corn or cloth ten years hence. It is not even necessary that we\nshould leave these warrants dormant and unproductive in the interval.\nThere are merchants, bankers, and others in society who, for the use\nof our services or their results, render us the service of imposing\nupon themselves these privations in our place.\n\nAnd it is still more remarkable that we can effect an inverse\noperation, however impossible at first sight this may appear. We can\nconvert into instruments of labour, into railways, into houses, a\ncapital which as yet has no existence\u2014thus making available at once\n\u2039services\u203a which will not be actually rendered till the twentieth\ncentury. There are bankers who are ready to make present advances on\nthe faith that workmen and railway travellers of the [p202] third\nand fourth generation will provide for their payment, and these\ndrafts upon the future are transmitted from hand to hand, without\nremaining for a moment unproductive. I confess I do not believe that\nthe numerous inventors of artificial societies ever imagined anything\nat once so simple and so complex, so ingenious and so equitable, as\nthis. They would at once abandon their insipid and stupid utopias if\nthey but knew the fine harmonies of the social mechanism which has\nbeen instituted by God. It was a king of Aragon who bethought him\nwhat advice he should have given to Providence on the construction\nof the celestial mechanism, had he been called to the counsels of\nOmniscience. Newton never conceived so impious a thought.\n\nWe thus see that all transmissions of services from one point of\ntime or of space to another repose upon this datum, that \u2039to accord\ndelay is to render service\u203a; in other words, they repose on the\nlegitimacy of Interest. The man who, in our days, has wished to\nsuppress interest, does not see that he would bring back exchange to\nits embryo form,\u2014barter, present barter,\u2014without reference either to\nthe future or the past. He does not see that, imagining himself the\nmost advanced, he is in reality the most retrograde of men, since he\nwould reconstruct society on its most primitive model. He desires,\nhe says, \u2039mutuality of services\u203a. But he begins by taking away the\ncharacter of \u2039services\u203a exactly from that kind of \u2039services\u203a which\nunite, tie together, and \u2039solidarize\u203a all places and all times. In\nspite of the practical audacity of his socialist aphorisms, he has\npaid an involuntary homage to the present order of things. He has but\none reform, which is negative. It consists in suppressing in society\nthe most powerful and marvellous part of its machinery.\n\nI have explained in another place the \u2039legitimacy\u203a and \u2039perpetuity\u203a\nof Interest. I shall content myself at present with reminding the\nreader\u2014\n\n\u20391st\u203a, That the legitimacy of interest rests upon the fact that he\nwho \u2039accords delay renders service\u203a. Interest, then, is legitimate in\nvirtue of the principle of \u2039service for service\u203a.\n\n\u20392d\u203a, That the perpetuity of interest reposes on this other fact,\nthat \u2039he who borrows must pay back all that he has borrowed at a\nfixed date\u203a. When the thing lent, or its value, is restored to its\nowner, he can lend it anew. When returned to him a second time, he\ncan lend it a third time, and so on to \u2039perpetuity\u203a. Which of the\nsuccessive and voluntary borrowers can find fault with this?\n\nBut since the legitimacy of interest has been contested so [p203]\nseriously in our day as to put capital to flight, or force it to\nconceal itself, I may be permitted to show how utterly foolish and\ninsensate this controversy is.\n\nAnd, first of all, let me ask, would it not be absurd and unjust\neither that no remuneration should be given for the use of capital,\nor that that remuneration should be the same, whether the loan were\ngranted and obtained at one year\u2019s, or two years\u2019, or ten years\u2019\ndate. If, unhappily, under this doctrine of pretended \u2039equality\u203a,\nsuch a law should find a place in our code, an entire category of\nhuman transactions would be suppressed on the instant. We should\nstill have \u2039barter\u203a, and \u2039sales for ready money\u203a, but we could no\nlonger have sales on credit, nor \u2039loans\u203a. The advocates of equality\nwould relieve borrowers from the burden of paying interest; but they\nwould, at the same time, balk them of their loans. At the same rate,\nwe might relieve men from the inconvenient necessity of paying for\nwhat they buy. We should only have to prohibit them from purchasing;\nor, what would come to the same thing, declare \u2039prices\u203a illegal.\n\nThere is levelling enough, in all conscience, in this pretended\nprinciple of equality. First of all, it would put a stop to the\ncreation of capital; for who would desire to save when he could reap\nno advantage from saving? Then it would reduce wages to zero, for\nwhere there is no capital (instruments, materials, and provisions),\nthere can be neither future work nor wages. We should very soon\narrive at the most perfect of all equalities, the equality of\nnothingness.\n\nBut is there any man so blind as not to see that delay is \u2039in itself\u203a\na circumstance which is \u2039onerous\u203a, and, consequently, entitled to\nremuneration? Apart, even, from the consideration of loans, would\nnot every one endeavour to abridge delays? It is the object of our\nperpetual solicitude. Every employer of workmen lays great stress\non the time which must elapse before his returns come in. He sells\ndearer or cheaper according as his returns are more or less distant.\nWere he indifferent on that subject, he must forget that capital is\npower; for if he is alive to that consideration, he must naturally\ndesire that it should perform its work in the shortest possible time,\nso as to enable him the oftener to engage it in a new operation.\n\nThey are but short-sighted Economists who think that we pay interest\nfor capital only when we borrow it. The general rule is, that he who\nreaps the satisfaction should bear all the charges of production,\n\u2039delay included\u203a, whether he renders the service to himself, or\nhas it rendered to him by another. A man in a state of [p204]\nisolation, who has no bargains or transactions with any one, would\nconsider it an \u2039onerous\u203a circumstance to be deprived of the use of\nhis weapons for a year. Why, then, should an analogous circumstance\nnot be considered as onerous in society? But if a man submits to\nit voluntarily for the sake of another who agrees voluntarily to\nremunerate it, what should render that remuneration illegitimate?\n\nNothing would be transacted in the world; no enterprise requiring\nadvances would be undertaken; we should neither plant, nor sow,\nnor labour, were not delay considered as \u2039in itself\u203a an \u2039onerous\u203a\ncircumstance, and treated and paid for as such. Universal consent\nis so unanimous on this point, that no exchange takes place but on\nthis principle. Delays, hindrances, enter into the appreciation of\n\u2039services\u203a, and, consequently, into the constitution of \u2039value\u203a.\n\nThus, in their crusade against interest, the advocates of equality\nnot only trample under foot the most obvious notions of equity\u2014they\nignore not only their own principle of \u2039service for service\u203a, but\nalso the authority of mankind and universal practice. How can they,\nin the face of day, exhibit the overweening pride which such a\npretension supposes? Is it not, indeed, a very strange and a very sad\nthing, that these sectaries should adopt not only tacitly, but often\nin so many words, the motto, that, since the beginning of the world,\nall men have been mistaken except themselves? \u2039Omnes, ego non.\u203a\n\nPardon me for thus insisting on the legitimacy of interest, which is\nfounded on this principle, that, \u2039since delay is costly, it must be\npaid for\u203a\u2014to \u2039cost\u203a and to \u2039pay\u203a being correlative terms. The fault\nlies in the spirit of our age. It is quite necessary to defend vital\ntruths, admitted generally by mankind, but attacked and brought into\nquestion by a few fanatical innovators. For a writer who aspires\nto demonstrate the harmony of phenomena in the aggregate, it is a\npainful thing, you may believe, to be constantly stopped by the\nnecessity of elucidating the most elementary notions. Would Laplace\nhave been able to explain the planetary system in all its simplicity,\nif, among his readers, there had not existed certain common and\nreceived ideas,\u2014if it had been necessary for him, in order to prove\nthat the earth turns upon its axis, to begin by teaching numeration?\nSuch is the hard fate of the Economist of our day. If he neglects\nthe rudiments, he is not understood\u2014if he explains them, the beauty\nand simplicity of his system is lost sight of in the multiplicity of\ndetails.\n\nIt is a happy thing for mankind that \u2039Interest\u203a can be shown to be\nlegitimate. We should otherwise be placed in a miserable [p205]\ndilemma\u2014we must either perish by remaining just, or make progress by\nmeans of injustice.\n\nEvery branch of industry is an aggregate of Efforts. But, as regards\nefforts, there is an important distinction to be made. Some efforts\nare connected with services which we are presently engaged in\nrendering; others with an indefinite series of analogous services.\nLet me explain myself.\n\nThe day\u2019s work of the water-carrier must be paid for by those who\nprofit by his labour. But his anterior labour in making his barrow\nand his water-cask must, as regards remuneration, be spread over an\nindeterminate number of consumers.\n\nIn the same way, ploughing, sowing, harrowing, weeding, cutting\ndown, thrashing, apply only to the present harvest; but clearing,\nenclosing, draining, building, improving, apply to and facilitate an\nindefinite number of future harvests.\n\nAccording to the general law of \u2039service for service\u203a, those who\nreceive the ultimate satisfaction must recompense the efforts which\nhave been made for them. As regards the first class of efforts, there\nis no difficulty. They are bargained for and \u2039estimated\u203a by the man\nwho makes them, and the man who profits by them. But how are those of\nthe second class to be \u2039estimated\u203a? How is a just proportion of the\npermanent advances, the general costs, and what the Economists term\nfixed capital, to be spread over the whole series of satisfactions\nwhich they are destined to realize? By what process can we distribute\nthe burden among those to whom the water is furnished down to the\ntime when the barrow shall be worn out, and among all the consumers\nof corn until the period when the field will produce no more?\n\nI know not how they would resolve this problem in Icarie, or at\nthe Phalanst\u00e8re.[52] But I am inclined to think that the gentlemen\nwho manufacture artificial societies, and who are so fertile in\narrangements and expedients, and so prompt to compel their adoption\nby Law (or constraint), could imagine no solution more ingenious than\nthe very natural process which men have adopted since the beginning\nof the world, and which it is now sought to prohibit them from\nfollowing. Here is the process\u2014it flows from the law of \u2039Interest\u203a.\n\nSuppose a thousand francs to be laid out on agricultural\nimprovements, the rate of interest to be five per cent., and the\naverage return fifty hectolitres of corn. In these circumstances,\neach hectolitre would be burdened with one franc. [p206]\n\nThis franc is obviously the legitimate recompense of an actual\n\u2039service\u203a, rendered by the proprietor (whom we might term a\nlabourer), as well to the person who shall acquire a hectolitre of\ncorn ten years hence as to the man who buys it to-day. The law of\nstrict justice, then, is observed here.\n\nBut if the agricultural improvement, or the barrow and the\nwater-barrel, have only a limited duration, which we can appreciate\napproximately, a sinking fund must be added to the interest, in order\nthat, when these portions of capital are worn out, the proprietor\nmay be enabled to renew them. Still it is the law of justice which\ngoverns the transaction.\n\nWe must not suppose, however, that the franc with which each\nhectolitre is burdened as interest is an invariable quantity. It\nrepresents a value, and is subject to the law of values. It rises\nor falls with the variation of supply and demand,\u2014that is to say,\naccording to the exigencies of the times and the interests of society.\n\nIt is generally thought that this species of remuneration has a\ntendency to rise, if not in the case of manufacturing, at least in\nthe case of agricultural improvements. Supposing this rent to have\nbeen equitable at the beginning, it has a tendency, it is said, to\ndegenerate into abuse; because the proprietor, sitting with his hands\nacross, sees it increase year after year, solely in consequence of\nthe increase of population and the enlarged demand for corn.\n\nI allow that this tendency exists, but it is not peculiar to the\nrent of land,\u2014it is common to all departments of industry. In all,\nvalue increases with the density of population, and even the common\nday-labourer earns more in Paris than he could in Brittany.\n\nAnd then, as regards the rent of land, the tendency to which we have\nreferred is powerfully counterbalanced by another tendency\u2014that of\nprogress. An amelioration, realized at the present day by improved\nprocesses, effected with less manual labour, and at a time when\nthe rate of interest has fallen, saves our paying too dearly for\nimprovements effected in former times. The fixed capital of the\nlanded proprietor, like that of the manufacturer, is deteriorated\nin the long-run by the invention of instruments of equal value and\ngreater efficiency. This is a magnificent Law, which overturns the\nmelancholy theory of Ricardo; and it will be explained more in detail\nwhen we come to the subject of landed property.\n\nObserve, that the problem of the distribution of the services which\nform the remuneration of permanent improvements can be resolved\nonly by a reference to the law of \u2039interest\u203a. The capital [p207]\nitself cannot be spread over a succession of purchasers, for this is\nrendered impossible by their indeterminate number. The first would\npay for the last, which would be unjust. Besides, a time would arrive\nwhen the proprietor would become possessed both of the capital laid\nout in the improvement, and of the improvement itself, which would be\nequally unfair. Let us acknowledge, then, that the natural mechanism\nof society is too ingenious to require the substitution of artificial\ncontrivances.\n\nI have presented the phenomenon in its simplest form, in order to\nrender it intelligible; but, in practice, things do not take place\nquite as I have described them.\n\nThe proprietor does not regulate the distribution himself, or\ndetermine that each hectolitre shall be charged with one franc, more\nor less, as in the hypothetical case which I have put. He finds an\nestablished order of things, as well with reference to the average\nprice of corn as to the rate of interest. Upon these data he decides\nhow he shall invest his capital. He will devote it to agricultural\nimprovements, if he finds that the average price of corn will return\nhim the ordinary rate of interest. If not, he will devote his capital\nto a more lucrative branch of industry\u2014a branch of industry which,\njust because it is more lucrative, presents, happily for society,\ngreater attractions for capital. This movement of capital from one\ndepartment to another, which is what actually takes place, tends to\nthe same result, and presents us with another Harmony.\n\nThe reader will understand that I confine myself to a special\ninstance only for the sake of elucidating a general law, which\napplies to all trades and professions.\n\nA lawyer, for example, cannot expect, from the first suit of which\nhe happens to have charge, to be reimbursed the expense of his\neducation, of his course of probation, of his establishment in\nbusiness, which we may suppose to amount to 20,000 francs. Not only\nwould this be unjust\u2014it would be impracticable; for were he to make\nsuch a stipulation, his first brief would never make its appearance,\nand our Cujacius would be obliged to imitate the gentleman who, on\ntaking up house, could get nobody to come to his first ball, and\ndeclared that next year he would begin with his second.\n\nThe same thing holds with the merchant, the physician, the shipowner,\nthe artist. In every career we encounter these two classes of\nefforts\u2014the second imperatively requires to be spread over an\nindeterminate number of consumers, employers, or customers, and it is\nimpossible to imagine such a distribution without reference to the\nmechanism of \u2039interest\u203a. [p208]\n\nGreat efforts have been made of late to remove the hatred which\nexists in the popular mind against capital,\u2014infamous, infernal\ncapital, as it is called. It has been exhibited to the masses as a\nvoracious and insatiable monster, more destructive than cholera, more\nfrightful than revolution, exercising on the body politic the action\nof a vampire, whose power of suction goes on increasing indefinitely.\n\u2039Vires acquirit eundo.\u203a The tongue of this blood-sucker is called\nusury, revenue, hire, rent, interest. A writer, who might have\nacquired reputation by his great powers, and who has preferred to\ngain notoriety by his paradoxes, has been pleased to scatter these\nparadoxes among a people already in the delirium of a revolutionary\nfever. I, too, have an apparent paradox to submit to the reader; and\nI beg him to examine it, and see whether it be not in reality a great\nand consoling truth.\n\nBut, first, I must say a word as to the manner in which M. Proudhon\nand his school explain what they term the illegitimacy of \u2039interest\u203a.\n\nCapital is an instrument of labour. The use of instruments of labour\nis to procure us the co-operation of the \u2039gratuitous\u203a forces of\nnature. By the steam-engine we avail ourselves of the elasticity of\nair; by the watch-spring, of the elasticity of steel; by weights or\nwaterfalls, of gravitation; by the voltaic pile, of the rapidity of\nthe electric spark; by the sun\u2019s rays, of the chemical and physical\ncombinations which we call vegetation, etc., etc. Now, by confounding\nUtility with Value, we suppose that these natural agents possess a\nvalue \u2039which is inherent in them\u203a; and that, consequently, those who\nappropriate them are paid for their use, inasmuch as value implies\npayment. We imagine that products are burdened with one item for the\nservices of man, which we admit to be just; and with another item for\nthe services of nature, which we reject as iniquitous. Why, it is\nasked, should we pay for gravitation, electricity, vegetable life,\nelasticity, and so forth?\n\nThe answer to this question is to be found in the theory of \u2039value\u203a.\nThose Socialists who take the name of \u2039\u00c9galitaires\u203a confound the\nlegitimate \u2039value\u203a of the instrument, which is the offspring of\nhuman labour, with its useful result, which, under deduction of that\nlegitimate value, or of the interest which represents it, is always\ngratuitous. When I remunerate an agricultural labourer, a miller,\na railway company, I give nothing, absolutely nothing, for the\nphenomena of vegetation, gravitation, or the elasticity of steam.\nI pay for the human labour required for making the instruments by\nmeans of which these forces are constrained to act; or, what suits\nmy purpose better, I pay interest for that labour. I render [p209]\nservice for service, by means of which the useful action of these\nforces is turned gratuitously to my profit. It is the same thing as\nin the case of Exchange, or simple barter. The presence of capital\ndoes not at all modify this law, for capital is nothing else than\nan accumulation of values, of \u2039services\u203a, to which is committed the\nspecial duty of procuring the co-operation of nature.\n\nAnd now for my paradox.\n\nOf all the elements of which the total value of any product is made\nup, the part which we should pay for most cheerfully is that element\nwhich we term the interest of the advances, or capital.\n\nAnd why? Because that element enables us, by paying for \u2039one\u203a, to\nsave \u2039two\u203a. Because, by its very presence, it shows clearly that\nnatural forces have concurred in the final result, without our having\nhad to pay for their co-operation; and the consequence is, that the\nsame general utility is placed at our disposal, while at the same\ntime a certain portion of gratuitous utility has, happily for us,\nbeen substituted for onerous utility; and, in short, the price of the\nproduct has been reduced. We acquire it with a less proportion of our\nown labour, and, what happens to society at large, is just what would\nhappen to an isolated individual who should succeed in realizing an\ningenious invention.\n\nSuppose the case of a common artisan, who earns four francs a-day.\nWith two francs,\u2014that is to say, with half-a-day\u2019s labour, he\npurchases a pair of cotton stockings. Were he to try to procure these\nstockings by his own direct labour, I sincerely believe that his\nwhole life would not suffice for the work. How, then, does it happen\nthat his half-day\u2019s work pays for all the \u2039human services\u203a which\nhave been rendered to him on this occasion? According to the law of\n\u2039service for service\u203a, why is he not forced to give several years\u2019\nlabour?\n\nFor this reason, that the stockings are the result of \u2039human\nservices\u203a, of which natural agents, by the intervention of Capital,\nhave enormously diminished the proportion. Our artisan, however,\npays not only for the actual labour of all those who have concurred\nin the work, but also the interest of the capital by means of\nwhich the co-operation of nature was procured; and it is worthy of\nremark, that, without this last remuneration, or were it held to\nbe illegitimate, capital would not have been employed to secure\nthe assistance of the natural agents. There would have been in the\nproduct only onerous utility; for in that case the commodity would\nhave been the exclusive result of human labour, and our artisan\nwould have been brought back to the point whence he started,\u2014that is\nto say, he would have been placed in the [p210] dilemma of either\ndispensing with the stockings, or of paying for them the price of\nseveral years\u2019 labour.\n\nIf our artisan had learnt to analyze phenomena, he would soon get\nreconciled to Capital, on seeing how much he is indebted to it. He\nwould be convinced, above all, that the gratuitous nature of the\ngifts of God has been completely preserved, and that these gifts\nhave been lavished on him with a liberality which he owes not to his\nown merit, but to the beautiful mechanism of the \u2039natural\u203a social\norder. Capital does not consist in the vegetative force which has\nmade cotton germinate and flower, but in the \u2039pains taken\u203a by the\nplanter. Capital is not the wind which fills the sails of the ship,\nor the magnetism which acts upon the needle, but the \u2039pains taken\u203a\nby the sailmaker and the optician. Capital is not the elasticity of\nsteam which turns the spindles of the mill, but the \u2039pains taken\u203a by\nthe machine-maker. Vegetation, the power of the winds, magnetism,\nelasticity,\u2014all these are purely gratuitous; and hence the stockings\nhave so little value. As regards the pains taken by the planter,\nthe sailmaker, the optician, the shipbuilder, the sailor, the\nmanufacturer, the merchant, they are spread\u2014or, rather, so far as\ncapital is concerned, the interest of that capital is spread\u2014over\ninnumerable purchasers of stockings; and this is the reason why the\nportion of labour given by each of these purchasers is so small.\n\nModern reformers! when I see you desiring to replace this admirable\nnatural order by an arrangement of your own invention, there are two\nthings (although they are in reality one and the same) which confound\nme,\u2014namely, your want of faith in Providence, and your faith in\nyourselves\u2014your ignorance, and your presumption.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt follows from what I have said that the progress of mankind\ncoincides with the rapid creation of Capital; for to say that new\ncapital is formed, is just to say, in other words, that obstacles,\nformerly onerously combated by labour, are now gratuitously combated\nby nature; and that, be it observed, not for the profit of the\ncapitalist, but for the profit of the community.\n\nThis being so, the paramount interest of all (in an economical point\nof view, and rightly understood) is to favour the rapid creation of\ncapital. But capital, if I may say so, increases of its own accord\nunder the triple influence of activity, frugality, and security.\nWe can scarcely exercise any direct influence on the activity and\nfrugality of our neighbours, except through the medium of public\nopinion, by an intelligent communication of our antipathies and our\nsympathies. But as regards security we can do much, for, [p211]\nwithout security, capital, far from being formed and accumulated,\nconceals itself, takes flight, and perishes; and this shows us how\nsuicidal that popular ardour is which displays itself in disturbing\nthe public tranquillity. Let the working-classes be well assured that\nthe mission of Capital from the beginning has been to set men free\nfrom the yoke of ignorance, of want, and of despotism; and that to\nfrighten away Capital is to rivet a triple chain on the energies of\nthe human race.\n\nThe \u2039vires acquirit eundo\u203a may be applied with rigorous exactitude\nto capital, and its beneficent influence. Capital, when formed,\nnecessarily leaves disposable both labour and the remuneration of\nthat labour. It carries in itself, then, a power of progression.\nThere is in it something which resembles the law of velocities. This\nprogression economical science has omitted hitherto to oppose to the\nother progression which Malthus has remarked. It is a Harmony which\nwe cannot explain in this place, but must reserve for the chapter on\nPopulation.\n\nBut I must here put the reader on his guard against a specious\nobjection. If the mission of capital, it may be said, is to cause\nnature to execute work which has been hitherto executed by human\nlabour, whatever good it may confer upon mankind, it must do injury\nto the working-classes, especially to those classes who live by\nwages; for everything which throws hands out of employment, and\nrenders them disposable, renders competition more intense; and\nthis, undoubtedly, is the secret reason of the antipathy of the\nworking-classes to men of capital. If this objection were well\nfounded, we should have a discordant note in the social harmony.\n\nThe illusion arises from losing sight of this, that \u2039capital,\nin proportion as its action is extended, sets free and renders\ndisposable a certain amount of human efforts, only by setting free\nand rendering disposable a corresponding fund of remuneration\u203a, so\nthat these two elements meet and compensate one another. The labour\nis not paralyzed. Replaced in a special department of industry by\ngratuitous forces, it sets to work upon other obstacles in the\ngeneral march of progress, and with more certainty, inasmuch as it\nfinds its recompense prepared beforehand.\n\nRecurring to our former illustration, it is easy to see that the\nprice of stockings (like that of books, and all things else) is\nlowered by the action of capital, only by leaving in the hands of\nthe purchaser a part of the former price. This is too clear for\nillustration. The workman who now pays two francs for what he paid\nsix francs for formerly, has four francs left at his disposal. Now,\nit is exactly [p212] in that proportion that human labour has been\nreplaced by natural forces. These forces, then, are a pure and simple\nacquisition, which alters in no respect the relation of labour to\navailable remuneration. It will be remembered that the answer to this\nobjection was given formerly,[53] when, observing upon man in a state\nof isolation, or reduced once more to the primitive law of barter,\nI put the reader on his guard against the illusion which it is my\nobject here to dispel.\n\nWe may leave capital, then, to take care of itself, to be created\nand accumulated according to its own proper tendencies, and the\nwants and desires of men. Do not imagine that, when the common\nlabourer economizes for his old days, when the father of a family\nsets his son up in business, or provides a dower for his daughter,\nthey are exercising to the detriment of the public that noble\nattribute of man, Foresight; but it would be so, and private virtues\nwould be in direct antagonism with the general good, were there an\nincompatibility between Capital and Labour.\n\nFar from mankind being subjected to this contradiction, or, I might\nrather say, this impossibility (for how can we conceive progressive\nevil in the aggregate to result from progressive good in individual\ncases?) we must acknowledge that Providence, in justice and mercy,\nhas assigned a nobler part to Labour than to Capital in the work of\nprogress, and has afforded a stimulant more efficacious, a recompense\nmore liberal, to the man who lives by the sweat of his brow, than to\nthe man who subsists upon the exertions of his forefathers.\n\nIn fact, having established that every increase of capital is\nfollowed by a necessary increase of general prosperity, I venture to\nlay down the following principle with reference to the distribution\nof wealth,\u2014a principle which I believe will be found unassailable:\u2014\n\n\u201c\u2039In proportion to the increase of Capital, the\u203a absolute \u2039share of\nthe total product falling to the capitalist is augmented, and his\u203a\nrelative \u2039share is diminished; while, on the contrary, the labourer\u2019s\nshare is increased both absolutely and relatively.\u203a\u201d\n\nI shall explain this more clearly by figures:\u2014\n\nSuppose the total products of society, at successive epochs, to be\nrepresented by the figures 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, etc.\n\nI maintain that the share falling to the capitalists will descend,\nsuccessively, from 50 per cent., to 40, 35, 30 per cent., and that\nthe share of the labourers will rise, consequently, from 50 per\ncent., to 60, 65, 70 per cent.,\u2014so that the \u2039absolute\u203a share of the\n[p213] capitalist will be always greater at each period, although\nhis \u2039relative\u203a share will be smaller.\n\nThe division will take place in this way,\u2014\n\n                   Total     Share of     Share of\n                  Product.  Capitalist.   Labourer.\n First period,     1000         500          500\n Second period,    2000         800         1200\n Third period,     3000        1050         1950\n Fourth period,    4000        1200         2800\n\nSuch is the great, admirable, reassuring, necessary, and \u2039inflexible\u203a\nlaw of Capital. To demonstrate it, appears to me to be the true way\nto strike with discredit the declamations which have so long been\ndinned into our ears against the \u2039avidity\u203a, the \u2039tyranny\u203a, of the\nmost powerful instrument of civilisation and of \u2039equality\u203a which has\never proceeded from the human faculties.\n\nThe demonstration is twofold. First of all, we must prove that the\n\u2039relative\u203a share of the product falling to the capitalist goes on\ncontinually diminishing. This is not difficult; for it only amounts\nto saying that \u2039the more abundant capital becomes, the more interest\nfalls\u203a. Now, this is a matter of fact, incontestable and uncontested.\nNot only does science explain it\u2014it is self-evident. Schools the most\neccentric admit it. It forms the basis of their theory, for it is\nfrom this very fall of interest that they infer the necessary, the\ninevitable annihilation of what they choose to brand as \u2039infernal\u203a\nCapital. Now, say they, inasmuch as this annihilation is necessary,\nis inevitable, and must take place in a given time; and, moreover,\nimplies the realization of a positive good, it is incumbent on us\nto hasten it and insure it. I am not concerned to refute these\nprinciples, or the deductions drawn from them. It is enough that\nEconomists of all schools, as well as socialists, \u2039egalitaires\u203a,\nand others, all admit, in point of fact, that interest falls in\nproportion as capital becomes more abundant. Whether they admit it\nor not, indeed, the fact is not the less certain. It rests upon\nthe authority of universal experience, and on the acquiescence,\ninvoluntary it may be, of all the capitalists in the world. It is a\nfact that the interest of capital is lower in Spain than in Mexico,\nin France than in Spain, in England than in France, in Holland than\nin England. Now, when interest falls from 20 to 15 per cent., and\nthen to 10, to 8, to 6, to 5, to 4\u00bd, to 4, to 3\u00bd, to 3 per cent.,\nwhat does that mean in relation to the question which now engages us?\nIt means that capital, as the recompense of its co-operation in the\nwork of production, in the realization of wealth, is content, or, if\nyou will, is forced to be content, with a smaller and smaller share\nof the product in proportion as capital increases. Does it constitute\none-third of the value of corn, of cloth, of houses, of ships, of\n[p214] canals? in other words, when these things are sold, does\none-third of the price fall to the capitalist, and two-thirds to the\nlabourer? By degrees, the capitalist receives no more than a fourth,\na fifth, a sixth. His \u2039relative\u203a share goes on diminishing, while\nthat of the labourer goes on increasing in the same proportion; and\nthe first part of my demonstration is complete.\n\nIt remains for me to prove that the \u2039absolute\u203a share falling to\nthe capitalist goes on constantly increasing. It is very true that\nthe tendency of interest is to fall. But when, and why? When, and\nbecause, the capital becomes more abundant. It is then quite possible\nthat the total product should be increased while the \u2039percentage\u203a is\ndiminished. A man has a larger income with 200,000 francs at four per\ncent., than with 100,000 francs at five per cent., although, in the\nfirst case, he charges less to the manufacturer for the use of his\ncapital. The same thing holds of a nation, and of the world at large.\nNow, I maintain that the \u2039percentage\u203a, in its tendency to fall,\nneither does nor can follow a progression so rapid that the \u2039sum\ntotal\u203a of interest should be smaller when capital is abundant than\nwhen it is scarce. I admit, indeed, that if the capital of mankind be\nrepresented by 100 and interest by 5,\u2014this interest will amount to\nno more than 4 when the capital shall have mounted to 200. Here we\nsee the simultaneousness of the two effects. The less the \u2039relative\u203a\npart, the greater the \u2039absolute\u203a part. But my hypothesis does not\nadmit that the increase of capital from 100 to 200 is sufficient to\nmake interest fall from 5 to 2 per cent., for example; because, if it\nwere so, the capitalist who had an income of 5000 francs with 100,000\nfrancs of capital, would have no greater income than 4000 francs with\n200,000 francs of capital. A result so contradictory and impossible,\nan anomaly so strange, would be met with the simplest and most\nagreeable of remedies; for then, in order to increase your income,\nit would only be necessary to consume half your capital. A happy and\nwhimsical age it would be when men could enrich by impoverishing\nthemselves!\n\nWe must take care, then, not to lose sight of the combination of\nthese two correlative facts. The increase of capital, and the fall\nof interest, take place \u2039necessarily\u203a in such a way that the total\nproduct is continually augmented.\n\nAnd let us remark in passing, that this completely exposes the\nfallacy of those who imagine that because interest falls, it tends to\nannihilation. The effect of that would be, that a time would arrive\nwhen capital would be so much increased as to yield nothing to its\npossessors. Keep your mind easy on that score\u2014before [p215] that\ntime comes, capitalists will dissipate the stock in order to ensure\nthe reappearance of interest.\n\nSuch is the great law of Capital and Labour in what concerns the\ndistribution of the product of their joint agency. Each of them has a\ngreater and greater \u2039absolute\u203a share, but the \u2039proportional\u203a share of\nthe capitalist is continually diminished as compared with that of the\nlabourers.\n\nCease, then, capitalists and workmen, to regard each other with\nan eye of envy and distrust. Shut your ears against those absurd\ndeclamations which proceed from ignorance and presumption, which,\nunder pretence of insuring future prosperity, blow the flame\nof present discord. Be assured that your interests are one and\nidentical; that they are indisputably knit together; that they tend\ntogether towards the realization of the public good; that the toils\nof the present generation mingle with the labours of generations\nwhich are past; that all who co-operate in the work of production\nreceive their share of the produce; and that the most ingenious and\nmost equitable distribution is effected among you by the wise laws of\nProvidence, and under the empire of freedom, independently altogether\nof a parasite sentimentalism, which would impose upon you its decrees\nat the expense of your well-being, your liberty, your security, and\nyour self-respect.\n\nCapital has its root in these attributes of man\u2014Foresight,\nIntelligence, and Frugality. To set about the creation of capital\nwe must look forward to the future, and sacrifice the present to\nit\u2014we must exercise a noble empire over ourselves and over our\nappetites; we must resist the seduction of present enjoyments, the\nimpulses of vanity and the caprices of fashion and of public opinion,\nalways so indulgent to the thoughtless and the prodigal. We must\nstudy cause and effect, in order to discover by what processes, by\nwhat instruments, nature can be made to co-operate in the work of\nproduction. We must be animated by love for our families, and not\ngrudge present sacrifices for the sake of those who are dear to us,\nand who will reap the fruits after we ourselves have disappeared from\nthe scene. To create capital is to prepare food, clothing, shelter,\nleisure, instruction, independence, dignity, for future generations.\nNothing of all this can be effected without bringing into play\nmotives which are eminently social, and, what is more, converting\nthese virtues into habits.\n\nAnd yet it is very usual to attribute to capital a sort of fatal\nefficacy, the effect of which is to introduce egotism, austerity,\nMachiavelism, into the hearts of those who aspire to possess it.\nBut let us not be misunderstood. There are countries where [p216]\nlabour is of little value, and the little that is earned is shared\nby the government. In order to snatch from you the fruit of your\ntoil, what is called the State surrounds you with a multitude of\ntrammels. It interferes with all your actions, and mixes itself up\nin all your concerns. It domineers over your mind and your faith.\nIt disarranges all interests, and places them in an artificial and\nprecarious position. It enervates individual energy and activity, by\nusurping the direction of all affairs. It makes the responsibility\nof actions fall upon people with whom it amounts to nothing, so that\nby degrees all notions of what is just or unjust are effaced. By its\ndiplomacy it embroils the nation in quarrels with all the world, and\nthen the army and navy are brought into play. It warps the popular\nmind as much as it can upon all economical questions; for it is\nnecessary to make the masses believe that its foolish expenditure,\nits unjust aggressions, its conquests, its colonies, are for them a\nsource of riches. In such countries it is difficult to create capital\nby natural means. The great object is to purloin it by force or by\nfraud from those who have created it. We there see men enriching\nthemselves by war, by places at court, by gambling, by purveying,\nby stockjobbing, by commercial frauds, by hazardous enterprises, by\npublic contracts, etc. The qualities requisite for thus snatching\ncapital from the hands of those who create it are precisely the\nopposite of those necessary for its formation. It cannot surprise us,\nthen, that in countries so situated an association is established\nbetween these two ideas\u2014\u2039capital\u203a and \u2039egotism\u203a; and this association\nbecomes ineradicable when all the moral ideas of the country exhaust\nthemselves on ancient and medi\u00e6val history.\n\nBut when we turn our regards, not to this abstraction and abuse of\ncapital, but to its creation by intelligence and activity, foresight\nand frugality, it is impossible not to perceive that a moral and\nsocial virtue is attached to its acquisition.\n\nNor is there less moral and social virtue in the action of capital\nthan in its formation. Its peculiar effect is to procure us the\nco-operation of nature, to set us free from all that is most\nmaterial, muscular, brutal, in the work of production; to render\nthe intelligent principle more and more predominant; to enlarge\nthe domain, I do not say of idleness, but of leisure; to render\nless imperious the physical wants of our nature, by rendering\ntheir satisfaction more easy, and to substitute for them wants and\nenjoyments of a nature more elevated, more delicate, more refined,\nmore artistic, more spiritual.\n\nThus, in whatever point of view we place ourselves, whether [p217]\nwe regard Capital in connexion with our wants, which it ennobles;\nwith our efforts, which it facilitates; with our enjoyments, which\nit purifies; with nature, which it enlists in our service; with\nmorality, which it converts into habit; with sociability, which\nit develops; with equality, which it promotes; with freedom, in\nwhich it lives; with equity, which it realizes by methods the most\ningenious\u2014everywhere, always, provided that it is created and acts\nin the regular order of things, and is not diverted from its natural\nuses, we recognise in Capital what forms the indubitable note and\nstamp of all great providential laws,\u2014Harmony. [p218]\n\n\n\n\n VIII.\n PROPERTY\u2014COMMUNITY.\n\n\nRecognising in the soil, in natural agents, and in instruments of\nlabour, what they incontestably possess, the gift of engendering\nUtility, I have endeavoured to denude them of what has been\nerroneously attributed to them, namely, the faculty of creating\nValue,\u2014a faculty which pertains exclusively to the Services which men\nexchange with each other.\n\nThis simple rectification, whilst it strengthens and confirms\nProperty, by restoring to it its true character, brings to light a\nmost important fact, hitherto, if I am not mistaken, overlooked by\nEconomic science\u2014the fact that there exists a real, essential, and\n\u2039progressive\u203a Community,\u2014the natural result of every social system in\nwhich liberty prevails, and the evident design of which is to conduct\nall men, as brethren, from primitive Equality, which is the equality\nof ignorance and destitution, towards an ultimate Equality in the\npossession of truth and material prosperity.\n\nIf this radical distinction between the Utility of things and the\nvalue of services be true in itself, and in the consequences which\nhave been deduced from it, it is impossible to misunderstand its\nbearing; for it leads to nothing less than the absorption of utopian\ntheories in science, and the reconcilement of antagonistic schools in\na common faith, which satisfies all minds and all aspirations.\n\nMen of Property and leisure!\u2014whatever be your rank in the social\nscale, whatever step of the social ladder you may have reached by\ndint of activity, probity, order, and economy\u2014whence come the fears\nwhich have seized upon you? The perfumed but poisoned breath of\nUtopia menaces your existence. You are loudly told that the fortune\nyou have amassed for the purpose of securing a little repose in\nyour old age, and food, instruction, and an outset in life for your\nchildren, has been acquired by you at the expense of your brethren;\nthat you have placed yourselves [p219] between the gifts of God and\nthe poor; that, like greedy tax-gatherers, you have levied a tribute\non those gifts, under the name of Property, of Interest, and of Rent;\nthat you have intercepted the benefits which the common Father has\nbestowed on his children, in order to make merchandise of them. You\nare called upon for restitution; and what augments your terror is,\nthat your advocates, in conducting your defence, feel themselves\ntoo often obliged to avow that the usurpation is flagrant, but that\nit is necessary. Such accusations I meet with a direct and emphatic\nnegative. You have not intercepted the gifts of God. You have\nreceived them gratuitously, it is true, at the hands of nature; but\nyou have also gratuitously transferred them to your brethren without\nreceiving anything. They have acted the same way towards you; and the\nonly things which have been reciprocally \u2039compensated\u203a are physical\nor intellectual efforts, toils undergone, dangers braved, skill\nexercised, privations submitted to, pains taken, \u2039services rendered\nand received\u203a. You may perhaps have thought only of yourselves and\nyour own selfish interest, but that very selfish interest has been an\ninstrument in the hand of an infinitely prescient and wise Providence\nto enlarge unceasingly among men the domain of Community; for without\nyour efforts all those \u2039useful effects\u203a which you have obtained\nfrom nature, in order to distribute them without remuneration\namong your brethren, would have remained for ever inert. I say\n\u2039without remuneration\u203a, because what you have received is simply the\nrecompense of your efforts, and not at all the price of the gifts\nof God. Live, then, in peace, without fear and without misgiving.\nYou have no other property in the world but your right to services,\nin exchange for other services, by you faithfully rendered, and by\nyour brethren voluntarily accepted. Such property is legitimate,\nunassailable; no Utopia can prevail against it, for it enters into\nthe very constitution of our being. No theory can ever succeed in\nblighting or in shaking it.\n\nMen of toil and privations! you cannot shut your eyes to this truth,\nthat the primitive condition of the human race is that of an entire\nCommunity,\u2014a perfect Equality,\u2014of poverty, of destitution, and of\nignorance. Man redeems himself from this estate by the sweat of his\nbrow, and directs his course towards another Community, that of the\ngifts of God, successively obtained with less effort,\u2014towards another\nEquality, that of material prosperity, knowledge, and moral dignity.\nThe progress of men on the road of improvement is unequal, indeed;\nand you could not complain were the more hurried and precipitate\nmarch of the vanguard of progress to retard in some measure your\nown advance. But in [p220] truth it is quite the reverse. No ray of\nlight penetrates a single mind without in some degree enlightening\nyours. No step of progress, prompted by the conscious possession of\nproperty, but is a step of progress for you. No wealth is created\nwhich does not tend to your enfranchisement; no capital, which\ndoes not increase your enjoyments in proportion to your labour; no\nacquisition, which does not increase your facilities of acquisition;\nno Property, which does not tend to enlarge, for your benefit,\nthe domain of Community. The natural social order has been so\nskillfully arranged by the Divine Architect, that those who are more\nadvanced on the road of civilisation hold out to you, voluntarily\nor unconsciously, a helping hand; for the order of things has been\nso disposed that no man can work honestly for himself without at\nthe same time working for all. And it is rigorously true to affirm\nthat every attack upon this marvellous order would on your part be\nnot only a homicide, but a suicide. Human nature is an admirable\nchain, which exhibits this standing miracle, that the first links\ncommunicate to all the others a progressive movement more and more\nrapid, onwards to the last.\n\nMen of philanthropy! lovers of equality! blind defenders, dangerous\nfriends of the suffering classes, who are yet far behind on the road\nof civilisation, you who expect the reign of Community in this world,\nwhy do you begin by unsettling all interests and shaking all received\nopinions? Why, in your pride, should you seek to subjugate men\u2019s\nwills, and bring them under the yoke of your social inventions? Do\nyou not see that this Community after which you sigh, and which is to\ninaugurate the kingdom of God upon earth, has been already thought\nof and provided for by God himself? Does He want your aid to provide\na patrimony for his children? Has He need either of your conceptions\nor of your violence? Do you not see that this Community is realized\nmore and more every day, in virtue of His admirable decrees; that\nfor the execution of these decrees He has not trusted to your\nchance services and puerile arrangements, nor even to the growing\nexpression of the sympathetic principle manifested by charity; but\nthat He has confided the realization of His providential designs to\nthe most active, the most personal, the most permanent of all our\nenergies\u2014Self-interest,\u2014a principle imbedded in our inmost nature,\nand which never flags, never takes rest? Study, then, the social\nmechanism as it comes from the hand of the Great Mechanician, and\nyou will find that it testifies to a universal solicitude, which\nfar outstrips your dreams and chimeras. You will then, I hope, in\nplace of presumptuously pretending [p221] to reconstruct the divine\nworkmanship, be content to admire and to bless it.\n\nI say not that there is no room in this world of ours for reforms\nand reformers. I say not that mankind are not to call to their\nservice, and encourage with their gratitude, men of investigation, of\nscience, and of earnestness,\u2014hearts faithful to the people. Such are\nstill but too much wanted,\u2014not to overturn the social laws,\u2014but to\ncombat the artificial obstacles which disturb and reverse the action\nof these laws. In truth, it is difficult to understand why people\nshould keep repeating such commonplaces as this: \u201cPolitical Economy\nis an optimist, as far as existing facts are concerned; and affirms\nthat whatever is is right. At the sight of what is evil, as at the\nsight of what is good. Economists are content to exclaim, \u2039Laissez\nfaire\u203a.\u201d Optimists with reference to existing facts! Then we must be\nignorant that the primitive condition of man is poverty, ignorance,\nthe reign of brute force! We must be ignorant that the moving spring\nof human nature is aversion to all suffering, to all fatigue; and\nthat labour being fatigue, the earliest manifestation of selfishness\namong men is shown in their effort to throw this painful burden on\nthe shoulders of each other! The words cannibalism, war, slavery,\nprivilege, monopoly, fraud, spoliation, imposture, must either have\nnever reached our ears, or else we must see in these abominations\nthe necessary machinery of progress! But is there not in all this\na certain amount of wilful misrepresentation, a confounding of all\nthings for the purpose of accusing us of confounding them? When we\nadmire the providential laws which govern human transactions\u2014when we\nassert that men\u2019s interests are harmonious\u2014when we thence conclude\nthat they naturally tend and gravitate towards the realization of\nrelative equality and general progress\u2014it is surely from the play and\naction of these laws, not from their perturbations and disturbances,\nthat we educe harmony. When we say \u2039laissez faire\u203a, we surely mean,\n\u2039allow these laws to act\u203a, not, \u2039allow these laws to be disturbed\u203a.\nAccording as we conform to these laws or violate them, good or evil\nis produced; in other words, men\u2019s interests are in harmony, provided\nright prevail, and services are freely and voluntarily exchanged\nagainst services. But does this imply that we are ignorant of the\nperpetual struggle of Wrong against Right? Does this imply that we\nlose sight of, or approve, the efforts which have been made in all\nages, and which are still making, to alter, by force or fraud, the\nnatural equivalence of services? This is exactly when we repudiate\nas a violation of the natural social laws, as an attack upon\nproperty,\u2014for, in our view, the terms, free exchange of services,\njustice, property, liberty, [p222] security, all express the same\nidea under different aspects. It is not the principle of Property\nwhich we contest, but the antagonistic principle of Spoliation.\nProprietors of all ranks! reformers of all schools! this is the\nmission which should reconcile and unite us.\n\nIt is time, high time, that this crusade should begin. A mere\ntheoretical war against Property is by no means the most virulent\nor the most dangerous. Since the beginning of the world there has\nexisted a practical conspiracy against it which is not likely soon\nto cease. War, slavery, imposture, oppressive imposts, monopolies,\nprivileges, commercial frauds, colonies, right to employment, right\nto credit, right to assistance, right to instruction, progressive\ntaxation imposed in direct or inverse proportion to our power of\nbearing it, are so many battering-rams directed against the tottering\nedifice; and if the truth must come out, would you tell me whether\nthere are many men in France, even among those who think themselves\nconservative, who do not, in one form or another, lend a hand to this\nwork of destruction?\n\nThere are people to whose optics property never appears in any other\nform than that of a field or a bag of crown-pieces. If you do not\noverstep sacred landmarks, or sensibly empty their pockets, they\nfeel quite comfortable. But is there no other kind of Property? Is\nthere not the Property of muscular force and intellectual power, of\nfaculties, of ideas\u2014in a word, the Property of Services? When I throw\na service into the social scale, is it not my right that it should\nbe held there, if I may use the expression, suspended, according\nto the laws of its natural equivalence; that it may there form a\ncounterpoise to any other service which my neighbour may consent to\nthrow into the opposite scale and tender me in exchange? The law of\ncommon consent agreed to establish a public force for the protection\nof property thus understood. But in what situation are we placed\nif this very force assumes to itself the mission of disturbing the\nequilibrium, under the socialist pretext that liberty gives birth\nto monopoly, and that the doctrine of \u2039laissez faire\u203a is odious and\nheartless? When things go on in this way, individual theft may be\nrare, and may be severely punished, but spoliation is organized,\nlegalized, and erected into a system. Comfort yourselves, Reformers!\nyour work is not yet done\u2014only try to understand what that work\nreally is.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBut before proceeding to analyze spoliation, whether public or\nprivate, legal or illegal, and to consider its bearing as an element\nin the social problem, and the part which it plays in the business\n[p223] of the world, it is necessary to form just ideas, if\npossible, of Community and Property; for, as we shall by-and-by see,\nspoliation forms a limit to property, just as property forms a limit\nto community.\n\nFrom the preceding Chapters, especially that which treats of Utility\nand Value, we may deduce this formula:\n\n\u2039Every man enjoys\u203a \u00abGRATUITOUSLY\u00bb \u2039all the utilities furnished or\ncreated by nature, on condition of taking the trouble to appropriate\nthem, or of returning an equivalent service to those who render him\nthe service of taking that trouble for him\u203a.\n\nHere we have two facts combined and mixed up together, although in\ntheir own nature distinct.\n\nWe have the gifts of nature\u2014gratuitous materials, gratuitous forces.\nThis is the domain of \u2039Community\u203a.\n\nWe have also human efforts devoted to the appropriation of these\nmaterials, to the direction of these forces,\u2014efforts which are\nexchanged, \u2039estimated\u203a, and compensated. This is the domain of\n\u2039Property\u203a.\n\nIn other words, as regards both, we are not owners of the Utility of\nthings, but of their Value, and value is simply the appreciation of\nreciprocal services.\n\nProperty, Community, are two ideas correlative to the ideas of\n\u2039onerosity\u203a and \u2039gratuitousness\u203a, on which they are founded.\n\nThat which is \u2039gratuitous\u203a is \u2039common\u203a, for every one enjoys a\nportion of it, and enjoys it unconditionally.\n\nThat which is \u2039onerous\u203a is \u2039appropriated\u203a, because trouble taken,\neffort made, is the condition of its enjoyment, as the enjoyment is\nthe reason for taking the trouble, or making the effort.\n\nDoes an exchange intervene? It is effected by a comparative estimate\nof the two efforts or the two services.\n\nThis reference to trouble, to pains, implies the existence of\nan Obstacle. We may then conclude that the object sought for\napproximates more nearly to the gratuitous and the common, in\nproportion as the obstacle is less; as, by hypothesis, the complete\nabsence of obstacle would render it perfectly gratuitous and common.\n\nNow, with reference to human nature, which is progressive and\nperfectible, the obstacle can never be regarded as an absolute and\ninvariable quantity. It diminishes. Then the pains taken diminish\nalong with it\u2014and the service with the pains\u2014and value with the\nservice\u2014and property with value.\n\nAnd the Utility remains the same. Then the gratuitous and the common\nhave gained all that onerosity and property have lost. [p224]\n\nTo determine man to labour he must have a motive, and that motive\nis the satisfaction he has in view, or utility. His undoubted\nand irrepressible tendency is to realize the greatest possible\nsatisfaction with the least possible labour, to cause the greatest\namount of utility to correspond with the greatest amount of property.\nWhence it follows that the mission of Property, or rather of the\nspirit of property, is to realize, in a greater and greater degree,\nCommunity.\n\nThe starting point of the human race being the maximum of poverty,\nor the maximum of obstacles to be overcome, it is clear that for all\nthat is gained from one age to another we are indebted to the spirit\nof property.\n\nThis being so, is there to be found in the world a single theoretical\nadversary of the institution of property? Is it possible to imagine\na social force at once so just and so popular? The fundamental dogma\nof Proudhon himself is the \u2039mutuality of services\u203a. On this point\nwe are agreed. What we differ upon is, that I give this the name\nof \u2039Property\u203a, because, on going to the root of the matter, I am\nconvinced that men, if they are free, neither have, nor can have, any\nother property than that of value, or of services. On the contrary,\nProudhon, like most Economists, thinks that certain natural agents\nhave \u2039a value which is inherent in them\u203a, and that in consequence of\nthat they are \u2039appropriated\u203a. But as regards property in services,\nfar from contesting it, he adopts it as his creed. Do you wish to\ngo still farther? to go the length of asserting that a man should\nnot have a right of property in his own exertions? Will it be said\nthat by exchange it is not enough to transfer gratuitously the\nco-operation of natural agents, but also to cede gratuitously one\u2019s\nown efforts? This is indeed a dangerous doctrine; it is to glorify\nslavery; for to assert that certain men must render, is to assert\nthat other men must receive, services which are not remunerated, and\nthat is slavery. But if you say that this gratuitous interchange must\nbe reciprocal, you get into an incomprehensible logomachy; for either\nthere is some equity in exchange, and then the services will, in one\nway or another, be \u2039estimated\u203a and compensated; or they will not be\nestimated and compensated,\u2014in which case the one party will render a\ngreat amount of service, and the other a small amount, and you will\nfall back again into slavery.\n\nBut it is impossible to contest the legitimate nature of Property\nin services which are exchanged on the principle of equivalence.\nTo explain their legitimacy we have no need to have recourse\nto philosophy, or jurisprudence, or metaphysics. Socialists,\nEconomists, [p225] Advocates of Equality and Fraternity,\u2014I defy\nthe whole body, numerous as it is, to raise even the shadow of an\nobjection against the \u2039legitimate mutuality of voluntary services\u203a,\nand consequently against Property, such as I have defined it, such as\nit actually exists in the natural social order.\n\nI know very well that in practice the reign of Property is far from\nbeing an undivided sway, and that we have always to deal with an\nantagonistic fact. There are services which are not voluntary; there\nis remuneration which is not freely stipulated; there are services\nwhose equivalence is impaired by force or by fraud; in a word, there\nis Spoliation. The legitimate principle of Property, however, is\nnot thereby invalidated but confirmed. The very fact of its being\nviolated proves its existence. If we put faith in anything in this\nworld\u2014in facts, in justice, in universal assent, in human language\u2014we\nmust admit that these two words, Property and Spoliation, express\nideas which are as opposite, as irreconcilable, as far from being\nidentical as yes and no, light and darkness, good and evil, harmony\nand discord. Taken literally, the celebrated formula that \u2039property\nis theft\u203a is absurd in the very highest degree. It would not be more\nmonstrous to say that \u2039theft is property\u203a, that what is legitimate is\nillegitimate, that what is is not, etc. The author of this whimsical\naphorism probably wished to show how ingeniously he could support a\nparadox, and meant no more than this, that certain men are paid not\nonly for work which they do but for work which they don\u2019t do, thus\nappropriating to themselves, exclusively, gratuitous utility\u2014the\ngifts vouchsafed by God for the good of all. In this case all that we\nhave to do is to prove the assertion, and substitute the truism that\n\u2039theft is theft\u203a.\n\nTo \u2039steal\u203a means, in ordinary language, to appropriate, by force\nor fraud, a value, to the prejudice and without the consent of the\nperson who has created that value. It is easy to see how a false\nPolitical Economy has succeeded in enlarging the sense of that ugly\nword \u2039steal\u203a. You begin by confounding utility with value. Then, as\nnature co-operates in the creation of utility, you conclude that\nnature also concurs in the creation of Value, and you say that this\nportion of value, being the fruit of no one\u2019s labour, belongs to\nall. At length, finding that value is never transferred without\nremuneration, you add, that the man who exacts a recompense for\na value which is the creation of nature, which is independent of\nall human labour, which is \u2039inherent in things\u203a, and is by the\ndestination of Providence one of their \u2039intrinsic qualities\u203a, like\nweight or porosity, form or colour, \u2039commits a robbery\u203a.\n\nAn exact analysis of value overturns this scaffolding of [p226]\nsubtilties intended to prop up a monstrous assimilation of Property\nwith Spoliation.\n\nGod has placed certain Materials and certain Forces at the disposal\nof man. In order to obtain possession of these materials and forces,\nLabour is necessary, or it is not. If it be not necessary, no one\nwill voluntarily consent to purchase from another, by means of an\neffort, what, without any effort, he can obtain from the hands of\nNature. In this case, services, exchange, value, \u2039Property\u203a, are\nout of the question. If, on the other hand, labour be necessary, in\nequity it falls upon the person who is to receive the satisfaction;\nwhence it follows that the satisfaction is the recompense of the\npains taken, the effort made, the labour undergone. Here you have\nthe principle of Property. This being so, a man takes pains, or\nsubmits to labour, for his own benefit, and becomes possessed of\nthe whole utility realized by this labour co-operating with nature.\nHe takes pains, or submits to labour, for another, and in that case\nhe bargains to receive in return an equivalent service, which is\nlikewise the vehicle of utility, and the result exhibits two Efforts,\ntwo Utilities which have changed hands, and two Satisfactions. But\nwe must not lose sight of this, that the transaction is effected by\nthe comparison, by the \u2039appreciation\u203a, not of the two utilities (they\ncannot be brought to this test), but of the two services exchanged.\nIt is then exact to say that, in a personal point of view, man, by\nmeans of labour, becomes proprietor of natural utility (that is the\nobject of his labour), whatever be the relation (which may vary \u2039ad\ninfinitum\u203a) of labour to utility. But in a \u2039social\u203a point of view,\nor in reference to each other, men are never proprietors except of\nvalue, the foundation of which is not the liberality of nature, but\nhuman service, pains taken, danger encountered, skill displayed,\nin securing that liberality. In a word, in what concerns natural\nand gratuitous utility, the last acquirer, the person who is the\nrecipient of the satisfaction, is placed, by exchange, in the shoes\nof the first labourer. The latter has found himself in presence of\na gratuitous utility which he has taken the pains to appropriate;\nthe former returns him an equivalent service, and thus substitutes\nhimself in the other\u2019s right and place; utility is acquired by him by\nthe same title, that is to say, by a gratuitous title, on condition\nof pains taken. There is here, neither in fact nor in appearance, any\nimproper interception of the gifts of God.\n\nI venture, then, to lay down this proposition as unassailable:\n\n\u2039In relation to one another, men are proprietors only of values, and\nvalues represent only services compared, and voluntarily received and\nrendered.\u203a [p227]\n\nThat, on the one hand, the true meaning of the word \u2039value\u203a is\nwhat I have already demonstrated it to be (Chapter V.); and that,\non the other, men are never, and never can be, as regards each\nother, proprietors of anything but \u2039value\u203a, is evident as well from\nreasoning as from experience. From reasoning\u2014for why should I go to\npurchase from a man, by means of an effort, what, without any effort,\nI can obtain from nature? From universal experience, which is too\nweighty to be despised in this question,\u2014nothing being more fitted\nto give us confidence in a theory than the rational and practical\nacquiescence of men of all ages and all countries. Now I say that\nuniversal consent ratifies the sense which I give here to the word\nProperty. When a public officer makes an inventory after a death,\nor by authority of justice, of when a merchant, manufacturer, or\nfarmer does the same thing for his own satisfaction, or when it is\ndone by officials under a bankruptcy\u2014what do they inscribe on the\nstamped rolls as each object presents itself? Is it its \u2039utility\u203a,\nits intrinsic merit? No, it is its \u2039value\u203a, that is to say, the\nequivalent of the trouble which, any purchaser taken at random would\nhave in procuring himself a similar commodity. Does a jury named\nby a judge to report upon a work or a commodity inquire whether it\nbe more useful than another work or commodity? Do they take into\nconsideration the enjoyments which may be thereby procured? Do\nthey esteem a hammer more than a china jar, because the hammer is\nadmirably adapted to make the law of gravitation available to its\npossessor? or a glass of water more than a diamond, because the\nformer is capable of rendering more substantial service? or the\nwork of Say more than the work of Fourier, because from the former\nwe can draw more rational enjoyment and more solid instruction? No,\nthey \u2039value\u203a, they set down the \u2039value\u203a, in rigorous conformity,\nobserve, with my definition, or, to say better, it is my definition\nwhich is in conformity with their practice. They take into account,\nnot the natural advantages, or the gratuitous utility, attached to\neach commodity, but the exertion which each acquirer should have to\nmake for himself, or to require another to make for him, in order\nto procure it. They never think of the exertion which nature has\nmade, if I may hazard the expression, but upon the exertion which\nthe purchaser would have had to make. And when the operation is\nterminated, when the public is told the sum total of Value which is\ncarried to the balance-sheet, they exclaim with one voice, Here is\nthe wealth which is available to the \u00abProprietor\u00bb.\n\nAs property includes nothing but value, and as value expresses only a\nrelation, it follows that property itself is only a relation. [p228]\n\nWhen the public, on the inspection of two inventories, pronounces\none man to be richer than another, it is not meant to say that the\nrelative amount of the two properties is indicative of the relative\nabsolute wealth of the two men, or the amount of enjoyments they can\ncommand. There enters into positive satisfactions and enjoyments\na certain amount of \u2039common and gratuitous utility\u203a which alters\nthis proportion very much. As regards the light of day, the air we\nbreathe, the heat of the sun, all men are equal; and Inequality\u2014as\nindicative of a difference in property or value \u2014has reference only\nto \u2039onerous utility\u203a.\n\nNow I have often said, and I shall probably have occasion frequently\nto repeat the remark (for it is the finest and most striking,\nalthough perhaps the least understood, of the social harmonies, and\nincludes all the others), that it is of the essence of progress\u2014and\nindeed in this alone progress consists\u2014to transform onerous into\ngratuitous utility\u2014to diminish value without diminishing utility\u2014to\npermit each individual to procure the same things with less effort,\neither to make or to remunerate; to increase continually the mass\nof things which are \u2039common\u203a, and the enjoyment of which, being\ndistributed in a uniform manner among all, effaces by degrees the\nInequality which results from difference of fortune.\n\nWe must not omit to analyze very carefully the result of this\nmechanism.\n\nIn contemplating the phenomena of the social world, how often have\nI had occasion to feel the profound justice of Rousseau\u2019s saying:\n\u201cIl faut beaucoup de philosophie pour observer ce qu\u2019on voit tous\nles jours!\u201d It is difficult to observe accurately what we see every\nday; \u2039Custom\u203a, that veil which blinds the eyes of the vulgar, and\nwhich the attentive observer cannot always throw off, prevents our\ndiscerning the most marvellous of all the Economic phenomena: real\nwealth falling incessantly from the domain of Property into that of\nCommunity.\n\nLet us endeavour to demonstrate and explain this democratic\nevolution, and, if possible, test its range and its effects.\n\nI have remarked elsewhere that if we desire to compare two epochs\nas regards real wealth and prosperity, we must refer all to a\ncommon standard, which is unskilled labour measured by time, and\nask ourselves this question\u2014What difference in the amount of\nsatisfaction, according to the degree of advancement which society\nhas reached, is a determinate quantity of unskilled labour\u2014for\nexample, a day\u2019s work of a common labourer\u2014capable of yielding us?\n[p229]\n\nThis question implies two others:\n\nWhat was the relation of the satisfaction to unskilled labour at the\nbeginning of the period? What is it now?\n\nThe difference will be the measure of the advance which gratuitous\nutility has made relatively to onerous utility\u2014the domain of\ncommunity relatively to that of property.\n\nI believe that for the politician no problem can be proposed more\ninteresting and instructive than this; and the reader must pardon me\nif, in order to arrive at a satisfactory solution of it, I fatigue\nhim with too many examples.\n\nI made, at the outset, a sort of catalogue of the most common human\nwants: respiration, food, clothing, lodging, locomotion, instruction,\namusement, etc.\n\nLet us resume the same order, and inquire what amount of\nsatisfactions a common day-labourer could at the beginning, and can\nnow, procure himself, by a determinate number of days\u2019 labour.\n\n\u2039Respiration.\u203a\u2014Here all is completely gratuitous and common from the\nbeginning. Nature does all, and leaves us nothing to do. Efforts,\nservices, value, property, progress, are all out of the question. As\nregards utility, Diogenes is as rich as Alexander\u2014as regards value,\nAlexander is as rich as Diogenes.\n\n\u2039Food.\u203a\u2014At present, the value of a hectolitre of corn in France is\nthe equivalent of from 15 to 20 days\u2019 work of a common unskilled\nlabourer. This is a fact which we may regard as unimportant, but\nit is not the less worthy of remark. It is a fact that in our day,\nviewing humanity in its least advanced aspect, and as represented\nby a penniless workman, enjoyment measured by a hectolitre of corn\ncan be obtained by an expenditure of 15 days\u2019 unskilled labour. The\nordinary calculation is, that three hectolitres of corn annually are\nrequired for the subsistence of one man. The common labourer, then,\nproduces, if not his subsistence, what comes to the same thing, the\nvalue of his subsistence, by an expenditure of from 45 to 60 days\u2019\nlabour in the year. If we represent the type of value by \u2039one\u203a (in\nthis case \u2039one day\u2019s unskilled labour\u203a), the value of a hectolitre of\ncorn will be expressed by 15, 18, or 20, according to the year. The\nrelation of these two values is, say, \u2039one to fifteen\u203a.\n\nTo discover if progress has been made, and to measure it, we must\ninquire what this relation was in the early days of the human race.\nIn truth, I dare not hazard a figure, but there is one way of\nclearing up the difficulty. When you hear a man declaiming against\nthe social order, against the appropriation of the soil, against\nrent, against machinery, lead him into the middle [p230] of a\nprimitive forest and in sight of a pestilential morass. Say to him,\nI wish to free you from the yoke of which you complain,\u2014I wish to\nwithdraw you from the atrocious struggles of anarchical competition,\nfrom the antagonism of interests, from the selfishness of wealth,\nfrom the oppression of property, from the crushing rivalry of\nmachinery, from the stifling atmosphere of society. Here is land\nexactly like what the first clearers had to encounter. Take as much\nof it as you please\u2014take it by tens, by hundreds of acres. Cultivate\nit yourself. All that you can make it produce is yours. I make but\none condition, that you will not have recourse to that society of\nwhich you represent yourself as the victim.\n\nAs regards the soil, observe, this man would be placed in exactly the\nsame situation which mankind at large occupied at the beginning. Now\nI fear not to be contradicted when I assert that this man would not\nproduce a hectolitre of corn in two years: Ratio 15 to 600.\n\nAnd now we can measure the progress which has been made. As regards\ncorn\u2014and despite his being obliged to pay rent for his land, interest\nfor his capital, and hire for his tools\u2014or rather because he pays\nthem\u2014a labourer now obtains with 15 days\u2019 work what he would formerly\nhave had difficulty in procuring with 600 days\u2019 work. The value of\ncorn, then, measured by unskilled labour, has fallen from 600 to 15,\nor from 40 to 1. A hectolitre of corn has for man the same utility\nit had the day after the deluge\u2014it contains the same quantity of\nalimentary substance\u2014it satisfies the same want, and in the same\ndegree. It constitutes an equal amount of \u2039real wealth\u203a\u2014it does not\nconstitute an equal amount of \u2039relative wealth\u203a. Its production has\nbeen transferred in a great measure \u2039to the charge of nature\u203a. It is\nobtained with \u2039less\u203a human \u2039effort\u203a. It renders \u2039less service\u203a in\npassing from hand to hand, it has less \u2039value\u203a. In a word, it has\nbecome \u2039gratuitous\u203a\u2014not absolutely, but in the proportion of 40 to 1.\n\nAnd not only has it become \u2039gratuitous\u203a\u2014it has become \u2039common\u203a to the\nsame extent. For it is not to the profit of the person who produces\nthe corn that 39-40ths of the effort have been annihilated, but to\nthe advantage of the consumer, whatever be the kind of labour to\nwhich he devotes himself.\n\n\u2039Clothing.\u203a\u2014We have here again the same phenomenon. A common\nday-labourer enters one of the warehouses at the Marais,[54] and\nthere obtains clothing corresponding to twenty days of his labour,\nwhich we suppose to be unskilled. Were he to attempt to make [p231]\nthis clothing himself, his whole life would be insufficient. Had he\ndesired to obtain the same clothing in the time of Henri Quatre, it\nwould have cost him three or four hundred days\u2019 work. What then has\nbecome of this difference in the \u2039value\u203a of these stuffs in relation\nto the quantity of unskilled labour? It has been annihilated, because\nthe \u2039gratuitous\u203a forces of nature now perform a great portion of the\nwork, and it has been annihilated to the advantage of mankind at\nlarge.\n\nFor we must not fail to remark here, that every man owes his\nneighbour a service equivalent to what he has received from him. If,\nthen, the art of the weaver had made no progress, if weaving were not\nexecuted in part by \u2039gratuitous\u203a forces, the weaver would still be\noccupied two or three hundred days in fabricating these stuffs, and\nour workman would require to give him two or three hundred days\u2019 work\nin order to obtain the clothing he wants. And since the weaver cannot\nsucceed, with all his wish to do so in obtaining two or three hundred\ndays\u2019 labour in recompense for the intervention of gratuitous forces,\nand for the progress achieved, we are warranted in saving that this\nprogress has been effected to the advantage of the purchaser or\nconsumer, and that it is a gain to society at large.\n\n\u2039Conveyance.\u203a\u2014Prior to all progress, when the human race, like our\nday-labourer, was obliged to make use of primitive and unskilled\nlabour, if a man had desired to have a load of a hundredweight\ntransported from Paris to Bayonne, he would have had only this\nalternative, either to take the load on his own shoulders, and\nperform the work himself, travelling over hill and dale, which would\nhave required a year\u2019s labour, or else to ask some one to perform\nthis rough piece of work for him; and as, by hypothesis, the person\nwho undertook this work would have to employ the same means and the\nsame time, he would undoubtedly demand a remuneration equal to a\nyear\u2019s labour. At that period, then, the value of unskilled labour\nbeing \u2039one\u203a, that of transport was 300 for the weight of a cwt. and a\ndistance of 200 leagues.\n\nBut things are changed now. In fact there is no workman in Paris who\ncannot obtain the same result by the sacrifice of two days\u2019 labour.\nThe alternative indeed is still the same. He must either do the work\nhimself, or get others to do it for him by remunerating them. If our\nday-labourer perform it himself, it will still cost him a year of\nfatigue; but if he applies to men who make it their business, he will\nfind twenty carriers to do what he wants for three or four francs,\nthat is to say, for the equivalent of two days\u2019 unskilled labour.\nThus the value of such labour being [p232] represented by \u2039one\u203a, that\nof transport, which was represented by 300, is now reduced to \u2039two\u203a.\n\nIn what way has this astonishing revolution been brought about? Ages\nhave been required to accomplish it. Animals have been trained,\nmountains have been pierced, valleys have been filled up, bridges\nhave been thrown across rivers, sledges and afterwards wheeled\ncarriages have been invented, obstacles, which give rise to labour,\nservices, value, have been removed; in short, we have succeeded in\naccomplishing, with labour equal to two, what our remote ancestors\nwould have effected only by labour equal to 300. This progress has\nbeen realized by men who had no thought but for their own interests.\nAnd yet, who profits by it now? Our poor day-labourer, and with him\nsociety at large.\n\nLet no one say that this is not Community. I say that it is Community\nin the strictest sense of the word. At the outset the satisfaction\nin question was, in the estimation of all, the equivalent of 300\ndays\u2019 unskilled labour, or a proportionally smaller amount of skilled\nlabour. Now 298 parts of this labour out of 300 are performed by\nnature, and mankind are exonerated to a corresponding extent. Now,\nevidently all men are in exactly the same situation as regards the\nobstacles which have been removed, the distance which has been wiped\nout, the fatigue which has been obviated, the value which has been\nannihilated, since all obtain the result without having to pay for\nit. What they pay for is the human effort which remains still to be\nmade, as compared with and measured by two days\u2019 work of an unskilled\nlabourer. In other words, the man who has not himself effected this\nimprovement, and who has only muscular force to offer in exchange,\nhas still to give two days\u2019 labour to secure the satisfaction\nhe wishes to obtain. All other men can obtain it with a smaller\nsacrifice of labour. The Paris lawyer, earning 30,000 francs a year,\ncan obtain it for a twenty-fifth part of a day\u2019s labour, etc.,\u2014by\nwhich we see that all men are equal as regards the value annihilated,\nand that the inequality is restrained within the limits of the\nportion of value which survives the change, that is, within the\ndomain of Property.\n\nEconomical science labours under a disadvantage in being obliged to\nhave recourse to hypothetical cases. The reader is taught to believe\nthat the phenomena which we wish to describe are to be discovered\nonly in special cases, adduced for the sake of illustration. But it\nis evident that what we have said of corn, clothing, and means of\ntransport, is true of everything else. When an author generalizes,\nit is for the reader to particularize; and [p233] when the former\ndevotes himself to cold and forbidding analysis, the latter may at\nleast indulge in the pleasures of synthesis.\n\nThe synthetic law may be reduced to this formula:\n\n\u2039Value, which is social property, springs from Effort and Obstacle.\u203a\n\n\u2039In proportion as the obstacle is lessened, effort, value, or the\ndomain of property, is diminished along with it.\u203a\n\n\u2039With reference to each given satisfaction, Property always recedes\nand Community always advances.\u203a\n\nMust we then conclude with M. Proudhon that the days of Property are\nnumbered? Because, as regards each useful result to be realized, each\nsatisfaction to be obtained, Property recedes before Community, are\nwe thence to conclude that the former is about to be absorbed and\nannihilated altogether?\n\nTo adopt this conclusion would be to mistake completely the nature\nof man. We encounter here a sophism analogous to the one we have\nalready refuted on the subject of the interest of capital. Interest\nhas a tendency to fall, it is said; then it is destined ultimately to\ndisappear altogether. Value and property go on diminishing; then they\nare destined, it is now said, to be annihilated.\n\nThe whole sophism consists in omitting the words, \u2039for each\ndeterminate result\u203a. It is quite true that men obtain \u2039determinate\nresults\u203a with a less amount of effort\u2014it is in this respect that\nthey are progressive and perfectible\u2014it is on this account that we\nare able to affirm that the \u2039relative\u203a domain of property becomes\nnarrower, looking at it as regards each given satisfaction.\n\nBut it is not true that all the \u2039results\u203a which it is \u2039possible\u203a to\nobtain are ever exhausted, and hence it is absurd to suppose that it\nis in the nature of progress to lessen or limit the \u2039absolute\u203a domain\nof property.\n\nWe have repeated often, and in every shape, that each given effort\nmay, in course of time, serve as the vehicle of a greater amount of\ngratuitous utility, without our being warranted thence to conclude\nthat men should ever cease to make efforts. All that we can conclude\nfrom it is, that their forces, thus rendered disposable, will be\nemployed in combating other obstacles, and will realize, with equal\nlabour, satisfactions hitherto unknown.\n\nI must enlarge still farther on this idea. These are not times\nto leave anything to possible misconstruction when we venture to\npronounce the fearful words, Property and Community.\n\nMan in a state of isolation can, at any given moment of his\nexistence, exert only a certain amount of effort; and the same thing\nholds of society. [p234]\n\nWhen man in a state of isolation realizes a step of progress, by\nmaking natural agents co-operate with his own labour, the sum of\nhis efforts is reduced by so much, \u2039in relation to the useful\nresult sought for\u203a. It would be reduced not relatively only, but\n\u2039absolutely\u203a, if this man, content with his original condition,\nshould convert his progress into leisure, and should abstain from\ndevoting to the acquisition of new enjoyments that portion of effort\nwhich is now rendered disposable. That would take for granted that\nambition, desire, aspiration, were limited forces, and that the human\nheart was not indefinitely expansible; but it is quite otherwise.\nRobinson Crusoe has no sooner handed over part of his work to natural\nagents, than he devotes his efforts to new enterprises. The sum total\nof his efforts remains the same,\u2014but one portion of these efforts,\naided by a greater amount of natural and gratuitous co-operation, has\nbecome more productive, more prolific. This is exactly the phenomenon\nwhich we see realized in society.\n\nBecause the plough, the harrow, the hammer, the saw, oxen, and\nhorses, the sail, water-power, steam, have successively relieved\nmankind from an enormous amount of labour, in proportion to each\nresult obtained, it does not necessarily follow that this labour,\nthus set free and rendered disposable, should lie dormant. Remember\nwhat has been already said as to the indefinite expansibility of\nour wants and desires\u2014and note what is passing around you\u2014and you\nwill not fail to see that as often as man succeeds in vanquishing\nan obstacle by the aid of natural agents, he sets his own forces\nto grapple with other obstacles. We have more facility in the art\nof printing than we had formerly, but we print more. Each book\ncorresponds to a less amount of human effort, to less value, less\nproperty; but we have more books, and, on the whole, the same\namount of effort, value, property. The same thing might be said of\nclothing, of houses, of railways, of all human productions. It is not\nthe aggregate of values which has diminished; it is the aggregate\nof utilities which has increased. It is not the \u2039absolute\u203a domain\nof Property which has been narrowed; it is the absolute domain of\nCommunity which has been enlarged. Progress has not paralyzed labour;\nit has augmented wealth.\n\nThings that are gratuitous and common to all are within the domain\nof natural forces; and it is as true in theory as in fact that this\ndomain is constantly extending.\n\nValue and Property are within the domain of human efforts, of\nreciprocal services, and this domain becomes narrower and narrower\nas regards each given result, but not as regards the aggregate of\nresults; as regards each determinate satisfaction, but not [p235]\nas regards the aggregate of satisfactions, because the amount of\n\u2039possible\u203a enjoyments is without limit.\n\nIt is as true, then, that relative Property gives place to Community,\nas it is false that absolute Property tends to disappear altogether.\nProperty is a pioneer which accomplishes its work in one circle,\nand then passes into another. Before property could disappear\naltogether we must suppose every obstacle to have been removed,\nlabour to have been superseded, human efforts to have become useless;\nwe must suppose men to have no longer need to effect exchanges, or\nrender services to each other; we must suppose all production to\nbe spontaneous, and enjoyment to spring directly from desire; in a\nword, we must suppose men to have become equal to gods. Then, indeed,\nall would be gratuitous, and we should have all things in common.\nEffort, service, value, property, everything indicative of our native\nweakness and infirmity, would cease to exist.\n\nIn vain man raises himself in the social scale, and advances on the\nroad of civilisation\u2014he is as far as ever from Omnipotence. It is\none of the attributes of the Divinity, as far as we can understand\nwhat is so much above human reason, that between volition and result\nno obstacle is interposed. God said, \u2039Let there be light, and there\nwas light\u203a. And it is the powerlessness of man to express that to\nwhich there is so little analogous in his own nature, which reduced\nMoses to the necessity of supposing between the divine will and the\ncreation of light the intervention of an obstacle in the shape even\nof a word to be pronounced. But whatever advance man, in virtue of\nhis progressive nature, may be destined yet to make, we may safely\naffirm that he will never succeed in freeing himself entirely from\nthe obstacles which encumber his path, or in rendering himself\nindependent of the labour of his head and of his hands. The reason\nis obvious. In proportion as certain obstacles are overcome, his\ndesires dilate and expand, and new obstacles oppose themselves to new\nefforts. We shall always, then, have labour to perform, to exchange,\nto estimate, and to value. Property will exist until the consummation\nof all things, increasing in mass in proportion as men become more\nactive and more numerous; whilst at the same time each effort, each\nservice, each value, each portion of property, considered relatively,\nwill, in passing from hand to hand, serve as the vehicle of an\nincreasing proportion of common and gratuitous utility.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe reader will observe that we use the word Property in a very\nextended sense, but a sense which on that account is not the [p236]\nless exact. \u2039Property is the right which a man possesses of applying\nto his own use his own efforts, or of not giving them away except\nin consideration of equivalent efforts.\u203a The distinction between\nProprietors and Prol\u00e9taires, then, is radically false, unless it is\npretended that there is a class of men who do no work, who have no\ncontrol over their own exertions, or over the services which they\nrender and those which they receive in exchange.\n\nIt is wrong to restrict the term Property to one of its special\nforms, to capital, to land, to what yields interest or rent; and\nit is in consequence of this erroneous definition that we proceed\nafterwards to separate men into two antagonist classes. Analysis\ndemonstrates that interest and rent are the fruit of services\nrendered, and have the same origin, the same nature, the same rights\nas manual labour.\n\nThe world may be regarded as a vast workshop which Providence has\nsupplied abundantly with materials and forces of which human labour\nmakes use. Anterior efforts, present efforts, even future efforts,\nor promises of efforts, are exchanged for each other. Their relative\nmerit, as established by exchange, and independently of gratuitous\nforces and materials, brings out the element of value; and it is of\nthe value created by each individual that each is owner or proprietor.\n\nBut what does it signify, it may be said, that a man is proprietor\nonly of the value, or of the acknowledged merit of his service? The\npossession of the value carries along with it that of the utility\nwhich is mingled with it. John has two sacks of corn. Peter has only\none. John, you say, is twice as rich in \u2039value\u203a. Surely, then, he is\nalso twice as rich in utility, even natural utility. He has twice as\nmuch to eat.\n\nUnquestionably it is so: but has he not performed double the labour?\n\nLet us come, nevertheless, to the root of the objection.\n\nEssential, absolute wealth resides, as we have said, in utility. The\nvery word implies this. It is \u2039utility\u203a alone which renders \u2039service\u203a\n(\u2039uti\u203a\u2014in French \u2039servir\u203a). It alone has relation to our wants, and\nit is it alone which man has in view when he devotes himself to\nlabour. Utility at all events is the ultimate object of pursuit; for\nthings do not satisfy our hunger or quench our thirst because they\ninclude value, but because they possess utility.\n\nWe muse take into account, however, the phenomenon which society\nexhibits in this respect.\n\nMan in a state of isolation seeks to realize utility without [p237]\nthinking about value, of which, in that state, he can have no idea.\n\nIn the social state, on the contrary, man seeks to realize value\nirrespective of utility. The commodity he produces is not intended to\nsatisfy his own wants, and he has little interest in its being useful\nor not. It is for the person who desires to acquire it to judge of\nthat. What concerns the producer is, that it should bear as high a\nvalue as possible in the market, as he is certain that the utilities\nhe has to receive in return will be in proportion to the value of\nwhat he carries thither.\n\nThe division of labour and of occupation leads to this result, that\neach produces what he does not himself consume, and consumes what he\ndoes not himself produce. As producers, what we are in quest of is\nvalue; as consumers, what we seek is utility. Universal experience\ntestifies to this. The man who polishes a diamond, or embroiders\nlace, or distils brandy, or cultivates the poppy, never inquires\nwhether the consumption of these commodities is good or bad in\nitself. He gives his work, and if his work realizes value, that is\nenough for him.\n\nAnd let me here remark in passing, that the moral or immoral has\nnothing to do with labour, but with desire; and that society is\nimproved, not by rendering the producer, but the consumer, more\nmoral. What an outcry was raised against the English on account of\ntheir cultivating opium in India for the deliberate purpose, it\nwas said, of poisoning the Chinese! This was to misunderstand and\nmisapply the principle of morality. No one will ever be effectually\nprevented from producing a commodity which, being in demand, is\npossessed of value. It is for the man who demands a particular\nspecies of enjoyment to calculate the effects of it; and it is in\nvain that we attempt to divorce foresight from responsibility.\nOur vine-growers produce wine, and will produce it as long as it\npossesses value, without troubling themselves to inquire whether this\nwine leads to drunkenness in Europe or to suicide in America. It is\nthe judgment which men form as to their wants and satisfactions that\ndetermines the direction of labour. This is true even of man in an\nisolated state; and if a foolish vanity had spoken more loudly to\nRobinson Crusoe than hunger, he would, in place of devoting his time\nto the chase, have employed it in arranging feathers for his hat.\nIt is the same with nations as with individuals\u2014serious people have\nserious pursuits, and frivolous people devote themselves to frivolous\noccupations.\n\nBut to return:\n\nThe man who works for himself has in view utility. [p238]\n\nThe man who works for others has in view value.\n\nNow Property, as I have defined it, is founded on Value, and value\nbeing simply a relation, it follows that property is also a relation.\n\nWere there only one man upon the earth, the idea of Property would\nnever enter his mind. Monarch of all he surveyed, surrounded with\nutilities which he had only to adapt to his use, never encountering\nany analogous right to serve as a limit to his own, how should it\never come into his head to say \u2039This is mine\u203a? That would imply\nthe correlative assertion, \u2039This is not mine\u203a, or \u2039This belongs to\nanother\u203a. \u2039Meum\u203a and \u2039tuum\u203a are inconsistent with isolation, and\nthe word Property necessarily implies relation; but it gives us\nemphatically to understand that a thing is \u2039proper\u203a to one person,\nonly by giving us to understand that it is not \u2039proper\u203a to anybody\nelse.\n\n\u201cThe first man,\u201d says Rousseau, \u201cwho having enclosed a field, took it\ninto his head to say \u2039This is mine\u203a, was the true founder of civil\nsociety.\u201d\n\nWhat does the enclosure mean if it be not indicative of exclusion,\nand consequently of relation? If its object were only to defend the\nfield against the intrusion of animals, it was a precaution, not a\nsign of property. A boundary, on the contrary, is a mark of property,\nnot of precaution.\n\nThus men are truly proprietors only in relation to one another; and\nthis being so, of what are they proprietors? Of value, as we discover\nvery clearly in the exchanges they make with each other.\n\nLet us, according to our usual practice, take a very simple case by\nway of illustration.\n\nNature labours, and has done so probably from all eternity, to invest\nspring water with those qualities which fit it for quenching our\nthirst, and which qualities, so far as we are concerned, constitute\nits \u2039utility\u203a. It is assuredly not my work, for it has been\nelaborated without my assistance, and quite unknown to me. In this\nrespect I can truly say that water is to me the gratuitous gift of\nGod. What is my own \u2039proper\u203a work is the effort which I have made in\ngoing to fetch my supply of water for the day.\n\nOf what do I become proprietor by that act?\n\nAs regards myself, I am proprietor, if I may use the expression, of\nall the utility with which nature has invested this water. I can turn\nit to my own use in any way I think proper. It is for that purpose\nthat I have taken the trouble to fetch it. To dispute my right would\nbe to say that, although men cannot live without [p239] drinking,\nthey have no right to drink the water which they have procured by\ntheir own exertions. I do not believe that the Communists, although\nthey go very far, will go the length of asserting this, and even\nunder the \u2039r\u00e9gime\u203a of Cabet, the lambs of Icaria would be allowed to\nquench their thirst in the limpid stream.\n\nBut in relation to other men, who are free to do as I do, I am not,\nand cannot be, proprietor except of what is called, by metonymy, \u2039the\nvalue of the water\u203a, that is to say, the value of the \u2039service\u203a which\nI render in procuring it.\n\nMy right to drink this water being granted, it is impossible to\ncontest my right to give it away. And the right of the other\ncontracting party to go to the spring, as I did, and draw water\nfor himself, being admitted, it is equally impossible to contest\nhis right to accept the water which I have fetched. If the one\nhas a right to give, and the other, in consideration of a payment\nvoluntarily bargained for, to accept, this water, the first is then\nthe \u2039proprietor\u203a in relation to the second. It is sad to write upon\nPolitical Economy at a time when we cannot advance a step without\nhaving recourse to demonstrations so puerile.\n\nBut on what basis is the arrangement we have supposed come to? It\nis essential to know this, in order to appreciate the whole social\nbearing of the word Property,\u2014a word which sounds so ill in the ears\nof democratic sentimentalism.\n\nIt is clear that, both parties being free, we must take into\nconsideration the trouble I have had, and the trouble I have\nsaved to the other party, as the circumstances which constitute\nvalue. We discuss the conditions of the bargain, and, if we come\nto terms, there is neither exaggeration nor subtilty in saying\nthat my neighbour has acquired \u2039gratuitously\u203a, or, if you will,\nas \u2039gratuitously as I did\u203a, all the natural utility of the water.\nDo you desire proof that the conditions, more or less onerous, of\nthe transaction are determined by the human efforts and not by the\nintrinsic utility? It will be granted that the utility remains the\nsame whether the spring is distant or near at hand. It is the amount\nof exertion made, or to be made, which depends upon the distance; and\nsince the remuneration varies with the exertion, it is in the latter,\nand not in the utility, that the principle of relative value and\nProperty resides.\n\nIt is certain, then, that, in relation to others, I am, and can be,\nproprietor only of my efforts, of my services, which have nothing in\ncommon with the recondite and mysterious processes by which nature\ncommunicates utility to the things which are the subject [p240] of\nthose services. It would be in vain for me to carry my pretensions\nfarther\u2014at this point we must always in fact encounter the limit\nof Property;\u2014for if I exact more than the value of my services, my\nneighbour will do the work for himself. This limit is absolute and\nunchangeable. It fully explains and vindicates Property, thus reduced\nto the natural and simple right of demanding one service for another.\nIt shows that the enjoyment of natural utility is appropriated only\nnominally and in appearance; that the expression, Property in an acre\nof land, in a hundredweight of iron, in a quarter of wheat, in a yard\nof cloth, is truly a metonymy, like the expression, Value of water,\nof iron, and so forth; and that so far as nature has given these\nthings to men, they enjoy them gratuitously and in common; in a word,\nthat Community is in perfect harmony with Property, the gifts of God\nremaining in the domain of the one, and human services forming alone\nthe very legitimate domain of the other.\n\nBut from my having chosen a very simple example in order to point\nout the line of demarcation which separates the domain of what is\ncommon from the domain of what has been appropriated, you are not\nto conclude that this line loses itself and disappears, even in the\nmost complicated transactions. It continues always to show itself in\nevery free transaction. The labour of going to fetch water from the\nspring is very simple, no doubt; but when you examine the thing more\nnarrowly, you will be convinced that the labour of raising corn is\nonly more complicated because it embraces a series of efforts quite\nas simple, in each of which the work of nature co-operates with that\nof man, so that in fact the example I have shown may be regarded as\nthe type of every economical fact. Take the case of water, of corn,\nof cloth, of books, of transport, of pictures, of the ballet, of\nthe opera,\u2014in all, certain circumstances, I allow, may impart such\nvalue to certain services, but no one is ever paid for anything else\nthan services,\u2014never certainly for the co-operation of nature,\u2014and\nthe reason is obvious, because one of the contracting parties has\nit always in his power to say, If you demand from me more than your\nservice is \u2039worth\u203a, I shall apply to another quarter, or do the work\nfor myself.\n\nBut I am not content to vindicate Property; I should wish to make\nit an object of cherished affection even to the most determined\nCommunists. And to accomplish this, all that is necessary is to\ndescribe the popular, progressive, and equalizing part which it\nplays; and to demonstrate clearly, not only that it does not\nmonopolize and concentrate in a few hands the gifts of God, but that\nits special mission is to enlarge continually the sphere of [p241]\nCommunity. In this respect the natural laws of society are much more\ningenious than the artificial systems of Plato, Sir Thomas More,\nF\u00e9n\u00e9lon, or Monsieur Cabet.\n\nThat there are satisfactions which men enjoy, gratuitously and in\ncommon, upon a footing of the most perfect equality,\u2014that there is in\nthe social order, underlying Property, a real Community,\u2014no one will\ndispute. To see this it is not necessary that you should be either an\nEconomist or a Socialist, but that you should have eyes in your head.\nIn certain respects all the children of God are treated in precisely\nthe same way. All are equal as regards the law of gravitation, which\nattaches them to the earth, as regards the air we breathe, the light\nof day, the water of the brook. This vast and measureless common\nfund, which has nothing whatever to do with Value or Property, J. B.\nSay denominates \u2039natural wealth\u203a, in opposition to \u2039social wealth\u203a;\nProudhon, \u2039natural property\u203a, in opposition to \u2039acquired property\u203a;\nConsid\u00e9rant, \u2039natural capital\u203a, in opposition to \u2039capital which is\ncreated\u203a; Saint-Chamans, the \u2039wealth of enjoyment\u203a, in opposition to\nthe \u2039wealth of value\u203a. We have denominated it \u2039gratuitous utility\u203a,\nin contradistinction to \u2039onerous utility\u203a. Call it what you will, it\nexists, and that entitles us to say that there is among men a common\nfund of gratuitous and equal satisfactions.\n\nAnd if wealth, \u2039social\u203a, \u2039acquired\u203a, \u2039created\u203a, \u2039of value\u203a,\n\u2039onerous\u203a, in a word, Property, is unequally distributed, we cannot\naffirm that it is unjustly so, seeing that it is in each man\u2019s case\nproportional to the \u2039services\u203a which give rise to it, and of which it\nis simply the measure and estimate. Besides, it is clear that this\nInequality is lessened by the existence of the common fund, in virtue\nof the mathematical rule: the relative inequality of two unequal\nnumbers is lessened by adding equal numbers to each of them. When our\ninventories, then, show that one man is twice as rich as another man,\nthat proportion ceases to be exact when we take into consideration\ntheir equal share in the gratuitous utility furnished by nature, and\nthe inequality would be gradually effaced and wiped away if this\ncommon fund were itself progressive.\n\nThe problem, then, is to find out whether this \u2039common fund\u203a is a\nfixed invariable quantity, given to mankind by Providence in the\nbeginning, and once for all, above which the \u2039appropriated fund\u203a is\nsuperimposed, apart from the existence of any relation or action\nbetween these two orders of phenomena.\n\nEconomists have concluded that the social order had no influence upon\nthis natural and common fund of wealth; and this is their reason for\nexcluding it from the domain of Political Economy. [p242]\n\nThe Socialists go farther. They believe that the constitution of\nsociety tends to make this common fund pass into the region of\nProperty, that it consecrates, to the profit of a few, the usurpation\nof what belongs to all; and this is the reason why they rise up\nagainst Political Economy, which denies this fatal tendency, and\nagainst modern society, which submits to it.\n\nThe truth is, that Socialism, in this particular, taxes Political\nEconomy with inconsistency, and with some justice too; for after\nhaving declared that there are no relations between common and\nappropriated wealth, Economists have invalidated their own assertion,\nand prepared the way for the socialist grievance. They did so the\nmoment that, confounding value with utility, they asserted that the\nmaterials and forces of nature, that is to say, the gifts of God,\nhad an intrinsic value, a value inherent in them,\u2014for value implies,\nalways and necessarily, appropriation. From that moment they lost the\nright and the means of logically vindicating Property.\n\nWhat I maintain\u2014and maintain with a conviction amounting to absolute\ncertainty\u2014is this: that the appropriated fund exerts a constant\naction upon the fund which is common and unappropriated, and in\nthis respect the first assertion of the Economists is erroneous.\nBut the second assertion, as developed and explained by socialism,\nis still more fatal; for the action in question does not take\nplace in a way to make the common fund pass into the appropriated\nfund, but, on the contrary, to make the appropriated fund pass\nincessantly into the common domain. Property, just and legitimate\nin itself, because always representing services, tends to transform\nonerous into gratuitous utility. It is the spur which urges on human\nintelligence to make latent natural forces operative. It struggles,\nand undoubtedly for our benefit, against the obstacles which render\nutility onerous. And when the obstacle has been to a certain extent\nremoved, it is found that, to that extent, it has been removed to the\nprofit and advantage of all. Then indefatigable Property challenges\nand encounters other obstacles, and goes on, raising, always and\nwithout intermission, the level of humanity, realizing more and more\nCommunity, and, with Community, Equality, among the great family of\nmankind.\n\nIn this consists the truly marvellous Harmony of the natural social\norder. This harmony I am unable to describe without combating\nobjections which are perpetually recurring, and without falling\ninto wearisome repetitions. No matter, I submit\u2014let the reader also\nexercise a little patience on his side. [p243]\n\nMake yourself master, first of all, of this fundamental idea,\nthat when, in any case, there is no obstacle between desire and\nsatisfaction (there is none, for instance, between our eyes and the\nlight of day)\u2014there is no effort to make, no service to render,\neither to ourselves or to other people, and value and Property have\nno existence. When an obstacle exists, the whole series comes into\nplay. First, we have Effort\u2014then a voluntary exchange of efforts or\nServices\u2014then a comparative appreciation of those services, or Value;\nlastly, the right of each to enjoy the utilities attached to these\nvalues, or Property.\n\nIf in this struggle against obstacles, which are always uniform, the\nco-operation of nature and that of labour were also always in equal\nproportion, Property and Community would advance in parallel lines,\nwithout changing their relative proportions.\n\nBut it is not so. The universal aim of men in all their enterprises\nis to diminish the proportion between effort and result, and for\nthat purpose to enlist more and more in their work the assistance\nof natural agents. No agriculturist, manufacturer, merchant,\nartisan, shipowner, artist, but makes this his constant study. In\nthat direction all their faculties are bent. For that purpose they\ninvent tools and machines, and avail themselves of the chemical\nand mechanical forces of the elements, divide their occupations,\nand unite their efforts. To accomplish more with less, such is the\neternal problem which they propose to themselves at all times, in\nall places, in all situations, in everything. Who doubts that in all\nthis they are prompted by self-interest? What other stimulant could\nexcite them to the same energy? Every man, moreover, is charged with\nthe care of his own existence and advancement. What, then, should\nconstitute the mainspring of his movements but self-interest? You\nexpress your astonishment, but wait till I have done, and you will\nfind that if each cares for himself, God cares for us all.\n\nOur constant study, then, is to diminish the proportion which the\neffort bears to the useful effect sought to be produced. But when\nthe effort is lessened, whether by the removal of obstacles or the\nintervention of machinery, by the division of labour, the union of\nforces, or the assistance of natural agents, etc., this diminished\neffort is less highly appreciated in relation to others;\u2014we render\nless \u2039service\u203a in making the effort for another. There is less value,\nand we are justified in saying that the domain of Property has\nreceded. Is the useful effect on that account lost? By hypothesis it\nis not. Where then has it gone to? It has passed into the domain of\nCommunity. As regards that portion of human effort [p244] which the\nuseful effect no longer absorbs, it is not on that account sterile\u2014it\nis turned to other acquisitions. Obstacles present themselves, and\nwill always present themselves, to the indefinite expansibility of\nour physical, moral, and intellectual wants, to an extent sufficient\nto ensure that the labour set free in one department will find\nemployment in another. And it is in this way that the appropriated\nfund remaining always the same, the common fund dilates and expands,\nlike a circle the radius of which is always enlarging.\n\nApart from this consideration, how could we explain progress or\ncivilisation, however imperfect? Let us turn our regards upon\nourselves, and consider our feebleness. Let us compare our own\nindividual vigour and knowledge with the vigour and knowledge\nnecessary to produce the innumerable satisfactions which we derive\nfrom society. We shall soon be convinced that were we reduced to\nour proper efforts, we could not obtain a hundred thousandth part\nof them, even if millions of acres of uncultivated land were placed\nat the disposal of each one of us. It is positively certain that a\ngiven amount of human effort will realize an immeasurably greater\nresult at the present day than it could in the days of the Druids. If\nthat were true only of an individual, the natural conclusion would\nbe that he lives and prospers at the expense of his fellows. But\nsince this phenomenon is manifested in all the members of the human\nfamily, we are led to the comfortable conclusion that things not our\nown have come to our aid; that the gratuitous co-operation of nature\nis in larger and larger measure added to our own efforts, and that\nit remains gratuitous through all our transactions; for were it not\ngratuitous, it would explain nothing.\n\nFrom what we have said, we may deduce these formulas:\n\n\u2039Property is Value, and Value is Property;\u203a\n\n\u2039That which has no Value is gratuitous, and what is gratuitous is\ncommon;\u203a\n\n\u2039A fall of Value is an approximation towards the gratuitous;\u203a\n\n\u2039Such approximation is a partial realization of Community.\u203a\n\nThere are times when one cannot give utterance to certain words\nwithout being exposed to false interpretations. There are always\npeople ready to cry out, in a critical or in a laudatory spirit,\naccording to the sect they belong to: \u201cThe author talks of\nCommunity\u2014he must be a Communist.\u201d I expect this, and resign myself\nto it. And yet I must endeavour to guard myself against such hasty\ninferences.\n\nThe reader must have been very inattentive (and the most [p245]\nformidable class of readers are those who turn over books without\nattending to what they read) if he has not observed the great gulf\nwhich interposes itself between Community and Communism. The two\nideas are separated by the entire domain not only of property but of\nliberty, right, justice, and even of human personality.\n\nCommunity applies to those things which we enjoy in common by the\ndestination of Providence; because, exacting no effort in order to\nadapt them to our use, they give rise to no service, no transaction,\nno Property. The foundation of property is the right which we possess\nto render services to ourselves, or to others on condition of a\nreturn.\n\nWhat Communism wishes to render common is, not the gratuitous gift of\nGod, but human effort\u2014service.\n\nIt desires that each man should carry the fruit of his labour to the\ncommon stock, and that afterwards an equitable distribution of that\nstock should be made by authority.\n\nNow, of two things one. Either the distribution is proportional to\nthe stake which each has contributed, or it is made upon another\nprinciple.\n\nIn the first case, Communism aims at realizing, as regards result,\nthe present order of things\u2014only substituting the arbitrary will of\none for the liberty of all.\n\nIn the second case, what must be the basis of the division? Communism\nanswers, Equality. What! Equality, without regard to the difference\nof pains taken, of labour undergone! You are to have an \u2039equal share\u203a\nwhether you have worked six hours or twelve\u2014mechanically, or with\nintelligence! Of all inequalities surely that would be the most\nshocking; besides it would be the destruction of all liberty, all\nactivity, all dignity, all sagacity. You pretend to put an end to\ncompetition, but in truth you only transform it. The competition at\npresent is, who shall work most and best. Under your regime it would\nbe, who should work worst and least.\n\nCommunism misunderstands or disowns the very nature of man. Effort is\npainful in itself. What urges us to make it? It can only be a feeling\nmore painful still, a want to satisfy, a suffering to remove, a good\nto be realized. Our moving principle, then, is self-interest. When\nyou ask the Communists what they would substitute for this, they\nanswer, by the mouth of Louis Blanc, \u2039The point of honour\u203a, and by\nthat of Monsieur Cabet, \u2039Fraternity\u203a. Enable me, then, to experience\nthe sensations of others, in order that I may know what direction to\nimpress upon my industry.\n\nI should like to have it explained what this point of honour, [p246]\nthis fraternity, which are to be set to work in society at the\ninstigation and under the direction of Messieurs Louis Blanc and\nCabet, really mean.\n\nBut it is not my business in this place to refute Communism, which\nis opposed in everything to the system which it is my object to\nestablish.\n\nWe recognise the right of every man to serve himself, or to serve\nothers on conditions freely stipulated. Communism denies this right,\nsince it masses together and centralizes all services in the hands of\nan arbitrary authority.\n\nOur doctrine is based upon Property. Communism is founded on\nsystematic spoliation. It consists in handing over to one, without\ncompensation, the labour of another. In fact, did it distribute to\neach according to his labour, it would recognise property, and would\nbe no longer Communism.\n\nOur doctrine is founded on liberty. In truth, property and liberty\nare in our eyes one and the same thing, for that which constitutes a\nman the proprietor of his service is his right and power of disposing\nof it. Communism annihilates liberty, since it leaves to no one the\nfree disposal of his labour.\n\nOur doctrine is founded on justice\u2014Communism on injustice. That\nfollows clearly from what has been already said.\n\nThere is only one point of contact, then, between the communists and\nus\u2014it is the similarity of two syllables, in the words \u2039communism\u203a\nand \u2039community\u203a.\n\nBut this similarity of sounds should not mislead the reader. Whilst\ncommunism is the negation of Property, we find in our doctrine\nof Community the most explicit affirmation and the most positive\ndemonstration of property.\n\nIf the legitimacy of property has appeared doubtful and inexplicable,\neven to men who are not communists, the reason is, that they believe\nthat it concentrates in the hands of some, to the exclusion of\nothers, those gifts of God which were originally common. We believe\nwe have entirely dissipated that doubt by demonstrating that what\nis common by providential destination remains common in all human\ntransactions,\u2014the domain of property never extending beyond that of\nvalue\u2014of right onerously acquired by services rendered.\n\nThus explained, property is vindicated; for who but a fool could\npretend that men have no right to their own labour\u2014no right to\nreceive the voluntary services of those to whom they have rendered\nvoluntary services?\n\nThere is another word upon which I must offer some explanation,\n[p247] for of late it has been strangely misapplied\u2014I mean the word\n\u2039gratuitous\u203a. I need not say that I denominate gratuitous, not what\ncosts a man nothing because he has deprived another of it, but what\nhas cost nothing to anyone.\n\nWhen Diogenes warmed himself in the sun, he might be said to warm\nhimself gratuitously, for he obtained from the divine liberality\na satisfaction which exacted no labour either from himself or his\ncontemporaries. Nor does the heat of the sun\u2019s rays cease to be\ngratuitous when the proprietor avails himself of it to ripen his corn\nand his grapes, seeing that in selling his grapes or his corn he is\npaid for his own services and not for those of the sun. This may be\nan erroneous view (in which case we have no alternative but to become\ncommunists); but at any rate this is the sense in which I use the\nword \u2039gratuitous\u203a, and this is what it evidently means.\n\nMuch has been said, since the establishment of the Republic, of\n\u2039gratuitous\u203a credit, and \u2039gratuitous\u203a instruction. But it is evident\nthat a gross sophism lurks under this phraseology. Can the State\nshed abroad instruction like the light of day without its costing\nanything to anybody? Can it cover the country with institutions\nand professors without their being paid in one shape or another?\nInstead of leaving each individual to demand and to remunerate\nvoluntarily this description of service, the State may lay hold of\nthe remuneration, taken by taxation from the pockets of the citizens,\nand distribute among them instruction of its own selection, without\nexacting from them a second remuneration. This is all that can be\neffected by government interference\u2014and in this case, those who do\nnot learn pay for those who do, those who learn little for those who\nlearn much, those who are destined to manual labour for those who\nembrace learned professions. This is communism applied to one branch\nof human activity. Under this r\u00e9gime, of which I am not called upon\nhere to give an opinion, it might very well be said that \u2039instruction\nis common\u203a, but it would be ridiculous to say that \u2039instruction is\ngratuitous\u203a. Gratuitous! Yes, for some of those who receive it, but\nnot for those who have to pay for it, if not to the teacher, at least\nto the tax-gatherer.\n\nFor that matter, there is nothing which the State can give\n\u2039gratuitously\u203a; and if the word were not a mystification, it is not\nonly \u2039gratuitous\u203a education which we should demand from the State,\nbut \u2039gratuitous\u203a food, \u2039gratuitous\u203a clothing, \u2039gratuitous\u203a lodging,\netc. Let us take care. The people are not far from going this\nlength, and there are already among us those who demand \u2039gratuitous\u203a\ncredit, \u2039gratuitous\u203a tools and instruments of labour, etc. Dupes\nof a word, [p248] we have made one step towards Communism; why\nshould we not make a second, and a third, until all liberty, all\njustice, and all property have passed away? Will it be urged that\ninstruction is so universally necessary that we may depart somewhat\nfrom right and principle in this instance? But then, are not food and\nsustenance still more necessary than education? \u2039Prim\u00f2 vivere, deinde\nphilosophari\u203a, the people may say; and I know not in truth what\nanswer we can make to them.\n\nWho knows? Those who charge me with Communism for having demonstrated\nthe natural community of the gifts of God, are perhaps the very\npeople who seek to violate justice in the matter of education, that\nis to say, to attack property in its essence. Such inconsistencies\nare more surprising than uncommon. [p249]\n\n\n\n\n IX.\n LANDED PROPERTY.\n\n\nIf the leading idea of this work is well founded, the relations of\nmankind with the external world must be viewed in this way:\n\nGod created the earth. On it, and within it, he has placed a\nmultitude of things which are useful to man, inasmuch as they are\nadapted to satisfy his wants.\n\nGod has, besides, endued matter with forces\u2014gravitation, elasticity,\nporosity, compressibility, heat, light, electricity, crystallization,\nvegetable life.\n\nHe has placed man in the middle of these materials and forces, which\nhe has delivered over to him gratuitously.\n\nMen set themselves to exercise their activity upon these materials\nand forces; and in this way they render service to themselves.\nThey also work for one another, and in this way render reciprocal\nservices. These services, compared by the act of exchange, give rise\nto the idea of Value, and Value to that of Property.\n\nEach man, then, becomes an owner or proprietor in proportion to the\nservices he has rendered. But the materials and forces given by God\nto man gratuitously, at the beginning, have continued gratuitous,\nand are and must continue to be so through all our transactions; for\nin the estimates and appreciations to which exchange gives rise, the\n\u2039equivalents\u203a are \u2039human services\u203a, not the \u2039gifts of God\u203a.\n\nHence it follows that no human being, so long as transactions are\nfree, can ever cease to be the usufructuary of these gifts. A single\ncondition is laid down, which is, that we shall execute the labour\nnecessary to make them available to us, or, if any one makes this\nexertion for us, that we make for him an equivalent exertion.\n\nIf this account of the matter be true, Property is indeed\nunassailable. [p250]\n\nThe universal instinct of mankind, more infallible than the\nlucubrations of any individual, had adopted this view of the subject\nwithout refining upon it, when theory began to scrutinize the\nfoundations of Property.\n\nTheory unhappily began in confusion, mistaking Utility for Value, and\nattributing an inherent \u2039value\u203a, independent of all human service, to\nthe materials or forces of nature. From that moment property became\nunintelligible, and incapable of justification.\n\nFor utility is the relation between commodities and our organization.\nIt necessarily implies neither efforts, nor transactions, nor\ncomparisons. We can conceive of it \u2039per se\u203a, and in relation to man\nin a state of isolation. Value, on the contrary, is a relation of man\nto man. To exist at all, it must exist in duplicate. Nothing isolated\ncan be compared. Value implies that the person in possession of it\ndoes not transfer it except for an equivalent value. The theory,\nthen, which confounds these two ideas, takes for granted that a\nperson, in effecting an exchange, gives pretended value of natural\ncreation for true value of human creation, utility which exacts no\nlabour for utility which does exact it; in other words, that he can\nprofit by the labour of another without working himself. Property,\nthus understood, is called first of all a \u2039necessary monopoly\u203a, then\nsimply a \u2039monopoly\u203a,\u2014then it is branded as \u2039illegitimate\u203a, and last\nof all as \u2039robbery\u203a.\n\nLanded Property receives the first blow, and so it should. Not that\nnatural agents do not bear their part in all manufactures, but these\nagents manifest themselves more strikingly to the eyes of the vulgar\nin the phenomena of vegetable and animal life, in the production of\nfood, and of what are improperly called \u2039mati\u00e8res premi\u00e8res\u203a [raw\nmaterials], which are the special products of agriculture.\n\nBesides, if there be any one monopoly more revolting than another, it\nis undoubtedly a monopoly which applies to the first necessaries of\nlife.\n\nThe confusion which I am exposing, and which is specious in a\nscientific view, since no theorist I am acquainted with has got rid\nof it, becomes still more specious when we look at what is passing\naround us.\n\nWe see the landed Proprietor frequently living without labour, and we\ndraw the conclusion, which is plausible enough, that \u201che must surely\nbe remunerated for something else than his work.\u201d And what can this\nsomething else be, if not the fecundity, the productiveness, the\nco-operation of the soil as an instrument? It is, then, the \u2039rent of\nland\u203a which we must brand, in the language [p251] of the times, with\nthe names of necessary monopoly, privilege, illegitimacy, theft.\n\nWe must admit that the authors of this theory have encountered a fact\nwhich must have powerfully tended to mislead them. Few land estates\nin Europe have escaped from conquest and all its attendant abuses;\nand science has confounded the violent methods by which landed\nproperty has been acquired with the methods by which it is naturally\nformed.\n\nBut we must not imagine that the false definition of the word\n\u2039value\u203a tends only to unsettle landed property. Logic is a terrible\nand indefatigable power, whether it sets out with a good or a bad\nprinciple! As the earth, it is said, makes light, heat, electricity,\nvegetable life, etc., co-operate in the production of value, does\nnot capital in the same way make gravitation, elasticity, the wind,\netc., concur in producing value? There are other men, then, besides\nagriculturists who are paid for the intervention of natural agents.\nThis remuneration comes to capitalists in the shape of Interest, just\nas it comes to proprietors in the shape of Rent. War, then, must be\ndeclared against Interest as it has been against Rent!\n\nProperty has had a succession of blows aimed at it in the name of\nthis principle, false as I think, true according to the Economists\nand \u2039Egalitaires\u203a, namely, that \u2039natural agents possess or create\nvalue\u203a. This is a postulate upon which all schools are agreed. They\ndiffer only in the boldness or timidity of their deductions.\n\nThe Economists say that \u2039property\u203a (in land) \u2039is a monopoly\u203a, but a\nmonopoly which is necessary, and which must be maintained.\n\nThe Socialists say that \u2039property\u203a (in land) \u2039is a monopoly\u203a, but a\nmonopoly which is necessary, and which must be maintained,\u2014and they\ndemand compensation for it in the shape of right to employment [\u2039le\ndroit au travail\u203a].\n\nThe Communists and \u2039Egalitaires\u203a say that \u2039property\u203a (in general) \u2039is\na monopoly\u203a, and must be destroyed.\n\nFor myself, I say most emphatically that \u00abPROPERTY IS NOT A\nMONOPOLY\u00bb. Your premises are false, and your three conclusions,\nalthough they differ, are false also. \u00abProperty is not a monopoly\u00bb,\nand consequently it is not incumbent on us either to tolerate it by\nway of favour, or to demand compensation for it, or to destroy it.\n\nLet us pass briefly in review the opinions of writers of various\nschools on this important subject.\n\nThe English Economists lay down this principle, upon which they\nappear to be unanimous, that \u2039value comes from labour\u203a. Were they\nconsistent in their use of terms, it might be so; but are they\nconsistent? The reader will judge. He will see whether they [p252]\ndo not always and everywhere confound gratuitous Utility, which is\nincapable of remuneration, and destitute of Value, with onerous\nUtility, which we owe exclusively to labour, and which according to\nthem is alone possessed of value.\n\n \u00abAdam Smith.\u00bb\u2014\u201cIn agriculture nature labours along with man; and\n \u2039although her labour costs no expense\u203a, its produce \u2039has its value\u203a,\n as well as that of the most expensive workmen.\u201d[55]\n\nHere we have nature producing value. The purchaser of corn must pay\nfor it, although it has cost nothing to anybody, not even labour. Who\nthen dares come forward to demand this pretended \u2039value\u203a? Substitute\nfor that word the word \u2039utility\u203a, and all becomes clear, Property is\nvindicated, and justice satisfied.\n\n \u201cThis rent,\u201d proceeds Smith, \u201cmay be considered as the produce\n of those \u2039powers of nature\u203a, the use of which the landlord lends\n to the farmer.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. It (rent!) is the \u2039work of nature\u203a, which\n remains after deducting or compensating \u2039everything which can be\n regarded as the work of man\u203a. It is seldom less than a fourth, and\n frequently more than a third of the whole produce. No equal quantity\n of productive labour employed in manufactures can ever occasion so\n great a reproduction. In them nature does nothing; man does all.\u201d[56]\n\nIs it possible in as few words to include a greater number of\ndangerous errors? At this rate a fourth or a third part of the\n\u2039value\u203a of human subsistence is due \u2039exclusively\u203a to the power of\nnature. And yet the proprietor is paid by the farmer, and the farmer\nby the corn-consumer, for this pretended value which remains after\n\u2039the work of man\u203a has been remunerated. And this is the basis on\nwhich it is desired to place Property! And, then, what becomes of the\naxiom that \u2039all value comes from labour\u203a?\n\nNext, we have nature doing nothing in Manufactures! Do gravitation,\nthe elasticity of the air, and animal force, not aid the\nmanufacturer? These forces act in our manufactures just as they act\nin our fields; they produce gratuitously, not value, but utility.\nWere it otherwise, property in capital would be as much exposed to\nthe attacks of Communism as property in land.\n\n\u00abBuchanan.\u00bb\u2014This commentator, adopting the theory of his master on\nRent, is pressed by logic to blame him for having represented it as\nadvantageous:\n\n \u201cIn dwelling on the reproduction of rent as so great an advantage\n to society, Smith does not reflect that rent is the effect of high\n price, and that what the landlord gains in this way, he gains \u2039at\n the expense\u203a of the community at large. There is no absolute gain to\n society by the reproduction of rent. It is only one class profiting\n at the expense of another class.\u201d[57]\n\nHere the logical deduction makes its appearance\u2014rent is an injustice.\n\n \u00abRicardo.\u00bb\u2014\u201cRent is that portion of the produce of the earth\n \u2039which is paid\u203a to the landlord for the use of the \u2039original and\n indestructible powers of the soil\u203a.\u201d [p253]\n\nAnd, in order that there may be no mistake, the author adds:\n\n \u201cIt is often confounded with the interest and profit of\n capital.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. It is evident that a portion only of the money\n annually to be paid for the improved farm would be for \u2039the original\n and indestructible powers of the soil\u203a, the other portion would\n be paid for the use of the capital which had been employed in\n ameliorating the quality of the land, and in erecting such buildings\n as were necessary to secure and preserve the produce.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. In\n the future pages of this work, then, whenever I speak of the rent\n of land, I wish to be understood as speaking of that compensation\n which is paid to the owner of land \u2039for the use of its original and\n indestructible powers\u203a.\u201d[58]\n\n \u00abM\u2019Culloch.\u00bb\u2014\u201cWhat is properly termed Rent is the sum paid \u2039for the\n use of the natural and inherent powers of the soil\u203a. It is entirely\n distinct from the sum paid for the use of buildings, enclosures,\n roads, or other amelioration. \u2039Rent is then always a monopoly\u203a.\u201d\n\n \u00abScrope.\u00bb\u2014\u201cThe value of land, and its power of yielding Rent, are\n due to two circumstances,\u20141st, The appropriation of \u2039its natural\n powers\u203a; 2d, The labour applied to its amelioration.\u201d\n\nWe are not kept long waiting for the consequence:\n\n \u201cUnder the first of these relations \u2039rent is a monopoly\u203a. It\n restricts our usufruct and enjoyment of the gifts which God has\n given to men for the satisfaction of their wants. This restriction\n \u2039is just, only in as far as it is necessary\u203a for the common good.\u201d\n\nIn what perplexity must those good souls be landed who refuse to\nadmit anything to be necessary which is not just?\n\nScrope ends with these words:\n\n \u201cWhen it goes beyond this point, it must be modified on the same\n principle which caused it to be established.\u201d\n\nIt is impossible for the reader not to perceive that these authors\nlead us to a negation of Property, and lead us to it very logically,\nin setting out with the proposition that the proprietor is paid\nfor the gifts of God. Here we have rent held up as an injustice\nestablished by Law under the pressure of necessity, and which laws\nmay modify or destroy under the pressure of another necessity. The\nCommunists have never gone farther than this.\n\n \u00abSenior.\u00bb\u2014\u201cThe instruments of production are labour and natural\n agents. Natural agents having been appropriated, proprietors \u2039charge\n for their use\u203a under the form of Rent, which is the recompense of\n no sacrifice whatever, and is received by those who have neither\n laboured nor put by, but who merely hold out their hands to accept\n the offerings of the rest of the community.\u201d\n\nAfter giving this heavy blow to property, Mr Senior explains that one\nportion of Rent resolves itself into the Interest of Capital, and\nthen adds:\n\n \u201cThe surplus is taken by \u2039the proprietor of the natural agent\u203a, and\n is his reward, \u2039not for having laboured or abstained\u203a, but simply\n for not having withheld what he was able to withhold; for having\n permitted the gifts of nature to be accepted.\u201d\n\nYou will observe that this is still the same theory. The proprietor\nis supposed to interpose himself between the hungry mouth and the\nfood which God has vouchsafed under the condition of [p254] labour.\nThe proprietor who has co-operated in the work of production, charges\nfirst of all for his co-operation, which is just, and then he makes a\nsecond charge for the work of nature, for the use of natural agents,\nfor the indestructible powers of the soil, which is iniquitous.\n\nThis theory of the English Economists, which has been farther\ndeveloped by Mill, Malthus, and others, we are sorry to find making\nits way also on the Continent.\n\n \u201cWhen a franc\u2019s worth of seed,\u201d says \u00abScialoja\u00bb, \u201cproduces a hundred\n francs\u2019 worth of corn, this augmentation of \u2039value\u203a is mainly due to\n the soil.\u201d\n\nThis is to confound Utility with value; He might just as well have\nsaid, when water which costs only one sou at ten yards\u2019 distance from\nthe spring, costs ten sous at 100 yards, this augmentation of value\nis due in part to the intervention of nature.\n\n \u00abFlorez Estrada.\u00bb\u2014\u201cRent is that portion of the agricultural\n product which remains \u2039after all the costs of production have been\n defrayed\u203a.\u201d\n\nThen the proprietor receives something for nothing.\n\nThe English Economists all set out by announcing the principle that\n\u2039value comes from labour\u203a, and they are guilty of inconsistency when\nthey afterwards attribute value to the inherent \u2039powers of the soil\u203a.\n\nThe French Economists in general make value to consist in utility;\nbut, confounding gratuitous with onerous utility, they have not the\nless assisted in shaking the foundation of Property.\n\n \u00abJ. B. Say.\u00bb\u2014\u201cLand is not the only natural agent which is\n productive, but it is the only one, or almost the only one, that\n man has been able to appropriate. The waters of the sea and of our\n rivers, by their aptitude to impart motion to machines, to afford\n nourishment to fishes, to float our ships, are likewise possessed\n of productive power. The wind and the sun\u2019s rays work for us; but\n \u2039happily\u203a no one has been able to say, The wind and the sun are\n mine, and I must be paid for their services.\u201d\n\nM. Say appears from this to lament that any one should be able to\nsay, The land belongs to me, and I must be paid for the service\nwhich it renders. \u2039Happily\u203a, say I, it is no more in the power of\nthe proprietor to charge for the services of the soil than for the\nservices of the sun and the wind.\n\n \u201cThe earth,\u201d continues M. Say, \u201cis an admirable chemical workshop,\n in which are combined and elaborated a multitude of materials\n and elements which are produced in the shape of grain, fruit,\n flax, etc. Nature has presented to man, \u2039gratuitously\u203a, this vast\n workshop divided into a great number of compartments fitted for\n various kinds of production. But certain individual members of\n society have appropriated them, and proclaimed,\u2014This compartment\n is mine,\u2014that other is mine, and all that is produced in it is my\n exclusive property. And the astonishing thing is, that this \u2039usurped\n privilege\u203a, far from having been fatal to the community, has been\n found productive of advantage to it.\u201d\n\nUndoubtedly this arrangement has been advantageous; but why? Just\nbecause it is neither a privilege nor usurped, and [p255] that the\nman who exclaims, \u201cThis domain is mine,\u201d has not had it in his power\nto add, \u201cWhat has been produced on it is my exclusive property.\u201d\nOn the contrary, he says, \u201cWhat has been produced is the exclusive\nproperty of whoever desires to purchase it, by giving me back simply\nthe same amount of labour which I have undergone, and which in this\ninstance I have saved his undergoing.\u201d The co-operation of nature in\nthe work of production, which is gratuitous for me, is gratuitous for\nhim also.\n\nM. Say indeed distinguishes, in the value of corn, the parts\ncontributed by Property, by Capital, and by Labour. He has with the\nbest intention been at great pains to justify this first part of\nthe remuneration which accrues to the proprietor, and which is the\nrecompense of no labour, either anterior or present; but he fails;\nfor, like Scrope, he is obliged to fall back on the last and least\nsatisfactory of all grounds of vindication, \u2039necessity\u203a.\n\n \u201cIf it be impossible,\u201d he remarks, \u201cfor production to be effected,\n not only without land and without capital, but without these means\n of production previously becoming \u2039property\u203a, may it not be said\n that proprietors of land and capital exercise a productive function,\n since, without the employment of these means, production would\n not take place?\u2014a convenient function no doubt, but which, in the\n present state of society, presupposes accumulation, which is the\n result of production or saving,\u201d etc.\n\nThe confusion here is palpable. The accumulation has been effected\nby the proprietor in his character of Capitalist\u2014a character with\nwhich at present we have no concern. But what M. Say represents\nas convenient is the part played by the proprietor, in his proper\ncharacter of proprietor, exacting a price for the gifts of God. It is\nthis part which it is necessary to vindicate, and it has no connexion\nwith either accumulation or saving.\n\n \u201cIf, then, property in land and in capital\u201d (why assimilate the\n two?) \u201cbe the fruit of production, I am warranted in representing\n such property as a working and productive machine, for which its\n author, although sitting with his hands across, is entitled to exact\n a recompense.\u201d\n\nStill the same confusion. The man who constructs a machine is\nproprietor of a \u2039capital\u203a, from which he legitimately derives an\nincome, because he is paid, not for the labour of the machine, but\nfor his own labour in constructing it. But \u2039land\u203a, or \u2039territorial\u203a\nproperty, is \u2039not the result of human production\u203a. What right, then,\nhave we to be paid for its co-operation? The author has here mixed up\ntwo different kinds of property in the same category, in order that\nthe same reasons which justify the one may serve for the vindication\nof the other.\n\n \u00abBlanqui.\u00bb\u2014\u201cThe agriculturist who tills, manures, sows, and\n reaps his field, furnishes labour, without which nothing would be\n produced. But the action of the soil in making the seed germinate,\n and of the sun in bringing the plant to maturity, are independent\n of that labour, and co-operate in the formation of the \u2039value\u203a\n represented by the harvest.\u00a0.\u00a0. Smith and other Economists pretend\n that the labour of [p256] man is the exclusive source of value.\n Assuredly the industry of the labourer is not the exclusive source\n of the value of a sack of corn or a bushel of potatoes. His skill\n can no more succeed in producing the phenomenon of germination than\n the patience of the alchymist could succeed in discovering the\n philosopher\u2019s stone. This is evident.\u201d\n\nIt is impossible to imagine a more complete confusion than we have\nhere, first between utility and value, and then between onerous and\ngratuitous utility.\n\n \u00abJoseph Garnier.\u00bb\u2014\u201cThe rent of the proprietor differs essentially\n from the wages of the labourer and the profits of the capitalist,\n inasmuch as these two kinds of remuneration are the recompense,\n the one of trouble or pains taken, the other of a privation\n submitted to, and a risk encountered, whilst Rent is received by the\n proprietor \u2039gratuitously, and in virtue alone of a legal convention\u203a\n which recognises and maintains in certain individuals the right to\n landed property.\u201d\u2014(\u2039El\u00e9ments de l\u2019\u00c9conomie Politique\u203a, 2^e edition,\n p. 293.)\n\nIn other words, the labourer and capitalist are paid, in the name of\nequity, for the services they render; and the proprietor is paid, in\nthe name of law, for services which he does not render.\n\n \u201cThe boldest innovators do not go farther than to propose the\n substitution of collective for individual property. \u2039It seems to us\n that they have reason on their side as regards human right\u203a; but\n they are wrong practically, inasmuch as they are unable to exhibit\n the advantages of a better Economical system.\u201d\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0\u2014(\u2039Ibid.\u203a, pp.\n 377, 378.)\n\n \u201cBut at the same time, \u2039in avowing that property is a privilege,\n a monopoly\u203a, we must add, that it is a natural and a useful\n monopoly.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\n \u201cIn short, it seems to be admitted by Political Economy\u201d [it is so,\n alas! and here lies the evil] \u201cthat property does not flow from\n divine right, demesnial right, or any other speculative right, but\n simply from its utility. \u2039It is only a monopoly tolerated in the\n interest of all\u203a,\u201d etc.\n\nThis is precisely the judgment pronounced by Scrope, and repeated in\nmodified terms by Say.\n\nI think I have now satisfactorily shown that Political Economy,\nsetting out with the false datum, that \u201cnatural agents possess or\ncreate value,\u201d has arrived at this conclusion, \u201cthat property (in\nas far as it appropriates and is remunerated for this value, which\nis independent of all human service) is a privilege, a monopoly,\na usurpation; but that it is a necessary monopoly, and must be\nmaintained.\u201d\n\nIt remains for me to show that the Socialists set out with the same\npostulate, only they modify the conclusion in this way: \u201cProperty is\na necessary monopoly; it must be maintained, but we must demand, from\nthose who have property, compensation to those who have none, in the\nshape of Right to Employment.\u201d\n\nI shall, then, dispose of the doctrine of the Communists, who,\narguing from the same premises, conclude that \u201cProperty is a\nmonopoly, and ought to be abolished.\u201d\n\nFinally, and at the risk of repetition, I shall, if I can, expose\nthe fallacy of the premises on which all the three conclusions are\nbased, namely, that \u2039natural agents possess or create value\u203a. If I\nsucceed in [p257] this, if I demonstrate that natural agents, even\nwhen appropriated, produce, not Value, but Utility, which, passing\nfrom the hands of the proprietor without leaving anything behind it,\nreaches the consumer gratuitously,\u2014in that case, all\u2014Economists,\nSocialists, Communists\u2014must at length come to a common understanding\nto leave the world, in this respect, just as it is.\n\n \u00abM. Consid\u00e9rant.\u00bb[59]\u2014\u201cIn order to discover how and under what\n conditions \u2039private property\u203a may Legitimately manifest and develop\n itself, we must get possession of the \u2039fundamental principle of the\n Right of Property\u203a; and here it is:\n\n \u201cEvery man \u00abPOSSESSES LEGITIMATELY THE THINGS\u00bb \u2039which have been\u203a\n \u00abCREATED\u00bb \u2039by his labour, his intelligence, or\u203a, to speak more\n generally, \u00abBY HIS ACTIVITY\u00bb.\n\n \u201cThis Principle is incontestable, and it is right to remark that\n it contains implicitly the acknowledgment of the Right of all to\n the Soil. The earth not having been created by man, it follows in\n fact, from the fundamental principle of Property, that the Soil,\n which is a common fund given over to the species, can in no shape\n legitimately become the absolute and exclusive property of this or\n that individual who has not created \u2039this value\u203a. Let us establish,\n then, the true Theory of Property, by basing it exclusively on the\n unexceptionable principle which makes \u2039the legitimacy of Property\u203a\n hinge upon the fact of \u2039the\u203a \u00abCREATION\u00bb \u2039of the thing, or of the\n value possessed\u203a. To accomplish this we must direct our reasoning\n to the origin of industry, that is to say, to the origin and\n development of agriculture, manufactures, the arts, etc., in human\n society.\n\n \u201cSuppose that on a solitary island, on the territory of a nation, or\n on the entire surface of the earth (for the extent of the field of\n action makes no difference in our estimate of facts), a generation\n of mankind devotes itself for the first time to industry\u2014for\n the first time engages in agriculture, manufactures, etc. Each\n generation, by its labour, by its intelligence, by the exertion\n of its own proper activity, \u2039creates products, develops value\u203a,\n which did not exist on the earth in its rude and primitive state.\n Is it not perfectly evident that, among the first generation of\n labourers, Property would conform to Right, \u00abPROVIDED\u00bb \u2039the value\n or wealth produced by the activity of all\u203a were distributed among\n the producers \u00abIN PROPORTION TO THE CO-OPERATION\u00bb of each in the\n creation of the general riches? That is beyond dispute.\n\n \u201cNow, the results of the labour of this generation may be divided\n into two categories, which it is important to distinguish.\n\n \u201cThe \u2039first category\u203a includes the products of the soil, which\n belong to this first generation in its character of usufructuary,\n as having been increased, refined, or manufactured by its labour,\n by its industry. These products, whether raw or manufactured,\n consist either of objects of consumption or of instruments of\n labour. It is clear that these products belong, \u2039in entire and\n legitimate property\u203a, to those who have created them by their\n activity. Each of them, then, has \u00abRIGHT\u00bb, either to consume these\n products immediately, to store them up to be disposed of afterwards\n at pleasure, or to employ them, exchange them, give them away, or\n transmit them to any one he chooses, without receiving authority\n from anyone. On this hypothesis, this Property is evidently\n \u2039Legitimate\u203a, respectable, sacred. We cannot assail it without\n assailing \u2039Justice\u203a, \u2039Right\u203a, \u2039individual liberty\u203a,\u2014without, in\n short, being guilty of Spoliation.\n\n \u201c\u2039Second category.\u203a But the creations attributable to the\n industrious activity of this first generation are not all included\n in the preceding category. This generation has created not only the\n products which we have just described (objects of consumption and\n instruments of labour),\u2014it has also added an \u2039additional value\u203a to\n the \u2039primitive value\u203a of the soil, by cultivation, by erections, by\n the permanent improvements which it has executed.\n\n \u201cThis additional value constitutes evidently a product, a value, due\n to the activity of the first generation. Now, if by any means (we\n are not concerned at present with the question of means),\u2014if by any\n means whatever the property of this additional value is equitably\n distributed among the different members of society, that is to say,\n is distributed among them proportionally to the co-operation of\n each in its creation, each will possess \u2039legitimately\u203a the portion\n which has fallen to him. He may, then, dispose of this individual\n Property, legitimate as he sees it to be, exchange it, give it away,\n or transmit it without control, society having over these values no\n right or power whatsoever. [p258]\n\n \u201cWe may, therefore, easily conceive that when the second generation\n makes its appearance, it will find upon the land two sorts of\n Capital:\n\n \u201c1st, The \u2039primitive or natural capital\u203a, which has not been created\n by the men of the first generation\u2014that is, the \u2039value\u203a of the land\n in its rough, uncultivated state.\n\n \u201c2d, The \u2039capital created\u203a by the first generation: including (1),\n the \u2039products\u203a, commodities, and instruments, which shall not have\n been consumed or used by the first generation; (2), the additional\n value which the labour of the first generation has added to the\n value of the rough, uncultivated land.\n\n \u201cIt is evident, then, and results clearly and necessarily from the\n fundamental principle of the Right of Property, which I have just\n explained, that each individual of the second generation has an\n equal right to the \u2039primitive or natural capital\u203a, whilst he has no\n right to the other species of \u2039capital\u203a which has been \u2039created\u203a by\n the labour of the first generation. Each individual of the first\n generation may, then, dispose of his share of this \u2039created capital\u203a\n in favour of whatever individual of the second generation he may\n please to select, children, friends, etc., and no one, not even the\n State itself, as we have just seen, has the slightest right (on\n pretence of Property) to control the disposal which, as donor or\n testator, he may have made of such capital.\n\n \u201cObserve that on this hypothesis the man of the second generation\n is already in a better situation than the man of the first, seeing\n that, besides his right to the \u2039primitive capital\u203a, which is\n preserved to him, he has his chance of receiving a portion of the\n \u2039created capital\u203a, that is to say, of a value which he has not\n produced, and which represents anterior labour.\n\n \u201cIf, then, we suppose things to be arranged in society in such a way\n that,\n\n \u201c1st, The right to the \u2039primitive capital\u203a, that is, the usufruct of\n the soil in its natural state, is preserved, or that an \u00abEQUIVALENT\n RIGHT\u00bb is conferred on every individual born within the territory;\n\n \u201c2d, That the \u2039created capital\u203a is continually distributed among\n men, \u2039as it is produced\u203a, in proportion to the co-operation of each\n in the production of that capital;\n\n \u201cIf, we say, the mechanism of the social organization shall satisfy\n these two conditions, \u00abPROPERTY\u00bb, under such a r\u00e9gime, would be\n established \u00abIN ITS ABSOLUTE LEGITIMACY\u00bb, and \u2039Fact\u203a would be in\n unison with \u2039Right\u203a.\u201d\u2014(\u2039Th\u00e9orie du droit de propri\u00e9t\u00e9 et du droit au\n travail\u203a, 3^e edition, p. 17.)\n\nWe see here that the socialist author distinguishes between two\nkinds of value, \u2039created value\u203a, which is the subject of legitimate\nproperty, and \u2039uncreated value\u203a, which he denominates the \u2039value of\nland in its natural state\u203a, \u2039primitive capital\u203a, \u2039natural capital\u203a,\nwhich cannot become individual property but by usurpation. Now,\naccording to the theory which I am anxious to establish, the ideas\nexpressed by the words \u2039uncreated\u203a, \u2039primitive\u203a, \u2039natural\u203a, exclude\nradically these other ideas, \u2039value\u203a, \u2039capital\u203a. This is the error in\nM. Consid\u00e9rant\u2019s premises, by which he is landed in this melancholy\nconclusion:\n\n \u201cThat, under the r\u00e9gime of Property, in all civilized nations, the\n common fund, over which the entire species has a full right of\n usufruct, has been invaded\u2014has been confiscated\u2014by the few, to the\n exclusion of the many. Why, were even a single human being excluded\n from his Right to the Usufruct of this common fund, that very\n exclusion would of itself constitute an attack upon Right by the\n Institution of Property, and that institution, by sanctioning such\n invasion of right, would be unjust and illegitimate.\u201d\n\nM. Consid\u00e9rant, however, acknowledges that the earth could not be\ncultivated but for the institution of individual property. Here,\nthen, is a \u2039necessary monopoly\u203a. What can we do, then, to reconcile\nall, and preserve the rights which the \u2039prol\u00e9taires\u203a, or men of no\nproperty, have to the primitive, natural, uncreated capital, and to\nthe value of the land in its rough and uncultivated state? [p259]\n\n \u201cWhy, let Society, which has taken possession of the land, and taken\n away from man the power of exercising, freely and at will, his four\n natural rights on the surface of the soil,\u2014let this industrious\n society cede to the individual, in compensation for the rights of\n which it has deprived him, the \u2039Right to Employment\u203a.\u201d\u2014[\u00abLe Droit au\n Travail.\u00bb]\n\nNow, nothing in the world is clearer than that this theory, except\nthe conclusion which it seeks to establish, is exactly the theory\nof the Economists. The man who purchases an agricultural product\nremunerates three things: 1st, The actual labour\u2014nothing more\nlegitimate; 2dly, the \u2039additional value\u203a imparted to the soil by\nanterior labour\u2014still nothing more legitimate; 3dly, and lastly, the\n\u2039primitive\u203a, or \u2039natural\u203a, or \u2039uncreated capital\u203a,\u2014that gratuitous\ngift of God, which M. Consid\u00e9rant denominates the \u2039value of the land\nin its rough and natural state\u203a; Adam Smith, the \u2039indestructible\npowers of the soil\u203a; Ricardo, the \u2039productive and indestructible\npowers of the land\u203a; Say, \u2039natural agents\u203a. \u2039This\u203a is the part\nwhich has been \u2039usurped\u203a, according to M. Consid\u00e9rant; \u2039this\u203a is\nwhat has been \u2039usurped\u203a, according to J. B. Say. It is \u2039this\u203a which\nconstitutes \u2039illegitimacy\u203a and \u2039spoliation\u203a in the eyes of the\nSocialists; which constitutes \u2039monopoly\u203a and \u2039privilege\u203a in the\neyes of the Economists. They are at one as to the \u2039necessity\u203a and\nthe utility of this arrangement. Without it the earth would produce\nnothing, say the disciples of Smith; without it we should return to\nthe savage state, re-echo the disciples of Fourier.\n\nWe find that in theory, and as regards right (at least with reference\nto this important question), the understanding between the two\nschools is much more cordial than we should have imagined. They\ndiffer only as to the legislative consequences to be deduced from\nthe fact on which they agree. \u201cSeeing that property is tainted with\nillegitimacy, inasmuch as it assigns to the proprietor a part of the\nremuneration to which he has no right; and seeing, at the same time,\nthat it is necessary, let us respect it, but demand indemnities.\nNo, say the Economists, although it is a monopoly, yet seeing that\nit is a necessary monopoly, let us respect it, and let it alone.\u201d\nAnd yet they urge this weak defence but feebly; for one of their\nlatest organs, M. J. Garnier, adds, \u201cYou have reason on your side, as\nregards human right, but you are wrong practically, inasmuch as you\nhave failed to point out the effects of a better system.\u201d To which\nthe Socialists immediately reply, \u201cWe have found it; it is the Right\nto Employment\u2014try it.\u201d\n\nIn the meantime M. Proudhon steps in. You imagine, perhaps, that\nthis redoubtable objector is about to question the premises on which\nthe Economists and Socialists ground their agreement. Not at all.\nHe can demolish property without that. [p260] He appropriates the\npremises, grasps them, closes with them, and most logically deduces\nhis conclusion. \u201cYou grant,\u201d he says, \u201cthat the gifts of God are\npossessed not only of utility but of \u2039value\u203a, and that these gifts\nthe proprietor usurps and sells. Then Property is theft; and it\nis not necessary to maintain it; it is not necessary to demand\ncompensation for it; what \u2039is\u203a necessary is to \u2039abolish\u203a it.\u201d\n\nM. Proudhon has brought forward many arguments against landed\nProperty. The most formidable one\u2014indeed the only formidable one\u2014is\nthat with which these authors have furnished him, by confounding\nutility with value.\n\n \u201cWho has the right,\u201d he asks, \u201cto charge for the use of the\n soil,\u2014for that wealth which does not proceed from man\u2019s act? Who\n is entitled to the rent of land? The producer of the land, without\n doubt. Who made it? God. Then, proprietor, begone.\n\n \u201c\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. But the Creator of the earth does not sell it\u2014he gives\n it; and in giving it he shows no respect of persons. Why, then,\n among all his children, are some treated as eldest sons, and some\n as bastards? If equality of inheritance be our original right, why\n should our posthumous right be inequality of conditions?\u201d\n\nReplying to J. B. Say, who had compared land to an instrument, he\nsays:\n\n \u201cI grant it that land is an instrument; but who is the workman? Is\n it the proprietor? Is it he who, by the efficacious virtue of the\n right of property, communicates to it vigour and fertility? It is\n precisely here that we discover in what consists the monopoly of\n the proprietor,\u2014he did not make the instrument, and he charges for\n its use. Were the Creator to present Himself and demand the rent\n of land, we must account for it to Him; but the proprietor, who\n represents himself as invested with the same power, ought to exhibit\n his procuration.\u201d\n\nThat is evident. The three systems in reality make only one.\nEconomists, Socialists, Egalitaires, all direct against landed\nproprietors the same reproach, that of charging for what they have\nno right to charge for. This wrong some call \u2039monopoly\u203a, some\n\u2039illegitimacy\u203a, others \u2039theft\u203a\u2014these are but different phases of the\nsame complaint.\n\nNow I would appeal to every intelligent reader whether this complaint\nis or is not well founded? Have I not demonstrated that there is but\none thing which comes between the gifts of God and the hungry mouth,\nnamely, human service?\n\nEconomists say, that \u201cRent is what we pay to the proprietor for the\nuse of the productive and indestructible powers of the soil.\u201d I say,\nNo\u2014Rent is like what we pay to the water-carrier for the pains he\nhas taken to construct his barrow, and the water would cost us more\nif he had carried it on his back. In the same way, corn, flax, wool,\ntimber, meat, fruits, would have cost us more if the proprietor had\nnot previously improved the instrument which furnishes them.\n\nSocialists assert that \u201coriginally the masses enjoyed their right\n[p261] to the land on condition of labour, but that now they are\nexcluded and robbed of their natural patrimony.\u201d I answer, No\u2014they\nare neither excluded nor robbed\u2014they enjoy, gratuitously, the utility\ncontributed by the soil on condition of labour, that is to say, by\nrepaying that labour to those who have saved it to them.\n\n\u00c9galitaires allege that \u201cthe monopoly of the proprietor consists in\nthis, that not having made the instrument, he yet charges for its\nuse.\u201d I answer, No\u2014the land-instrument, so far as it is the work of\nGod, produces \u2039utility\u203a, and that utility is gratuitous; it is beyond\nthe power of the proprietor to charge for it. The land-instrument, so\nfar as it is prepared by the proprietor,\u2014so far as he has laboured\nit, enclosed it, drained it, improved it, and furnished it with other\nnecessary instruments, produces \u2039value\u203a, and that value represents\nactual human \u2039services\u203a, and for these alone is the proprietor paid.\nYou must either admit the legitimacy of this demand, or reject your\nown principle\u2014the \u2039mutuality of services\u203a.\n\nIn order to satisfy ourselves as to the true elements of the value of\nland, let us attend to the way in which landed property is formed\u2014not\nby conquest and violence, but according to the laws of labour and\nexchange. Let us see what takes place in the United States.\n\nBrother Jonathan, a laborious water-carrier of New York, set out for\nthe Far-west, carrying in his purse a thousand dollars, the fruit of\nhis labour and frugality.\n\nHe journeyed across many fertile provinces, where the soil, the sun,\nand the rain worked wonders, but which nevertheless \u2039were entirely\ndestitute of value\u203a in the economical and \u2039practical\u203a sense of the\nword.\n\nBeing a little of a philosopher, he said to himself\u2014\u201cLet Adam Smith\nand Ricardo say what they will, \u2039value\u203a must \u2039be something else than\nthe natural and indestructible productive power of the soil\u203a.\u201d\n\nAt length, having reached the State of Arkansas, he found a beautiful\nproperty of about 100 acres, which the government had advertised for\nsale at the price of a dollar an acre.\n\nA dollar an acre! he said\u2014that is very little, almost nothing. I\nshall purchase this land, clear it, and sell the produce, and the\ndrawer of water shall become a lord of the soil!\n\nBrother Jonathan, being a merciless logician, liked to have a reason\nfor everything. He said to himself, But why is this land worth even\na dollar an acre? No one has yet put a spade in it, or has bestowed\non it the least labour. Can Smith and Ricardo, and the whole string\nof theorists down to Proudhon, be right after all? Can land have\na value independent of all labour, all service, [p262] all human\nintervention? Must I admit that the productive and indestructible\npowers of the soil \u2039have value\u203a? In that case, why should they have\nno value in the countries through which I have passed? And, besides,\nsince the powers of the soil surpass so enormously the powers of men,\nwhich, as Blanqui well remarks, can never go the length of creating\nthe phenomena of germination, why should these marvellous powers be\nworth no more than a dollar?\n\nBut he was not long in perceiving that this value, like all other\nvalues, is of human and social creation. The American government\ndemanded a dollar for the concession of each acre; but, on the\nother hand, it undertook to guarantee to a certain extent the\nsecurity of the acquirer; it had formed in a rough way a road to\nthe neighbourhood, facilitated the transmission of letters and\nnewspapers, etc. Service for service, said Jonathan;\u2014the government\nmakes me pay a dollar, but it gives me an adequate equivalent. With\ndeference to Ricardo, I can now account naturally for the value\nof this land, which value would be still greater if the road were\nextended and improved, the post more frequent and regular, and the\nprotection more efficacious and secure.\n\nWhile Jonathan argued, he worked; for we must do him the justice to\nsay that he always made thinking and acting keep pace.\n\nHe expended the remainder of his dollars in buildings, enclosures,\nclearances, trenching, draining, improving, etc.; and after having\ndug, laboured, sowed, harrowed, reaped, at length came the time to\ndispose of his crop. \u201cNow I shall see,\u201d said Jonathan, still occupied\nwith the problem of value, \u201cif in becoming a landed proprietor I\nhave transformed myself into a monopolist, a privileged aristocrat,\na plunderer of my neighbour, an engrosser of the bounties of divine\nProvidence.\u201d\n\nHe carried his grain to market, and began to talk with a\nYankee:\u2014Friend, said he, how much will you give me for this Indian\ncorn?\n\nThe current price, replied the other.\n\nThe current price! but will that yield me anything beyond the\ninterest of my capital and the wages of my labour?\n\nI am a merchant, said the Yankee, and I know that I must content\nmyself with the recompense of my present and former labour.\n\nAnd I was content with it when I was a mere drawer of water, replied\nthe other, but now I am a landed proprietor. The English and French\nEconomists have assured me that in that character I [p263] ought,\nover and above the double remuneration you point at, to derive a\nprofit from the \u2039productive and indestructible powers of the soil\u203a,\nand levy a tax on the gifts of God.\n\nThe gifts of God belong to all, said the merchant. I avail myself of\nthe \u2039productive power\u203a of the wind for propelling my ships, but I\nmake no one pay for it.\n\nStill, as far as I am concerned, I expect that you will pay me\nsomething for these powers, in order that Messieurs Senior,\nConsid\u00e9rant, and Proudhon, should not call me a monopolist and\nusurper for nothing. If I am to have the disgrace, I may at least\nhave the profit, of a monopolist.\n\nIn that case, friend, I must bid you good morning. To obtain the\nmaize I am in quest of, I must apply to other proprietors, and if I\nfind them of your mind, I shall cultivate it for myself.\n\nJonathan then understood the truth, that, under the empire of\nfreedom, a man cannot be a monopolist at pleasure. As long as there\nare lands in the Union to clear, said he, I can never be more\nthan the simple setter in motion of these famous \u2039productive and\nindestructible forces\u203a. I shall be paid for my trouble, that is all,\njust as when I was a drawer of water I was paid for my own labour,\nand not for that of nature. I see now very clearly that the true\nusufructuary of the gifts of God is not the man who raises the corn,\nbut the man who consumes it.\n\nSome years afterwards, another enterprise having engaged the\nattention of Jonathan, he set about finding a tenant for his land.\nThe dialogue which took place between the two contracting parties\nwas curious, and would throw much light on the subject under\nconsideration were I to give it entire.\n\nHere is part of it:\n\n\u2039Proprietor.\u203a What! you would give me no greater rent than the\ninterest, at the current rate, of the capital I have actually laid\nout?\n\n\u2039Farmer.\u203a Not a cent more.\n\n\u2039Proprietor.\u203a Why so, pray?\n\n\u2039Farmer.\u203a Just for this reason, that, with the outlay of an equal\ncapital, I can put as much land in as good condition as yours.\n\n\u2039Proprietor.\u203a That seems conclusive. But consider that when you\nbecome my tenant, it is not only my capital which will work for you,\nbut also \u2039the productive and indestructible powers of the soil\u203a. You\nwill have enlisted in your service the marvellous influences of the\nsun and the moon, of affinity and electricity. Am I to give you all\nthese things for nothing?\n\n\u2039Farmer.\u203a Why not, since they cost you nothing, and since you derive\nnothing from them, any more than I do? [p264]\n\n\u2039Proprietor.\u203a Derive nothing from them? I derive everything from\nthem. Zounds! without these admirable phenomena, all my industry\ncould not raise a blade of grass.\n\n\u2039Farmer.\u203a Undoubtedly. But remember the Yankee you met at market. He\nwould not give you a farthing for all this co-operation of nature any\nmore than, when you were a water-carrier, the housewives of New York\nwould give you a farthing for the admirable elaboration by means of\nwhich nature supplied the spring.\n\n\u2039Proprietor.\u203a Ricardo and Proudhon, however,\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\n\u2039Farmer.\u203a A fig for Ricardo. We must either treat on the basis which\nI have laid down, \u2039or I shall proceed to clear land\u203a alongside yours,\nwhere the sun and the moon will work for me gratis.\n\nIt was always the same argument, and Jonathan began to see that God\nhad wisely arranged so as to make it difficult for man to intercept\nHis gifts.\n\nDisgusted with the trade of proprietor, Jonathan resolved to employ\nhis energies in some other department, and he determined to put up\nhis land to \u2039sale\u203a.\n\nIt is needless to say that no one would give him more for it than it\ncost himself. In vain he cited Ricardo, and represented the inherent\nvalue of the indestructible powers of the soil\u2014the answer always\nwas, \u201cThere are other lands close by;\u201d and these few words put an\nextinguisher on his exactions and on his illusions.\n\nThere is, moreover, in this transaction a fact of great Economic\nimportance, and to which little attention has been paid.\n\nIt is easy to understand that if a manufacturer desires, after ten\nor fifteen years, to sell his apparatus and materials, even in their\nnew state, he will probably be forced to submit to a loss. The\nreason is obvious. Ten or fifteen years can scarcely elapse without\nconsiderable improvements in machinery taking place. This is the\nreason why the man who sends to market machinery fifteen years old\ncannot expect a return exactly equal to the labour he has expended;\nfor with an equal expenditure of labour the purchaser could, owing to\nthe progress subsequently made, procure himself machinery of improved\nconstruction\u2014which, we may remark in passing, proves more and more\nclearly that value is not in proportion to labour, but to services.\n\nHence we may conclude that machinery and instruments of labour have a\ntendency to lose part of their value in consequence of the mere lapse\nof time, without taking into account their deterioration by use\u2014and\nwe may lay down this formula, that \u201c\u2039one of the effects of progress\nis to diminish the value of all existing instruments\u203a.\u201d [p265]\n\nIt is clear, in fact, that the more rapid that progress is, the\ngreater difficulty will the former instruments have in sustaining the\nrivalry of new and improved ones.\n\nI shall not stop here to remark the harmony exhibited by the results\nof this law. What I desire you to observe at present is, that landed\nproperty no more escapes from the operation of this law than any\nother kind of property.\n\nBrother Jonathan experiences this. He holds this language to the\npurchaser\u2014\u201cWhat I have expended on this property in permanent\nimprovements represents a thousand days\u2019 labour. I expect that you\nwill, in the first place, reimburse me for these thousand days\u2019 work,\nand then add something for the value which is inherent in the soil\nand independent of all human exertion.\u201d\n\nThe purchaser replies:\n\n\u201cIn the first place, I shall give you nothing for the value inherent\nin the soil, which is simply utility, which the adjoining property\npossesses as well as yours. Such native superhuman utility I can\nobtain gratis, which proves that it possesses no value.\n\n\u201cIn the second place, since your books show that you have expended\na thousand days\u2019 work in bringing your land to its present state,\nI shall give you only 800 days\u2019 labour; and my reason for it is,\nthat with 800 days\u2019 labour I can now-a-days accomplish the same\nimprovements on the adjoining land as you have executed with 1000\ndays\u2019 labour on yours. Pray consider that in the course of fifteen\nyears the art of draining, clearing, building, sinking wells,\ndesigning farm-offices, transporting materials, has made great\nprogress. Less labour is now required to effect each given result,\nand I cannot consent to give you ten for what I can get for eight,\nmore especially as the price of grain has fallen in proportion to\nthis progress, which is a profit neither to you nor to me, but to\nmankind at large.\u201d\n\nThus Jonathan was left no alternative but to sell his land at a loss,\nor to keep it.\n\nUndoubtedly the value of land is not affected by one circumstance\nexclusively. Other circumstances\u2014such as the construction of a canal,\nor the erection of a town\u2014may act in an opposite direction, and raise\nits value, but the improvements of which I have spoken, which are\ngeneral and inevitable, always necessarily tend to depress it.\n\nThe conclusion to be deduced from all I have said is, that as long\nas there exists in a country abundance of land to be cleared and\nbrought under cultivation, the proprietor, whether he cultivates,\nor lets, or sells it, enjoys no privilege, no monopoly, no\nexceptional [p266] advantage,\u2014above all, that he levies no tax\nupon the gratuitous liberality of nature. How could it be so,\nif we suppose men to be free? Have not people who are possessed\nof capital and energy a perfect right to make a choice between\nagriculture, manufactures, commerce, fisheries, navigation, the\narts, or the learned professions? Will not capital and industry\nalways tend to those departments which give extraordinary returns?\nWill they not desert those which entail loss? Is this inevitable\nshifting and redistribution of human efforts not sufficient to\nestablish, according to our hypothesis, an equilibrium of profit and\nremuneration? Do agriculturists in the United States make fortunes\nmore rapidly than merchants, shipowners, bankers, or physicians,\u2014as\nwould necessarily happen if they received the wages of their labour\nlike other people, and the recompense of nature\u2019s work into the\nbargain?\n\nWould you like to know how a proprietor even in the United States\ncould establish for himself a monopoly? I shall try to explain it.\n\nSuppose Jonathan to assemble all the proprietors of the United\nStates, and hold this language to them:\n\n\u201cI desired to sell my crops, and I found no one who would give me\na high enough price for them. I wished then to let my land, and\nencountered the same difficulty. I resolved to sell it, but still\nexperienced the same disappointment. My exactions have always\nbeen met by their telling me, that \u2039there is more land in the\nneighbourhood\u203a; so that, horrible to say, my services are estimated\nby the community like the services of other people, \u2039at what they\nare worth\u203a, in spite of the flattering promises of theorists. They\nwill give me nothing, absolutely nothing, for those productive and\nindestructible powers of the soil, for those natural agents, for\nthe solar and lunar rays, for the rain, the wind, the dew, the\nfrost, which I was led to believe were mine, but of which I turn\nout to be only the nominal proprietor. Is it not an iniquitous\nthing that I am remunerated only for my services, and at a rate,\ntoo, reduced by competition? You are all suffering under the same\noppression, you are all alike the victims of anarchical competition.\nIt would be no longer so, you may easily perceive, if we \u2039organized\u203a\nlanded property, if we laid our heads together to prevent anyone\nhenceforward from clearing a yard of American soil. In that case,\npopulation pressing, by its increase, on a nearly fixed amount of\nsubsistence, we should be able to make our own prices and attain\nimmense wealth, which would be a great boon for all other classes;\nfor being rich, we should provide them with work.\u201d\n\nIf, in consequence of this discourse, the combined proprietors\n[p267] seized the reins of government, and passed an act\ninterdicting all new clearances, the consequence undoubtedly would\nbe a temporary increase of their profits. I say temporary, for the\nnatural laws of society would be wanting in harmony if the punishment\nof such a crime did not spring naturally from the crime itself.\nSpeaking with scientific exactitude, I should not say that the new\nlaw we have supposed would impart value to the powers of the soil,\nor to natural agents (were this the case, the law would do harm to\nno one);\u2014but I should say, that the equilibrium of services had been\nviolently upset; that one class robbed all other classes, and that\nslavery had been introduced into that country.\n\nTake another hypothesis, which indeed represents the actual state of\nthings among the civilized nations of Europe\u2014and suppose all the land\nto have passed into the domain of private property.\n\nWe are to inquire whether in that case the mass of consumers, or the\n\u2039community\u203a, would continue to be the gratuitous usufructuary of the\nproductive powers of the soil, and of natural agents; whether the\nproprietors of land would be owners of anything else than of its\n\u2039value\u203a, that is to say, of their services fairly estimated according\nto the laws of competition; and whether, when they are recompensed\nfor those services, they are not forced like everyone else to give\nthe gifts of God into the bargain.\n\nSuppose, then, the entire territory of Arkansas alienated by the\ngovernment, parcelled into private domains, and subjected to culture.\nWhen Jonathan brings his grain or his land to market, can he not\nnow take advantage of the productive power of the soil, and make it\nan element of value? He could no longer be met, as in the preceding\ncase, with the overwhelming answer. \u201cThere is more uncultivated land\nadjacent to yours.\u201d\n\nThis new state of things presupposes an increase of population,\nwhich may be divided into two classes: 1st, That which furnishes\nto the community agricultural services; 2dly, That which furnishes\nmanufacturing, intellectual, or other services.\n\nNow this appears to me quite evident. Labourers (other than owners\nof land) who wished to procure supplies of grain, being perfectly\nfree to apply either to Jonathan or to his neighbours, or to the\nproprietors of adjoining states, being in circumstances even to\nproceed to clear lands beyond the territory of Arkansas, it would\nbe absolutely impossible for Jonathan to impose an unjust law upon\nthem. The very fact that lands which have no value exist elsewhere\nwould oppose to monopoly an invincible obstacle, and we should be\nlanded again in the preceding hypothesis. Agricultural services are\nsubject to the law of Universal Competition, [p268] and it is quite\nimpossible to make them pass for more than they \u2039are worth\u203a. I add,\nthat they are worth no more (\u2039c\u00e6teris paribus\u203a) than services of\nany other description. As the manufacturer, after charging for his\ntime, his anxiety, his trouble, his risk, his advances, his skill\n(all which things constitute human service, and are represented\nby value), can demand no recompense for the law of gravitation,\nthe expansibility of steam, the assistance of which he has availed\nhimself of,\u2014so in the same way, Jonathan can include in the value\nof his grain only the sum total of the personal services, anterior\nor recent, and not the assistance he has derived from the laws of\nvegetable physiology. The equilibrium of services is not impaired\nso long as they are freely exchanged, the one for the other, at an\nagreed price; and the gifts of God, of which these services are the\nvehicle, given on both sides into the bargain, remain in the domain\nof community.\n\nIt may be said, no doubt, that in point of fact the value of the\nsoil is constantly increasing; and this is true. In proportion as\npopulation becomes more dense and the people more wealthy, and the\nmeans of communication more easy, the landed proprietor derives\nmore advantage from his services. Is this law peculiar to him?\nDoes the same thing not hold of all other producers? With equal\nlabour, does not a physician, a lawyer, a singer, a painter, a day\nlabourer, procure a greater amount of enjoyments in the nineteenth\nthan he could in the fourth century? in Paris than in Brittany? in\nFrance than in Morocco? But is this increased enjoyment obtained at\nthe expense of any other body? That is the point. For the rest, we\nshall investigate still farther this law of value (using the word\nmetonymically) of the soil, in a subsequent part of the work, when we\ncome to consider the theory of Ricardo.\n\nAt present it is sufficient to show that Jonathan, in the case we\nhave put, can exercise no oppression over the industrial classes,\nprovided the exchange of services is free, and that labour can,\nwithout any legal impediment, be distributed, either in Arkansas or\nelsewhere, among different kinds of production. This liberty renders\nit impossible for the proprietors to intercept, for their own profit,\nthe gratuitous benefits of nature.\n\nIt would no longer be the same thing if Jonathan and his brethren,\navailing themselves of their legislative powers, were to proscribe\nor shackle the liberty of trade,\u2014were they to decree, for example,\nthat not a grain of foreign corn should be allowed to enter the\nterritory of Arkansas. In that case the value of services exchanged\nbetween proprietors and non-proprietors would no longer be regulated\nby justice. The one party could no longer control the [p269]\npretensions of the other. Such a legislative measure would be as\niniquitous as the one to which we have just alluded. The effect would\nbe quite the same as if Jonathan, having carried to market a sack\nof corn, which in other circumstances would have sold for fifteen\nfrancs, should present a pistol at the purchaser\u2019s head, and say,\nGive me three francs more, or I will blow out your brains.\n\nThis (to give the thing its right name) is \u2039extortion\u203a. \u2039Brutal\u203a or\n\u2039legal\u203a, the character of the transaction is the same. Brutal, as\nin the case of the pistol, it violates property; legal, as in the\ncase of the prohibition, it still violates property, and repudiates,\nmoreover, the very principle upon which property is founded. The\nexclusive subject of property, as we have seen, is value, and\nValue is the appreciation of two services freely and voluntarily\nexchanged. It is impossible, then, to conceive anything more directly\nantagonistic to the very principle of property, than that which, in\nthe name of right, destroys the equivalence of services.\n\nIt may not be out of place to add, that laws of this description are\niniquitous and injurious, whatever may be the opinions entertained\nby those who impose them, or by those who are oppressed by their\noperation. In certain countries we find the working-classes standing\nup for these restrictions, because they enrich the proprietors.\nThey do not perceive that it is at their expense, and I know from\nexperience that it is not always safe to tell them so.\n\nStrange! that people should listen willingly to sectaries who preach\nCommunism, which is slavery; for when a man is no longer master of\nhis own services, he is a slave;\u2014and that they should look askance at\nthose who are always and everywhere the defenders of Liberty, which\nis the Community of the gifts of God.\n\nWe now come to the third hypothesis, which assumes that all the land\ncapable of cultivation throughout the world has passed into the\ndomain of individual appropriation.\n\nWe have still to do with two classes\u2014those who possess land\u2014and those\nwho do not. Will the first not oppress the second? and will the\nlatter not be always obliged to give more labour in exchange for the\nsame amount of subsistence?\n\nI notice this objection merely for argument\u2019s sake, for hundreds of\nyears must elapse before this hypothesis can become a reality.\n\nEverything forewarns us, however, that the time must at last come\nwhen the exactions of proprietors can no longer be met by the words,\nThere are other lands to clear.\n\nI pray the reader to remark, that this hypothesis implies another\u2014it\nimplies that at the same epoch population will have reached [p270]\nthe extreme limit of the means of subsistence which the earth can\nafford.\n\nThis is a new and important element in the question. It is very much\nas if one should put the question, What will happen when there is no\nlonger enough of oxygen in the atmosphere to supply the lungs of a\nredundant population?\n\nWhatever view we take of the principle of population, it is at\nleast certain that population is capable of \u2039increase\u203a, nay, that\nit has a \u2039tendency\u203a to increase, since in point of fact it does\nincrease. All the economic arrangements of society appear to have\nbeen organized with the previous knowledge of this tendency, and are\nin perfect harmony with it. The landed proprietor always endeavours\nto get paid for the natural agents which he has appropriated, but\nhe is as constantly foiled in this foolish and unjust pretension\nby the abundance of analogous natural agents which have not been\nappropriated. The liberality of nature, which is comparatively\nindefinite, constitutes him a simple custodier. But now you drive me\ninto a corner, by supposing a period at which this liberality reaches\nits limit. Men have then no longer anything to expect from that\nquarter. The consequence is inevitable, that the tendency of mankind\nto increase will be paralyzed, that the progress of population will\nbe arrested. No economic r\u00e9gime can obviate this necessity. According\nto the hypothesis we have laid down, every increase of population\nwould be repressed by mortality. No philanthropy, no optimism, can\nmake us believe that the increase of human beings can continue\nits progression when the progressive increase of subsistence has\nconclusively terminated.\n\nHere, then, we have a new order of things and the harmony of the\nsocial laws might be called in question, had they not provided for a\nstate of matters the existence of which is possible, although very\ndifferent from that which now obtains.\n\nThe difficulty we have to deal with, then, comes to this: When a\nship in mid-ocean cannot reach land in less than a month, and has\nonly a fortnight\u2019s provisions on board, what is to be done? Clearly\nthis, reduce the allowance of each sailor. This is not cruelty\u2014it is\nprudence and justice.\n\nIn the same way, when population shall have reached the extreme limit\nthat all the land in the world can maintain, a law which, by gentle\nand infallible means prevents the further multiplication of mankind,\ncannot be considered either harsh or unjust. Now, it is landed\nproperty still which affords us solution of the difficulty. The\ninstitution of property, by applying the stimulant of self-interest,\ncauses the land to produce the greatest possible [p271] quantity of\nsubsistence, and by the division of inheritances puts each family\nin a situation to estimate the danger to itself of an imprudent\nmultiplication. It is very clear that any other r\u00e9gime\u2014Communism, for\nexample\u2014would be at once a less effective spur to production, and a\nless powerful curb to population.\n\nAfter all, it appears to me that Political Economy has discharged\nher duty when she has proved that the great and just law of the\n\u2039mutuality of services\u203a operates harmoniously, so long as human\nprogress is not conclusively arrested. Is it not consoling to think\nthat up to that point, and under the empire of freedom, it is not\nin the power of one class to oppress another? Is economic Science\nbound to solve this further problem: Given the tendency of mankind\nto multiply, what will take place when there is no longer room in\nthe world for new inhabitants? Does God hold in reserve for that\nepoch some creative cataclasm, some marvellous manifestation of His\nalmighty power? Or, as Christians, do we believe in the doctrine\nof the world\u2019s destruction? These evidently are not economical\nproblems, and there is no science which does not encounter similar\ndifficulties. Natural philosophers know well, that all bodies which\nmove on the surface of the earth have a tendency to descend, not to\nascend. After all, a day must come when the mountains shall have\nfilled up the valleys, when the embouchure of our rivers will be on\nthe same level as their source, when the waters can no longer flow,\netc., etc. What will happen then? Is Natural Science to cease to\nobserve and to admire the harmony of the actual world because she\ncannot divine by what other harmony God will provide for a state of\nthings far distant, no doubt, but inevitable? It seems to me that\nat this point the Economist, like the natural philosopher, should\nsubstitute for an exercise of curiosity an exercise of faith. He who\nhas so marvellously arranged the medium in which we now live, knows\nbest how to prepare another medium suitable to other circumstances.\n\nWe judge of the productiveness of the soil and of human skill by\nthe facts of which we are witnesses. Is this a rational mode of\nproceeding? Then, adopting it, we may say, Since it has required six\nthousand years to bring a tenth part of the earth to the sorry state\nof cultivation in which we find it, how many hundreds of ages must\nelapse before its entire surface shall be converted into a garden?\n\nYet in this appreciation, comforting as it is, we suppose merely\nthe more general diffusion of our present knowledge, or rather our\npresent ignorance, of agriculture. But is this, I repeat, an [p272]\nadmissible rule? Does not analogy tell us that an impenetrable\nveil conceals from us the power\u2014the indefinite power it may be\u2014of\nart? The savage who lives by the chase requires a square league of\nterritory. What would be his surprise were he told that the pastoral\nlife enables ten times the number of men to subsist upon the same\nspace? The nomad shepherd would, in like manner, be quite astonished\nto be told that a system of triennial cultivation [\u2039la culture\ntriennale\u203a] admits easily of a population ten times greater still.\nTell the peasant accustomed to this routine that the same progress\nwill again be the result of alternate culture[60] [\u2039la culture\nalterne\u203a], and he will not believe you. Alternate culture is for us\nthe latest improvement\u2014Is it the latest improvement for the human\nrace? Let us comfort ourselves regarding the future destiny of the\nspecies\u2014a long tract of ages is before us. At all events, let us not\nrequire Political Economy to resolve problems which are not within\nher domain\u2014and let us with confidence commit the destinies of future\nraces to the keeping of that great and good and wise Being who shall\nhave called them into existence.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLet us recapitulate the ideas contained in this chapter.\n\nThese two phenomena, Utility and Value\u2014the co-operation of nature\nand the co-operation of man, consequently Community and Property\u2014are\ncombined in the work of agriculture, as in every other department of\nindustry.\n\nIn the production of corn which appeases our hunger, we remark\nsomething analogous to what takes place in the formation of water\nwhich quenches our thirst. The ocean, which is the theme of the\npoet\u2019s inspiration, offers to the Economist also a fine subject of\nmeditation. It is this vast reservoir which gives drink to all human\ncreatures. And yet how can that be, when many of them are situated\nat a great distance from its shores, and when its water is besides\nundrinkable? It is here that we have to admire the marvellous\nindustry of nature. We mark how the sun warms the heaving mass, and\nsubjects it to a slow evaporation. The water takes the form of gas,\nand, disengaged from the salt, which rendered it unfit for use,\nit rises into the high regions of the atmosphere. Gales of wind,\nincreasing in all directions, drift it towards inhabited continents.\nThere it encounters cold, which condenses it, and attaches it in a\nsolid form to the sides of mountains. By-and-by the gentle heat of\nspring melts it. Carried along by its weight, [p273] it is filtered\nand purified through beds of schist and gravel. It ramifies and\ndistributes itself, and supplies and feeds refreshing springs in all\nparts of the world. Here we have an immense and ingenious industry\ncarried on by nature for the benefit of the human race. Change of\nform, change of place, utility, nothing is wanting. But where is\n\u2039value\u203a? Value has not yet come into existence; and if what we must\ncall the work of God is to be paid for (it would be paid for if it\npossessed exchangeable \u2039value\u203a)\u2014who could tell the \u2039value\u203a of a\nsingle drop of this precious liquid?\n\nAll men, however, have not a spring of pure water at their door. In\norder to quench their thirst they must take pains, make efforts,\nexert foresight and skill. It is this \u2039supplementary\u203a human labour\nwhich gives rise to arrangements, transactions, \u2039estimates\u203a. It is\nhere, then, that we discover the origin and foundation of value.\n\nMan is originally ignorant. Knowledge is acquired. At the beginning,\nthen, he is forced to carry water, to accomplish the supplementary\nlabour which nature has left him to execute with the \u2039maximum\u203a of\ntrouble. It is at this stage that water has the greatest \u2039value\u203a in\nexchange. By degrees the water-carrier invents a barrow and wheels,\ntrains horses, constructs pipes, discovers the law of the siphon,\netc.; in short, he transfers part of his labour to the gratuitous\nforces of nature; and, in proportion as he does so, the value of\nwater, but not its utility, is diminished.\n\nThere is here, however, a circumstance which it is necessary\nthoroughly to comprehend, if we would not see discordance where there\nis in reality only harmony. It is this, that the purchaser of water\nobtains it on easier terms, that is to say, gives a less amount of\nlabour in exchange for a given quantity of it, each time that a step\nof progress of this kind is gained, although in such circumstances\nhe has to give a remuneration for the instrument by means of which\nnature is constrained to act. Formerly he paid for the labour of\ncarrying the water; now he pays not only for that, but for the labour\nexpended in constructing the barrow, the wheel, and the pipe\u2014and yet,\n\u2039everything included\u203a, he pays less; and this shows us how false and\nfutile the reasoning is which would persuade us that that part of\nthe remuneration which is applicable to capital is a burden on the\nconsumer. Will these reasoners never understand that, for each result\nobtained, capital supersedes more labour than it exacts?\n\nAll that I have said is equally applicable to the production of\ncorn. In that case also, anterior to all human labour, there has\n[p274] been an immense, a measureless, amount of natural industry at\nwork, the secrets of which the most advanced science can yet give\nno account of. Gases, salts, are diffused through the soil and the\natmosphere. Electricity, affinity, the wind, the rain, light, heat,\nvegetable life, play successively their parts, often unknown to us,\nin transporting, transforming, uniting, dividing, combining these\nelements; and this marvellous industry, the activity and utility of\nwhich elude our appreciation and even our imagination, has yet no\n\u2039value\u203a. Value makes its appearance at the first intervention of\nthe labour of man, who has, in this, more perhaps than in the other\ninstance we have given, a \u2039supplementary\u203a labour to perform, in order\nto complete what nature has begun.\n\nTo direct these natural forces, and remove the obstacles which impede\ntheir action, man takes possession of an instrument, which is the\nsoil, and he does so without injury to anyone; for this instrument\nhad previously no value. This is not a matter of argument, but a\nmatter of fact. Show me, in any part of the world you choose, land\nwhich has not been subjected directly or indirectly to human action,\nand I will show you land destitute of value.[61] [p275]\n\nIn the meantime, the agriculturist, in order to effect, in\nconjunction with nature, the production of corn, executes two kinds\nof labour which are quite distinct. The one kind is applicable\ndirectly and immediately to the crop of the year\u2014is applicable only\nto that, and must be paid for by that\u2014such as sowing, weeding,\nreaping, etc. The other, as building, clearing, draining, enclosing,\nis applicable to an indefinite series of crops, and must be charged\nto and spread over a course of years, and calculated according to\nthe tables of interest and annuities. The crops constitute the\nremuneration of the agriculturist if he consumes them himself. If\nhe exchanges them, it is for services of another kind, and the\nappreciation of the services so exchanged constitutes their value.\n\nNow it is easy to see that this class of permanent works executed\nby the agriculturist upon the land is a \u2039value\u203a which has not yet\nreceived its entire recompense, but which cannot fail to receive\nit. It cannot be supposed that he is to throw up his land and allow\nanother to step into his shoes without compensation. The value has\nbeen incorporated and mixed up with the soil, and this is the reason\nwhy we can with propriety employ a metonymy and say \u2039the land has\nvalue\u203a. It has value, in fact, because it can be no longer acquired\nwithout giving in exchange the equivalent for this labour. But what\nI contend for is, that this land, on which its natural productive\npower had not originally conferred any value, [p276] has no value\nyet in this respect. This natural power, which was gratuitous then,\nis gratuitous now, and will be always gratuitous. We may say, indeed,\nthat the land has \u2039value\u203a, but when we go to the root of the matter\nwe find, that what possesses value is the human labour which has\nimproved the land, and the capital which has been expended on it.\nHence it is rigorously exact to say that the proprietor of the land\nis, after all, the proprietor only of a value which he has created,\nof services which he has rendered; and what property can be more\nlegitimate? It is property created at no one\u2019s expense, and neither\nintercepts nor taxes the gifts of God.\n\nNor is this all. The capital which has been advanced, and the\ninterest of which is spread over the crop of successive years, is so\nfar from increasing the price of the produce, and forming a burden\non the consumers, that the latter acquire agricultural products\ncheaper in proportion as this capital is augmented, that is to say,\nin proportion as the value of the soil is increased. I have no doubt\nthat this assertion will be thought paradoxical and tainted with\nexaggerated optimism, so much have people been accustomed to regard\nthe value of land as a calamity, if not a piece of injustice. For my\nown part, I affirm, that it is not enough to say that the value of\nthe soil has been created at no one\u2019s expense; it is not enough to\nsay that it injures no one; we should rather say that it benefits\neverybody. It is not only legitimate, but advantageous, even to those\nwho possess no property.\n\nWe have here, in fact, the phenomenon of our previous illustration\nreproduced. We remarked that from the moment the water-carrier\ninvented the barrow and the wheel, the purchaser of the water had\nto pay for two kinds of labour: 1st, The labour employed in making\nthe barrow and the wheel, or rather the interest of the capital, and\nan annual contribution to a sinking fund to replace that capital\nwhen worn out; 2d, The direct labour which the water-carrier must\nstill perform. But it is equally true that these two kinds of labour\nunited do not equal in amount the labour which had to be undergone\nbefore the invention. Why? because a portion of the work has now been\nhanded over to the gratuitous forces of nature. It is, indeed, in\nconsequence of this diminution of human labour that the invention has\nbeen called forth and adopted.\n\nAll this takes place in exactly the same way in the case of land and\nthe production of corn. As often as an agriculturist expends capital\nin permanent ameliorations, it is certain that the successive crops\nare burdened with the interest of that capital. But it is [p277]\nequally certain that the other species of labour\u2014rude, unskilled,\npresent, direct labour\u2014is rendered unnecessary in a still greater\nproportion; so that each crop is obtained by the proprietor, and\nconsequently by the consumer, on easier terms, on less onerous\nconditions\u2014the proper action of capital consisting precisely in\nsubstituting natural and gratuitous co-operation for human labour\nwhich must be paid for.\n\nHere is an example of it. In order to obtain a good crop, it is\nnecessary that the field should be freed from superfluous moisture.\nSuppose this species of labour to be still included in the first\ncategory. Suppose that the cultivator goes every morning with a jar\nto carry off the stagnant water where it is productive of injury.\nIt is clear that at the year\u2019s end the land would have acquired no\nadditional \u2039value\u203a, but the price of the grain would be enormously\nenhanced. It would be the same in the case of all those who followed\nthe same process while the art of draining was in this primitive\nstate. If the proprietor were to make a drain, that moment the\nland would acquire \u2039value\u203a, for this labour pertains to the second\ncategory\u2014that which is incorporated with the land\u2014and must be\nreimbursed by the products of consecutive years; and no one could\nexpect to acquire the land without recompensing this work. Is it not\ntrue, however, that it would tend to lower the value of the crop?\nIs it not true that although during the first year it exacted an\nextraordinary exertion, it saves in the long-run more labour than it\nhas occasioned? Is it not true that the draining thenceforth will be\nexecuted by the gratuitous law of hydrostatics more economically than\nit could be by muscular force? Is it not true that the purchasers\nof corn will benefit by this operation? Is it not true that they\nshould esteem themselves fortunate in this new value acquired by\nthe soil? And, having reference to more general considerations, is\nit not true, in fine, that the value of the soil attests a progress\nrealized, not for the advantage of the proprietor only, but for that\nof society at large? How absurd, then, and suicidal in society to\nexclaim: The additional price charged for corn, to meet the interest\nof the capital expended on this drain, and ultimately to replace that\ncapital, or its equivalent, as represented in the value of the land,\nis a privilege, a monopoly, a theft! At this rate, to cease to be a\nmonopolist and a thief, the proprietor should have only to fill up\nhis drain and betake himself to his jar. Would the man who has no\nproperty, and lives by wages, be any gainer by that?\n\nReview all the permanent ameliorations of which the sum total makes\nup the value of land, and you will find that to each of them [p278]\nthe same remark applies. Having filled up the drain, demolish the\nfence, and so force the agriculturist to mount guard upon his field;\ndestroy the well, pull down the barn, dig up the road, burn the\nplough, efface the levelling, remove the artificial mould; replace\nin the field the loose stones, the weeds, the roots of trees; you\nwill then have realized the Utopia of Equality. The land, and the\nhuman race along with it, wall have reverted to the primitive state,\nand will have no longer any value. The crops will have no longer any\nconnexion with capital. Their price will be freed from that accursed\nelement called interest. Everything, literally everything, will be\ndone by actual labour, visible to the naked eye. Political Economy\nwill be much simplified. Our country will support a man to the square\nleague. The rest of her inhabitants will have died of hunger;\u2014but\nthen it can no longer be said that property is a monopoly, an\ninjustice, and a theft.\n\nLet us not be insensible, then, to those economic harmonies which\nunfold themselves to our view more and more as we analyze the ideas\nof exchange, of value, of capital, of interest, of property, of\ncommunity.\u2014Will it indeed be given me to describe the entire circle,\nand complete the demonstration?\u2014But we have already, perhaps,\nadvanced sufficiently far to be convinced that the social world, not\nless than the material world, bears the impress of a Divine hand,\nfrom which flows wisdom and goodness, and towards which we should\nraise our eyes in gratitude and admiration.\n\nI cannot forbear reverting here to the view of this subject taken by\nM. Consid\u00e9rant.\n\nSetting out with the proposition, that the soil has a proper value,\nindependent of all human labour, that it constitutes \u2039primitive and\nuncreated capital\u203a, he concludes, in perfect consistency with his own\nviews, that \u2039appropriation\u203a is \u2039usurpation\u203a. This supposed iniquity\nleads him to indulge in violent tirades against the institutions\nof modern society. On the other hand, he allows that permanent\nameliorations confer an \u2039additional value\u203a on this primitive capital,\nan accessory so mixed up with the principal that we cannot separate\nthem. What are we to do, then? for we have here a total value\ncomposed of two elements, of which one, the fruit of labour, is\nlegitimate property; and the other, the gift of God, appropriated by\nman, is an iniquitous usurpation.\n\nThis is no trifling difficulty. M. Consid\u00e9rant resolves it by\nreference to the Right to Employment [\u2039Droit au travail\u203a].\n\n \u201cThe development of Mankind evidently demands that the Soil shall\n not be left in its wild and uncultivated state. The destiny of the\n human race is opposed to property in land retaining \u2039its rude and\n primitive form\u203a.\n\n \u201cIn the midst of forests and savannas, the savage enjoys four\n natural rights, [p279] namely, the rights of Hunting, of Fishing,\n of Gathering the fruits, of Pasturing. Such is the primitive form of\n property in land.\n\n \u201cIn all civilized societies, the working-classes, the Prol\u00e9taires,\n who inherit nothing and possess nothing, are simply despoiled of\n these rights. We cannot say that the primitive Right has changed its\n form, for it no longer exists. The form and the substance have alike\n disappeared.\n\n \u201cNow in what Form can such Rights be reconciled with the conditions\n of an industrial Society? The answer is plain:\n\n \u201cIn the savage state, in order to avail himself of his Right, man is\n \u2039obliged to act\u203a. The \u2039labour\u203a of Fishing, of Hunting, of Gathering,\n of Pasturing are the conditions of the exercise of his Right. The\n primitive Right, then, is a Right \u2039to engage in these employments\u203a.\n\n \u201cVery well, let an industrial Society, which has appropriated the\n land, and taken away from man the power of exercising freely and\n at will his four natural Rights, let this society cede to the\n individual, in compensation for those Rights, of which it had\n despoiled him, the \u2039Right to Employment\u203a. On this principle, rightly\n understood and applied, the individual has no longer any reason to\n complain.\n\n \u201cThe condition \u2039sine qu\u00e2 non\u203a, then, of the Legitimacy of Property\n is, that Society should concede to the Prol\u00e9taire\u2014the man who has\n no property\u2014the \u2039Right to Employment\u203a; and, in exchange for a given\n exertion of activity, \u2039assure\u203a him of means of subsistence, at\n least as adequate as such exercise \u2039could\u203a have procured him in the\n primitive state.\u201d\n\nI cannot, without being guilty of tiresome repetition, discuss this\nquestion with M. Consid\u00e9rant in all its bearings. If I demonstrate,\nthat what he terms \u2039uncreated capital\u203a is no capital at all;\nthat what he terms the \u2039additional value\u203a of the soil, is not an\nadditional value, but the \u2039total value\u203a; he must acknowledge that\nhis argument has fallen to pieces, and, with it, all his complaints\nof the way in which mankind have judged it proper to live since the\ndays of Adam. But this controversy would oblige me to repeat all that\nI have already said upon the essentially and indelibly gratuitous\ncharacter of natural agents.\n\nI shall only remark, that if M. Consid\u00e9rant speaks in behalf of the\nnon-proprietary class, he is so very accommodating that they may\nthink themselves betrayed. What! proprietors have usurped the soil,\nand all the miracles of vegetation which it displays! they have\nusurped the sun, the rain, the dew, oxygen, hydrogen, and azote, so\nfar at least as these co-operate in the production of agricultural\nproducts\u2014and you ask them to assure to the man who has no property,\nas a compensation, at least as much of the means of subsistence, in\nexchange for a given exertion of activity, as that exertion could\nhave procured him in the primitive and savage state!\n\nBut do you not see that landed property has not waited for your\ninjunctions in order to be a million times more generous? for to what\nis your demand limited?\n\nIn the primitive state, your four rights of fishing, hunting,\ngathering the fruits, and pasturing, maintain in existence, or rather\nin a state of vegetation, amid all the horrors of destitution, nearly\none man to the square league of territory. The usurpation of the\n[p280] land will then be legitimate, according to you, when those\nwho have been guilty of that usurpation support one man for every\nsquare league, exacting from him at the same time as much activity\nas is displayed by a Huron or an Iroquois. Pray remark, that France\nconsists of only thirty thousand square leagues; that consequently,\nif its whole territory supports thirty thousand inhabitants in that\ncondition of existence which the savage state affords, you renounce\nin behalf of the non-proprietary class all farther demands upon\nproperty. Now, there are thirty millions of Frenchmen who have not an\ninch of land, and among the number we meet with many\u2014the president of\nthe republic, ministers, magistrates, bankers, merchants, notaries,\nadvocates, physicians, brokers, soldiers, sailors, professors,\njournalists, etc.\u2014who would certainly not be disposed to exchange\ntheir condition for that of an Ioway. Landed property, then, must\ndo much more for us than you exact from it. You demand from it the\n\u2039Right to Employment\u203a, up to a certain point\u2014that is to say, until it\nyields to the masses\u2014and in exchange for a given amount of labour,\ntoo\u2014as much subsistence as they could earn in a state of barbarism.\nLanded property does much more than that\u2014it gives more than the Right\nto employment\u2014it gives Employment itself, and did it only clear the\nland-tax, it would do a hundred times more than you ask it to do.\n\nI find to my great regret that I have not yet done with landed\nproperty and its value. I have still to state, and to refute, in\nas few words as possible, an objection which is specious and even\nformidable.\n\nIt is said,\n\n\u201cYour theory is contradicted by facts. Undoubtedly, as long as there\nis in a country abundance of uncultivated land, the existence of\nsuch land will of itself hinder the cultivated land from acquiring\nan undue value. It is also beyond doubt, that even when all the land\nhas passed into the appropriated domain, if neighbouring nations have\nextensive tracts ready for the plough, freedom of trade is sufficient\nto restrain the value of landed property within just limits. In these\ntwo cases it would seem that the Price of land can only represent the\ncapital advanced, and the Rent of land the interest of that capital.\nWhence we must conclude, as you do, that the proper action of the\nsoil and the intervention of natural agents, going for nothing,\nand not influencing the value of the crops, remain gratuitous, and\ntherefore common. All this is specious. We may have difficulty in\ndiscovering the error, and yet this reasoning is erroneous. In order\nto be convinced of it, it [p281] is sufficient to point to the fact,\nthat there are in France cultivated lands which are worth from 100\nfrancs to 6000 francs the hectare, an enormous difference, which is\nmuch easier explained by the difference of fertility than by the\ndifference of the anterior labour applied to these lands. It is vain\nto deny, then, that fertility has its own value, for not a sale\ntakes place which does not attest it. Every one who purchases a land\nestate examines its quality, and pays for it accordingly. If, of two\nproperties which lie alongside each other, the one consists of a\nrich alluvium, and the other of barren sand, the first is surely of\nmore value than the second, although both may have absorbed the same\ncapital, and to say truth, the purchaser gives himself no trouble\non that score. His attention is fixed upon the future, and not upon\nthe past. What he looks at is not what the land has cost, but what\nit will yield, and he knows that its yield will be in proportion to\nits fertility. Then this fertility has a proper and intrinsic value\nwhich is independent of all human labour. To maintain the contrary is\nto endeavour to base the legitimacy of individual appropriation on a\nsubtilty, or rather on a paradox.\u201d\n\nLet us inquire, then, what is the true foundation of the value of\nland.\n\nI pray the reader not to forget that this question is of grave\nimportance at the present moment. Hitherto it has been neglected or\nglossed over by Economists, as a question of mere curiosity. The\nlegitimacy of individual appropriation was not formerly contested,\nbut this is no longer the case. Theories which have obtained but too\nmuch success have created doubts in the minds of our best thinkers on\nthe institution of property. And upon what do the authors of these\ntheories found their complaints? Why, exactly upon the assertion\ncontained in the objection which I have just explained\u2014upon the\nfact, unfortunately admitted by all schools, that the soil, by\nreason of its fertility, possesses an inherent value communicated to\nit by nature and not by human means. Now value is not transferred\ngratuitously. The very word excludes the idea of gratuitousness. We\nsay to the proprietor, then\u2014you demand from me a value which is the\nfruit of my labour, and you offer me in exchange a value which is not\nthe fruit of your labour, or of any labour, but of the liberality of\nnature.\n\nBe assured that this would be a fearful complaint were it well\nfounded. It did not originate with Messieurs Consid\u00e9rant and\nProudhon. We find it in the works of Smith, of Ricardo, of Senior, of\nall the Economists without exception, not as a theory [p282] merely,\nbut as a subject of complaint. These authors have not only attributed\nto the soil an extra-human value, they have boldly deduced the\nconsequence, and branded landed property as a privilege, a monopoly,\na usurpation. No doubt, after thus branding it, they have defended it\non the plea of \u2039necessity\u203a. But what does such a defence amount to,\nbut an error of reasoning which the Communist logicians have lost no\ntime in rectifying?\n\nIt is not, then, to indulge an unhappy love for subtilties that I\nenter on this delicate subject. I should have wished to save both the\nreader and myself the ennui which even now I feel hovering over the\nconclusion of this chapter.\n\nThe answer to the objection now under consideration is to be found in\nthe theory of Value, explained in the \u2039fifth\u203a chapter of this work. I\nthere said that value does not essentially imply labour; still less\nis it necessarily proportionate to labour. I have shown that the\nfoundation of value is not so much the \u2039pains taken\u203a by the person\nwho transfers it as the \u2039pains saved\u203a to the person who receives it;\nand it is for that reason that I have made it to reside in something\nwhich embraces these two elements\u2014in \u2039service\u203a. I have said that a\nperson may render a great service with very little effort, or that\nwith a great effort one may render a very trifling service. The sole\nresult is, that labour does not obtain necessarily a remuneration\nwhich is always in proportion to its intensity, in the case either of\nman in an isolated condition, or of man in the social state.\n\nValue is determined by a bargain between two contracting parties. In\nmaking that bargain, each has his own views. You offer to sell me\ncorn. What matters it to me the time and pains it may have cost you\nto produce it? What I am concerned about is the time and pains it\nwould have cost me to procure it from another quarter. The knowledge\nyou have of my situation may render you more or less exacting; the\nknowledge I have of yours may render me more or less anxious to make\nthe purchase. There is no necessary measure, then, of the recompense\nwhich you are to derive from your labour. That depends upon the\ncircumstances, and the value which these circumstances confer upon\nthe two services which we are desirous to exchange. By-and-by we\nshall call attention to an external force called Competition,\nwhose mission is to regulate values, and render them more and more\nproportional to efforts. Still this proportion is not of the essence\nof value, seeing that the proportion is established under the\npressure of a contingent fact.\n\nKeeping this in view, I maintain that the value of land arises,\nfluctuates, and is determined, like that of gold, iron, water, the\n[p283] lawyer\u2019s advice, the physician\u2019s consultation, the singer\u2019s\nor dancer\u2019s performance, the artist\u2019s picture\u2014in short, like all\nother values; that it is subject to no exceptional laws; that it\nconstitutes a property the same in origin, the same in nature, and\nas legitimate, as any other property. But it does not at all follow,\nas you must now see, that, of two exertions of labour applied to the\nsoil, one should not be much better remunerated than the other.\n\nLet us revert again to that industry, the most simple of all, and the\nbest fitted to show us the delicate point which separates the onerous\nlabour of man from the gratuitous co-operation of nature. I allude to\nthe humble industry of the water-carrier.\n\nA man procures and brings home a barrel of water. Does he become\npossessed of a value necessarily proportionate to his labour? In that\ncase, the value would be independent of the service the water may\nrender. Nay more, it would be fixed; for the labour, once over, is no\nlonger susceptible of increase or diminution.\n\nWell, the day after he procures and brings home this barrel of water,\nit may lose its value, if, for example, it has rained during the\nnight. In that case every one is provided\u2014the water can render no\nservice, and is no longer wanted. In economic language, it has ceased\nto be in demand.\n\nOn the other hand, it may acquire considerable value, if\nextraordinary wants, unforeseen and pressing, come to manifest\nthemselves.\n\nWhat is the consequence? that man, working for the future, is not\nexactly aware beforehand what value the future will attach to his\nlabour. Value incorporated in a material object will be higher or\nlower, according as it renders more or less service, or, to express\nit more clearly, human labour, which is the source of value, receives\naccording to circumstances a higher or lower remuneration. Such\neventualities are an exercise for foresight, and foresight also has a\nright to remuneration.\n\nBut what connexion is there, I would ask, between these fluctuations\nof value, between these variations in the recompense of labour, and\nthat marvellous natural industry, those admirable physical laws,\nwhich without our participation have brought the water of the ocean\nto the spring? Because the value of this barrel of water varies\naccording to circumstances, are we to conclude that nature charges\nsometimes more, sometimes less, sometimes nothing at all, for\nevaporation, for carrying the clouds from the ocean to the mountains,\nfor freezing, melting, and the whole of that admirable industry which\nsupplies the spring? [p284]\n\nIt is exactly the same thing in the case of agricultural products.\n\nThe value of the soil, or rather of the capital applied to the soil,\nis made up not of one element but of two. It depends not only on the\nlabour which has been employed, but also on the ability which society\npossesses to remunerate that labour\u2014on Demand as well as on Supply.\n\nTake the case of a field. Not a year passes, perhaps, in which\nthere is not some labour bestowed upon it, the effects of which are\npermanent, and of course an increase of value is the result.\n\nRoads of access, besides, are improved and made more direct, the\nsecurity of person and property becomes more complete, markets are\nextended, population increases in number and in wealth\u2014different\nsystems of culture are introduced, and a new career is opened to\nintelligence and skill; the effect of this change of medium, of this\ngeneral prosperity, being to confer additional value on both the\npresent and the anterior labour, and consequently on the field.\n\nThere is here no injustice, no exception in favour of landed\nproperty. No species of labour, from that of the banker to that of\nthe day-labourer, fails to exhibit the same phenomenon. No one fails\nto see his remuneration improved by the improvement of the society\nin which his work is carried on. This action and reaction of the\nprosperity of each on the prosperity of all, and \u2039vice versa\u203a, is the\nvery law of value. So false is the conclusion which imputes to the\nsoil and its productive powers an imaginary value, that intellectual\nlabour, professions and trades which have no connexion with matter or\nthe co-operation of physical laws, enjoy the same advantage, which in\nfact is not exceptional but universal. The lawyer, the physician, the\nprofessor, the artist, the poet, receive a higher remuneration for\nan equal amount of labour, in proportion as the town or country to\nwhich they belong increases in wealth and prosperity, in proportion\nas the taste or demand for their services becomes more generally\ndiffused, in proportion as the public is more able and more willing\nto remunerate them. The acquisition of clients and customers is\nregulated by this principle. It is still more apparent in the case of\nthe Basque Giant and Tom Thumb, who lived by the simple exhibition\nof their exceptional stature, and reap a much better harvest, from\nthe curiosity of the numerous and wealthy crowds of our large towns,\nthan from that of a few poor and straggling villagers. In this case,\ndemand not only enhances value, it creates it. Why, then, should\nwe think it exceptional or unjust that demand should also exert an\ninfluence on the value of land and of agricultural products? [p285]\n\nIs it alleged that land may thus attain an exaggerated value? They\nwho say so have never reflected on the immense amount of labour\nwhich arable land has absorbed. I dare affirm, that there is not a\nfield in this country which \u2039is worth\u203a what it has cost, which could\nbe exchanged for as much labour as has been expended in bringing\nit to its present state of productiveness. If this observation is\nwell founded, it is conclusive. It frees landed property from the\nslightest taint of injustice. For this reason, I shall return to the\nsubject when I come to examine Ricardo\u2019s theory of Rent, and I shall\nshow that we must apply to agricultural capital the law which I have\nstated in these terms: In proportion as capital increases, products\nare divided between capitalists or proprietors and labourers, in such\na way that the \u2039relative\u203a share of the former goes on continually\ndiminishing, although their \u2039absolute\u203a share is increased, whilst the\nshare of the latter is increased both absolutely and relatively.\n\nThe illusion which has induced men to believe that the productive\npowers of the soil have an independent value, because they possess\nUtility, has led to many errors and catastrophes. It has driven them\nfrequently to the premature establishment of colonies, the history\nof which is nothing else than a lamentable martyrology. They have\nreasoned in this way: In our own country we can obtain value only\nby labour, and when we have done our work, we have obtained a value\nwhich is only proportionate to our labour. If we emigrate to Guiana,\nto the banks of the Mississippi, to Australia, to Africa, we shall\nobtain possession of vast territories, uncultivated but fertile; and\nour reward will be, that we shall become possessed not of the value\nwe have created, but also of the inherent and independent value of\nthe land we may reclaim. They set out, and a cruel experience soon\nconfirms the truth of the theory which I am now explaining. They\nlabour, they clear, they exhaust themselves; they are exposed to\nprivations, to sufferings, to diseases; and then if they wish to\ndispose of the land which they have rendered fit for production, they\ncannot obtain for it what it has cost them, and they are forced to\nacknowledge that value is of human creation. I defy you to give me\nan instance of the establishment of a colony which has not at the\nbeginning been attended with disaster.\n\n \u201cUpwards of a thousand labourers were sent out to the Swan River\n Colony; but the extreme cheapness of land (eighteenpence, or less\n than two francs, an acre) and the extravagant rate of wages,\n afforded them such facilities and inducements to become landowners,\n that capitalists could no longer get any one to cultivate their\n lands. A capital of \u00a3200,000 (five millions of francs) was lost\n in consequence, and the colony became a scene of desolation. The\n labourers having left their employers from the delusive desire\n to become landowners, agricultural implements were allowed to\n rust\u2014seeds rotted\u2014and sheep, cattle, and horses perished for\n want of attention. A frightful famine [p286] cured the labourers\n of their infatuation, and they returned to ask employment from\n the capitalists; but it was too late.\u201d\u2014\u2039Proceedings of the South\n Australian Association.\u203a\n\nThe association, attributing this disaster to the cheapness of\nland, raised its price to 12s. an acre. But, adds Carey, from whom\nI borrow this quotation, the real cause was, that the labourers,\nbeing persuaded that land possesses an \u2039inherent\u203a value, apart from\nthe labour bestowed on it, were anxious to exercise \u201cthe power of\nappropriation,\u201d to which the power to demand Rent is attributed.\n\nWhat follows supplies us with an argument still more conclusive:\n\n \u201cIn 1836, the landed estates in the colony of Swan River were to be\n purchased from the original settlers at one shilling an acre.\u201d\u2014\u2039New\n Monthly Magazine.\u203a\n\nThus the land which was sold by the company at 12s.\u2014upon which the\nsettlers had bestowed much labour and money\u2014was disposed of by them\nat one shilling! What then became of the value of \u2039the natural and\nindestructible productive powers of the soil\u203a?[62]\n\nI feel that the vast and important subject of the Value of Land has\nnot been exhausted in this chapter, written by snatches and amid many\ndistractions. I shall return to it hereafter; but in the meantime\nI cannot resist submitting one observation to my readers, and more\nespecially to Economists.\n\nThe illustrious \u2039savants\u203a who have done so much to advance\nthe science, whose lives and writings breathe benevolence and\nphilanthropy, and who have disclosed to us, at least in a certain\naspect, and within the limits of their researches, the true solution\nof the social problem\u2014the Quesnays, the Turgots, the Smiths, the\nMalthuses, the Says\u2014have not however escaped, I do not say from\nrefutation, for that is always legitimate, but from calumny,\ndisparagement, and insult. To attack their writings, and even their\nmotives, has become fashionable. It may be said, perhaps, that in\nthis chapter I am furnishing arms to their detractors, and truly\nthe moment would be ill chosen for me to turn against those whom I\ncandidly acknowledge as my initiators, my masters, and my guides.\n\nBut supreme homage is, after all, due to Truth, or what I regard as\nTruth. No book was ever written without some admixture of error.\nNow, a single error in Political Economy, if we press it, torture\nit, deduce from it rigorously its logical consequences, involves\nall kinds of errors\u2014in fact, lands us in chaos. There never was a\nbook from which we could not extract one proposition, isolated,\nincomplete, false, including consequently a whole world [p287]\nof errors and confusion. In my conscience, I believe that the\ndefinition which the Economists have given of the word \u2039Value\u203a is of\nthis number. We have just seen that this definition has led them to\ncast a serious doubt on the legitimacy of property in land, and, by\nconsequence, in capital; and they have only been stopped short on\nthis fatal road by an inconsistency. This inconsistency has saved\nthem. They have resumed their march on the road of Truth; and their\nerror, if it be one, is, in their works, an isolated blot. Then the\nSocialists have come to lay hold of this false definition, not to\nrefute it, but to adopt it, strengthen it, make it the foundation\nof their propaganda, and deduce from it all its consequences. Hence\nhas arisen in our day an imminent social danger; and it is for that\nreason that I have thought it my duty to be explicit on this subject,\nand trace the erroneous theory to its source. If you conclude that I\nhave separated myself from my masters Smith and Say, from my friends\nBlanqui and Garnier, because, by an oversight in their learned and\nadmirable works, they have made, as I think, an erroneous application\nof the word \u2039value\u203a; if you conclude from this that I have no longer\nfaith in Political Economy and Political Economists, I can only\nprotest, and appeal to the very title of the present volume. [p288]\n\n\n\n\n X.\n COMPETITION.\n\n\nThere is not in the whole vocabulary of Political Economy a word\nwhich has roused the fury of modern reformers so much as the word\n\u2039Competition\u203a, which, in order to render it the more odious, they\nnever fail to couple with the epithet \u2039anarchical\u203a.\n\nWhat is the meaning of \u2039anarchical competition\u203a? I really don\u2019t know.\nWhat could we substitute for it? I am equally ignorant.\n\nI hear people, indeed, calling out \u2039Organization! Association!\u203a\nWhat does that mean? Let us come to an understanding, once for all.\nI desire to know what sort of authority these writers intend to\nexercise over me, and all other living men; for I acknowledge only\none species of authority, that of reason, if indeed they have it\non their side. Is it their wish then to deprive me of the right of\nexercising my judgment on what concerns my own subsistence? Is their\nobject to take from me the power of comparing the services which I\nrender with those which I receive? Do they mean that I should act\nunder the influence of restraint, exerted over me by them and not\nby my own intelligence? If they leave me my liberty, Competition\nremains. If they deprive me of freedom, I am their slave. Association\nwill be \u2039free and voluntary\u203a, they say. Be it so. But then each\ngroup of associates will, as regards all other groups, be just what\nindividuals now are in relation to each other, and we shall still\nhave \u2039Competition\u203a. The association will be \u2039integral\u203a. A good joke\ntruly. What! Anarchical Competition is now desolating society, and\nwe must wait for a remedy, until, by dint of your persuasion, all\nthe nations of the earth\u2014Frenchmen, Englishmen, Chinese, Japanese,\nCaffres, Hottentots, Laplanders, Cossacks, Patagonians\u2014make up\ntheir minds to unite in one of the forms of association which\nyou have devised? Why, this is just to avow that competition is\nindestructible; and will you venture to say that a phenomenon which\n[p289] is indestructible, and consequently providential, can be\nmischievous?\n\nAfter all, what is Competition? Is it a thing which exists and is\nself-acting like the cholera? No, Competition is only the absence of\nconstraint. In what concerns my own interest, I desire to choose for\nmyself, not that another should choose for me, or in spite of me\u2014that\nis all. And if any one pretends to substitute his judgment for mine\nin what concerns me, I should ask to substitute mine for his in what\nconcerns him. What guarantee have we that things would go on better\nin this way? It is evident that Competition is Liberty. To take away\nthe liberty of acting is to destroy the possibility, and consequently\nthe power, of choosing, of judging, of comparing; it is to annihilate\nintelligence, to annihilate thought, to annihilate man. From whatever\nquarter they set out, to this point all modern reformers tend\u2014to\nameliorate society they begin by annihilating the individual, under\nthe pretext that all evils come from this source\u2014as if all good did\nnot come from it too.\n\nWe have seen that services are exchanged for services. In reality,\nevery man comes into the world charged with the responsibility of\nproviding for his satisfactions by his efforts. When another man\nsaves us an effort, we ought to save him an effort in return. He\nimparts to us a satisfaction resulting from his effort; we ought to\ndo the same for him.\n\nBut who is to make the comparison? for between these efforts, these\npains, these services exchanged, there is necessarily a comparison\nto be made, in order to arrive at equivalence, at justice;\u2014unless\nindeed injustice, inequality, chance, is to be our rule, which would\njust be another way of putting human intelligence \u2039hors de cause\u203a.\nWe must, then, have a judge; and who is this judge to be? Is it\nnot quite natural that in every case wants should be judged of by\nthose who experience them, satisfactions by those who seek them,\nefforts by those who exchange them? And is it seriously proposed to\nsubstitute for this universal vigilance of the parties interested,\na social authority (suppose that of the reformer himself), charged\nwith determining in all parts of the world the delicate conditions\nof these countless acts of interchange? Do you not see that this\nwould be to set up the most fallible, the most universal, the most\narbitrary, the most inquisitorial, the most insupportable\u2014we are\nfortunately able to add, the most impossible\u2014of all despotisms ever\nconceived in the brain of pasha or mufti?\n\nIt is sufficient to know that Competition is nothing else than\n[p290] the absence of an arbitrary authority as judge of exchanges,\nin order to be satisfied that it is indestructible. Illegitimate\nforce may no doubt restrain, counteract, trammel the liberty of\nexchanging, as it may the liberty of walking; but it can annihilate\nneither the one nor the other without annihilating man. This being\nso, it remains for us to inquire whether Competition tends to the\nhappiness or misery of mankind; a question which amounts to this,\u2014Is\nthe human race naturally progressive, or are its tendencies fatally\nretrograde?\n\nI hesitate not to say that Competition, which, indeed, we might\ndenominate Liberty, despite the repulsion which it excites, despite\nthe declamations to which it has given rise, is a law which is\ndemocratical in its essence. Of all the laws to which Providence has\nconfided the progress of human society, it is the most progressive,\nlevelling, and \u2039communautaire\u203a. It is this law which brings\nsuccessively into the \u2039common\u203a domain the use and enjoyment of\ncommodities which nature has accorded gratuitously only to certain\ncountries. It is this law, again, which brings into the \u2039common\u203a\ndomain all the conquests which the genius of each age bequeaths to\nsucceeding generations, leaving them only supplementary labours to\nexecute, which last they continue to exchange with one another,\nwithout succeeding, as they desire, in obtaining a recompense for\nthe co-operation of natural agents; and if these labours, as happens\nalways in the beginning, possess a value which is not proportionate\nto their intensity, it is still Competition which, by its incessant\nbut unperceived action, restores an equilibrium which is sanctioned\nby justice, and which is more exact than any that the fallible\nsagacity of a human magistracy could by possibility establish. Far\nfrom Competition leading to inequality, as has been erroneously\nalleged, we may assert that all \u2039factitious\u203a inequality is imputable\nto its absence; and if the gulf between the Grand Lama and a Paria is\nmore profound than that which separates the President from an artisan\nof the United States, the reason is this, that Competition (or\nLiberty), which is curbed and put down in Asia, is not so in America.\nThis is the reason why, whilst the Socialists see in Competition\nthe source of all that is evil, we trace to the attacks which have\nbeen made upon it the disturbance of all that is good. Although this\ngreat law has been misunderstood by the Socialists and their adepts;\nalthough it is frequently harsh in its operation, no law is more\nfertile in social harmonies, more beneficent in general results;\nno law attests more brilliantly the measureless superiority of the\ndesigns of God over the vain and powerless combinations of men.\n[p291]\n\nI must here remind the reader of that singular but unquestionable\nresult of the social order to which I have already invited his\nattention,[63] and which the power of habit hides too frequently from\nour view. It is this, \u2039that the sum total of satisfactions which\nfalls to each member of society is much superior to those which he\ncould procure for himself by his own efforts\u203a. In other words, there\nis an evident disproportion between our consumption and our labour.\nThis phenomenon, which all of us can easily verify, if we turn our\nregards upon ourselves, ought, it seems to me, to inspire some\ngratitude to society, to which we owe it.\n\nWe come into this world destitute of everything, tormented with\nnumerous wants, and provided with nothing but faculties to enable\nus to struggle against them. \u2039A priori\u203a, it would seem that all we\ncould expect would be to obtain satisfactions proportionate to our\nlabour. If we obtain more, infinitely more, to what do we owe the\nexcess? Precisely to that natural organization against which we are\nconstantly declaiming, when we are not engaged in seeking to subvert\nit.\n\nIn itself the phenomenon is truly extraordinary. That certain men\nconsume more than they produce is easily explained, if in one way\nor other they usurp the rights of other people\u2014if they receive\nservices without rendering them. But how can that be true of all men\nat the same time? How happens it that, after having exchanged their\nservices without constraint, without spoliation, upon a footing of\n\u2039equivalence\u203a, each man can say to himself with truth, I consume in a\nday more than I could produce in a century?\n\nThe reader has seen that the additional element which resolves the\nproblem is the co-operation of natural agents, constantly becoming\nmore and more effective in the work of production; it is gratuitous\nutility falling continually into the domain of \u2039Community\u203a; it is the\nlabour of heat and of cold, of light, of gravitation, of affinity, of\nelasticity, coming progressively to be added to the labour of man,\ndiminishing the value of services by rendering them more easy.\n\nI must have but feebly explained the theory of \u2039value\u203a if the reader\nimagines that value diminishes immediately and of its own accord,\nby the simple fact of the co-operation of natural forces, and the\nrelief thereby afforded to human labour. It is not so; for then we\nmight say with the English Economists that value is proportional\nto labour. The man who is aided by a natural and gratuitous force\nrenders his services more easily; but he does not [p292] on that\naccount renounce voluntarily any portion whatever of his accustomed\nremuneration. To induce him to do that, external coercion\u2014pressure\nfrom without\u2014severe but not unjust pressure\u2014is necessary. It is\nCompetition which exerts this pressure. As long as Competition does\nnot intervene, as long as the man who has availed himself of a\nnatural agent preserves his secret, that natural agent is gratuitous,\nbut it is not yet \u2039common\u203a. The victory has been gained, but to the\nprofit only of a single man, or a single class. It is not yet a\nbenefit to mankind at large. No change has yet taken place, except\nthat one description of \u2039services\u203a, although partly relieved from the\npain of muscular exertion, still exacts all its former remuneration.\nWe have, on the one hand, a man who exacts from all his fellows the\nsame amount of labour as formerly, although he offers them a limited\namount of his own labour in return. On the other, we have mankind at\nlarge, who are still obliged to make the same sacrifice of time and\nof labour in order to obtain a product now realized in part by nature.\n\nWere things to remain in this state, a principle of indefinite\ninequality would be introduced into the world with every new\ninvention. Not only could we not say that value is proportional to\nlabour; we could not even say that value tends to become proportional\nto labour. All that we have said in the preceding chapters about\n\u2039gratuitous utility\u203a and \u2039progressive community\u203a would be chimerical.\nIt would not be true that services are exchanged against services,\nin such a way that the gifts of God are transferred gratuitously\nfrom one man to another, down to the ultimate recipient, who is the\nconsumer. Each would continue to be paid, not only for his labour,\nbut for the natural forces which he had once succeeded in setting\nto work; in a word, society would be constituted on the principle\nof universal Monopoly, in place of on the principle of progressive\nCommunity.\n\nBut it is not so. God, who has bestowed on all His creatures heat,\nlight, gravitation, air, water, the soil, the marvels of vegetable\nlife, electricity, and countless other benefits which it is beyond\nmy power to enumerate,\u2014God, who has placed in the human breast the\nfeeling of \u2039personal interest\u203a, which, like a magnet, attracts\neverything to itself,\u2014God, I say, has placed also in the bosom of\nsociety another spring of action, which He has charged with the care\nof preserving to His benefits their original destination, which was,\nthat they should be gratuitous and common. This spring of action is\nCompetition.\n\nThus, Personal Interest is that irrepressible force belonging to the\nindividual which urges us on to progress and discovery, which [p293]\nspurs us on to exertion, but leads also to monopoly. Competition is\nthat force belonging to the species which is not less irrepressible,\nand which snatches progress, as it is realized, from individual\nhands, and makes it the common inheritance of the great family of\nmankind. These two forces, in each of which, considered individually,\nwe might find something to blame, thus constitute social Harmony, by\nthe play of their combinations, when regarded in conjunction.\n\nAnd we may remark, in passing, that we ought not to be at all\nsurprised that the individual interests of men, considered as\nproducers, should from the beginning have risen up against\nCompetition, should have rebuked it, and sought to destroy it\u2014calling\nin for this purpose the assistance of force, fraud, privilege,\nsophistry, monopoly, restriction, legislative protection, etc. The\nmorality of the means shows us clearly enough the morality of the\nend. But the astonishing and melancholy thing is, that science\nherself\u2014false science, it is true\u2014propagated with so much zeal by\nthe socialist schools, in the name of philanthropy, equality, and\nfraternity, should have espoused the cause of Individualism, in its\nnarrowest and most exclusive manifestation, and should have deserted\nthe cause of humanity.\n\nLet us see now how Competition acts:\u2014\n\nMan, under the influence of self-interest, is always, and\nnecessarily, on the outlook for such circumstances as may give the\ngreatest \u2039value\u203a to his services. He is not long in discovering that,\nas regards the gifts of God, he may be favoured in three ways:\n\n1. He may appropriate to his own exclusive use these gifts\nthemselves; or,\n\n2. He may alone know the \u2039process\u203a by which they can be made useful;\nor,\n\n3. He alone may possess the \u2039instrument\u203a by means of which their\nco-operation in the work of production can be secured.\n\nIn any of these cases, he gives \u2039little\u203a of his own labour in\nexchange for \u2039much\u203a of the labour of other men. His services have a\nhigh relative \u2039value\u203a, and we are led to believe that this excess\nof value resides in the natural agent. If it were so, this value\nwould not be subject to fall. Now, what proves that the value is in\nthe service is, that we find Competition diminishing both value and\nservice simultaneously.\n\n1. Natural agents\u2014the gifts of God\u2014are not distributed uniformly\nover the different countries of the world. What an infinite variety\nof vegetable productions are spread over the wide range [p294]\nextending from the region of the pine to the region of the palm\ntree! Here the soil is more productive, there the heat is more\nvivifying. In one quarter we meet with stone, in another with lime,\nin another with iron, copper, or coal. Water-power is not to be\nfound everywhere, nor can we everywhere avail ourselves to an equal\nextent of the power of the winds. Distance, from the objects we find\nessential, of itself makes a vast difference in the obstacles which\nour efforts encounter. Even the human faculties vary in some measure\nwith climate and races.\n\nIt is easy to see that, but for the law of Competition, this\ninequality in the distribution of the gifts of God would lead to a\ncorresponding inequality in the condition of men.\n\nWhoever happened to have within reach a natural advantage would\nprofit by it, but his fellow-men would not. He would not permit\nother men to participate in it through his instrumentality, without\nstipulating an excessive remuneration, the amount of which he\nwould have the power of fixing arbitrarily. He could attach to his\nservices any value he pleased. We have seen that the extreme limits\nbetween which it must be determined are, the \u2039pains taken\u203a by the\nman who renders the service and the \u2039pains saved\u203a to the man who\nreceives it. Competition alone hinders its being always raised to\nthe maximum. The inhabitant of the tropics, for example, would say\nto the European\u2014\u201cThanks to the sun\u2019s rays, I can, with labour\n\u2039equal to ten\u203a, procure a given quantity of sugar, coffee, cocoa, or\ncotton, whilst you, obliged in your cold climate to have recourse\nto hot-houses, stoves, and shelter, cannot obtain the same quantity\nbut with labour equal \u2039to a hundred\u203a. You wish to obtain my coffee,\nsugar, or cotton, and you would not be sorry were I to take into\naccount in the transaction only the pains which I have taken, the\nlabour I have expended. But what I regard principally is the pains,\nthe labour, I have saved you; for, aware that that is the limit\nof your resistance, I make it the limit of my exaction. As what I\nproduce with an amount of labour equal to \u2039ten\u203a, you could produce\nonly with labour equal to \u2039a hundred\u203a, were I to demand in exchange\nfor my sugar a commodity which cost you labour equal to 101, you\nwould certainly refuse; but all that I ask is labour equal to 99.\nYou may higgle and look gruff for a little, but you will come to my\nterms; for at this rate you have still an advantage by the exchange.\nYou think these terms unfair; but, after all, it is not to you but\nto me that God has vouchsafed the advantage of a higher temperature.\nI know that I am in a position to take advantage of this gift of\nProvidence, by depriving you of it unless you pay me a tax, for\n[p295] I have no competitors. Here, then, are my sugar, my cocoa, my\ncoffee, my cotton\u2014take them on the conditions I impose\u2014or raise them\nfor yourself\u2014or do without them.\u201d\n\nIt is true that the European might hold to the inhabitant of the\ntropics some such language as this: \u201cTurn over your soil, dig pits,\nsearch for iron and coal, and felicitate yourself if you find any;\nfor if not, it is my determination to push my exactions to an extreme\nalso. God has vouchsafed to us both precious gifts. We appropriate as\nmuch of them as we require, but we will not suffer others to touch\nthem without paying us a tax.\u201d\n\nEven if things took place in this way, scientific exactness would\nnot allow us to attribute to natural agents that Value which resides\nonly in \u2039services\u203a. But the error would be harmless, for the result\nwould be absolutely the same. Services would still be exchanged\nagainst services, but they would exhibit no tendency to conform\nto efforts, or labour, as a measure. The gifts of God would be\n\u2039personal\u203a privileges, not \u2039common\u203a benefits; and we might perhaps\nhave some reason to complain that the Author of things had treated\nus in a way so incurably unequal. Should we, then, be brethren?\nCould we regard ourselves as the children of a common Father? The\nabsence of Competition, that is to say of Liberty, would in the first\ninstance be an insuperable bar to Equality. The absence of Equality\nwould exclude all idea of Fraternity\u2014and nothing of the republican\nmotto[64] would then be left.\n\nBut let Competition be introduced, and we shall see it instantly\npresent an insuperable barrier to all such leonine bargains, to\nall such forestalling of the gifts of God, to all such revolting\npretensions in the appreciation of services, to all such inequalities\nwith efforts exchanged.\n\nAnd let us remark, first of all, that Competition acts forcibly,\ncalled forth as it is by these very inequalities. Labour betakes\nitself instinctively to the quarter where it is best remunerated,\nand never fails to put an end to this exceptional advantage, so that\nInequality is only a spur which urges us on in spite of ourselves\ntowards Equality. It is in truth one of the most beautiful \u2039final\nintentions\u203a observable in the social mechanism. Infinite Goodness,\nwhich manifests beneficence everywhere, would seem to have made\nchoice of the avaricious producer in order to effect an equitable\ndistribution among all; and truly it is a marvellous sight this, of\nself-interest realizing continually what it ever desires to avoid.\nMan, as a producer, is necessarily, inevitably, attracted by [p296]\nexcessive returns, which he thus reduces to the ordinary rate. He\npursues his own interest; and without knowing it, without wishing it,\nwithout seeking it, he promotes the general good.\n\nThus, to recur to our former example, the inhabitant of the tropics,\ntrafficking in the gifts of God, realizes an excessive remuneration,\nand by that very means brings down upon himself Competition.\nHuman labour exerts itself in proportion to the magnitude of the\ninequality, if I may use the expression, and never rests until that\ninequality is effaced. Under the action of Competition, we see the\ntropical labour, which was \u2039equal to ten\u203a, exchanged successively for\nEuropean labour equal to 80, 50, 40, 20, and finally to 10. Under\nthe empire of the natural laws of society, there is no reason why\nthis should not take place; that is to say, there is no reason why\nservices exchanged should not be measured by the labour performed,\nthe pains taken,\u2014the gifts of God on both sides being gratuitous and\ninto the bargain. We have only to consider, in order to appreciate\nand bless the revolution which is thus effected. In the first\ninstance, the labour undergone on both sides is equal, and this\nsatisfies the human mind, which always desires justice. Then what\nhas become of the gift of God? Attend to this, reader. No one has\nbeen deprived of it. In this respect we have not allowed ourselves\nto be imposed upon by the clamours of the tropical producer. The\nBrazilian, in as far as he is himself a consumer of sugar, or cotton,\nor coffee, never ceases to profit by the sun\u2019s rays\u2014his good fortune\ndoes not cease to aid him in the work of production. What he has\nlost is only the unjust power of levying a tax upon the consumption\nof the inhabitants of Europe. The beneficence of Providence, because\n\u2039gratuitous\u203a, has become, as it ought to become, \u2039common\u203a; for\n\u2039common\u203a and \u2039gratuitous\u203a are in reality the same thing.\n\nThe gift of God has become common\u2014and the reader will observe that I\navail myself here of a special fact to elucidate a phenomenon which\nis universal\u2014this gift, I say, has become common to all. This is not\ndeclamation, but the expression of a truth which is demonstrable. Why\nhas this beautiful phenomenon been misunderstood? Because community\nis realized under the form of \u2039value annihilated\u203a, and the mind\nwith difficulty lays hold of negations. But I ask, Is it not true\nthat when, in order to obtain a certain quantity of sugar, coffee,\nor cotton, I give only one-tenth of the labour which I should find\nit necessary to expend in producing the commodity myself, and this\nbecause the Brazilian sun performs the other nine-tenths of the\nwork,\u2014Is it not true, I say, that in that case I still exchange\nlabour for labour, and [p297] really and truly obtain, over and\nabove the Brazilian labour, and into the bargain, the co-operation of\nthe climate of the tropics? Can I not affirm with rigorous exactitude\nthat I have become, that all men have become, in the same way as the\nIndians and Americans, that is to say gratuitously, participators in\nthe liberality of nature, so far as the commodities in question are\nconcerned?\n\nEngland possesses productive coal mines. That is no doubt a great\n\u2039local\u203a advantage, more especially if we suppose, as I shall do for\nthe sake of argument, that the Continent possesses no coal mines.\nApart from the consideration of exchange, the advantage which this\ngives to the people of England is the possession of fuel in greater\nabundance than other nations,\u2014fuel obtained with less labour, and\nat less expense of useful time. As soon as exchange comes into\noperation\u2014keeping out of view Competition\u2014the exclusive possession of\nthese mines enables the people of England to demand a considerable\nremuneration, and to set a high price upon their labour. Not being in\na situation to perform this labour ourselves, or procure what we want\nfrom another quarter, we have no alternative but to submit. English\nlabour devoted to this description of work will be well remunerated;\nin other words, coal will be dear, and the bounty of nature may be\nconsidered as conferred on the people of one nation, and not on\nmankind at large.\n\nBut this state of things cannot last; for a great natural and social\nlaw is opposed to it\u2014Competition. For the very reason that this\nspecies of labour is largely remunerated in England, it will be in\ngreat demand there, for men are always in quest of high remuneration.\nThe number of miners will increase, both in consequence of the\nsons of miners devoting themselves to their fathers\u2019 trade, and in\nconsequence of men transferring their industry to mining from other\ndepartments. They will offer to work for a smaller recompense, and\ntheir remuneration will go on diminishing until it reach the \u2039normal\nrate\u203a, or the rate generally given in the country for analogous work.\nThis means that the price of English coal will fall in France; that\na given amount of French labour will procure a greater and greater\nquantity of English coal, or rather of English labour incorporated\nand worked up in coal; and, finally (and this is what I pray you to\nremark), that the gift which nature would appear to have bestowed\nupon England has in reality been conferred on the whole human\nrace. The coal of Newcastle is brought within the reach of all men\n\u2039gratuitously\u203a, as far as the mere material is concerned. This is\nneither a paradox nor an exaggeration,\u2014it is brought within their\nreach like the [p298] water of the brook, on the single condition\nof going to fetch it, or remunerating those who undertake that\nlabour for us. When we purchase coal, it is not the coal that we\npay for, but the labour necessary to extract it and transport it.\nAll that we do is to give a corresponding amount of labour which\nwe have worked up or incorporated in wine or in silk. So true is\nit that the liberality of nature has been extended to France, that\nthe labour which we refund is not greater than that which it would\nhave been necessary to undergo had the deposit of coal been in\nFrance. Competition has established equality between the two nations\nas far as coal is concerned, except as regards the inevitable and\ninconsiderable difference resulting from distance and carriage.\n\nI have given two examples, and, to render the phenomenon more\nstriking, I have selected international transactions, which are\neffected on a great scale. I fear I may thus have diverted the\nreader\u2019s attention from the same phenomena acting incessantly around\nus in our every-day transactions. Let him take in his hand the\nmost familiar objects, a glass, a nail, a loaf, a piece of cloth,\na book. Let him meditate on such ordinary products, and reflect\nhow great an amount of gratuitous utility would never but for\nCompetition have become \u2039common\u203a for humanity at large, although\nremaining gratuitous for the producer. He will find that, thanks to\nCompetition, in purchasing his loaf he pays nothing for the action\nof the sun, nothing for the rain, nothing for the frost, nothing for\nthe laws of vegetable physiology, nothing even for the powers of\nthe soil, despite all that has been said on that subject; nothing\nfor the law of gravitation set to work by the miller; nothing for\nthe law of combustion set to work by the baker; nothing for the\nhorse-power set to work by the carrier; that he pays only for the\nservices rendered, the pains taken, by human agents; and let him\nreflect that, but for Competition, he must have paid, over and above,\na tax for the intervention of all these natural agents; that that\ntax would have had no other limit than the difficulty which he might\nhimself have experienced in procuring the loaf by his own efforts,\nand that consequently a whole life would not have been sufficient to\nsupply the remuneration which would have been demanded of him. Let\nhim think farther, that he does not make use of a single commodity\nwhich might not give rise to the same reflections, and that these\nreflections apply not to him only, but to all mankind, and he will\nthen comprehend the radical error of those socialist theories which,\nlooking only at the surface of things, the epidermis of society, have\nbeen set up with so much levity against Competition, in other words,\nagainst human Liberty. He will then regard [p299] Competition, which\npreserves to the gifts of nature, unequally distributed, their common\nand gratuitous character, as the principle of a just and natural\nequalization; he will admire it as the force which holds in check\nthe egotism of individual interest, with which at the same time it\nis so artistically combined as to serve both as a curb to avarice\nand a spur to exertion; and he will bless it as a most striking\nmanifestation of God\u2019s impartial solicitude for the good of all His\ncreatures.\n\nFrom what has been said, we may deduce the solution of one of the\nproblems which have been most keenly controverted, namely, that of\nfree trade as between nation and nation. If it be true, as seems to\nme incontestable, that Competition leads the various countries of\nthe globe to exchange with one another nothing else than labour,\nexertion more and more equalized, and to transfer at the same time\nreciprocally, and \u2039into the bargain\u203a, the natural advantages that\neach possesses; how blind and absurd must those men be who exclude\nforeign products by legislative measures, under the pretext that they\nare cheap, and have little value in proportion to their aggregate\nutility; that is to say, precisely because they include a large\nproportion of gratuitous utility!\n\nI have said, and I repeat it, that I have confidence in a theory when\nI find it in accordance with universal practice. Now, it is certain\nthat countries would effect many exchanges with each other were they\nnot interdicted \u2039by force\u203a. It requires the bayonet to prevent them;\nand for that reason it is wrong to prevent them.\n\n2. Another circumstance places certain men in a favourable and\nexceptional situation as regards remuneration\u2014I mean the personal and\nexclusive knowledge of the \u2039processes\u203a by means of which \u2039natural\nagents\u203a can alone be appropriated. What we term invention is a\nconquest by human genius; and these beautiful and pacific conquests,\nwhich are, in the first instance, a source of wealth for those who\nachieve them, become by-and-by, under the action of Competition, the\n\u2039common and gratuitous\u203a patrimony of all.\n\nThe forces of nature belong indeed to all. Gravitation, for instance,\nis common property; it surrounds us, pervades us, commands us. And\nyet were there but one mode of making gravitation co-operate towards\na useful and determinate result, and but one man acquainted with\nthat mode, this man might set a high price upon his work, or refuse\nto work except in exchange for a very high remuneration. His demands\nwould have no limit [p300] until they reached the point at which\nthe consumers must make greater sacrifices than the old processes\nentailed upon them. He may have contrived, for example, to annihilate\nnine-tenths of the labour necessary to produce a certain commodity,\n\u2039x\u203a. But \u2039x\u203a has at present a current market-price determined by\nthe labour which its production by the ordinary methods exacts. The\ninventor sells \u2039x\u203a at the market-price; in other words, his labour\nreceives a recompense ten times higher than that of his rivals. This\nis the first phase of the invention.\n\nSo far we discover nothing unjust or unfair. It is just and equitable\nthat the man who makes the world acquainted with a useful process\nshould be rewarded for it;\u2014\u2039A chacun selon sa capacit\u00e9\u203a.\n\nObserve, too, that as yet mankind, with the exception of the\ninventor, have gained nothing unless virtually, and in perspective,\nso to speak, since in order to procure the commodity \u2039x\u203a, each\nacquirer must make a sacrifice equal to the former cost.\n\nNow, however, the invention enters its second phase\u2014that of\n\u2039imitation\u203a. Excessive remuneration awakens covetousness. The new\nprocess is more generally adopted; the price of the commodity \u2039x\u203a\ncontinues to fall, and the remuneration goes on diminishing in\nproportion as the imitation becomes more distant in date from the\noriginal invention, that is to say, in proportion as it becomes more\neasy, and for that reason less meritorious. Surely there is nothing\nin all this that cannot be avowed by a legislation the most advanced\nand the most impartial.\n\nAt length the invention reaches its third phase, its final stage,\nthat of universal \u2039diffusion\u203a, when it becomes \u2039common\u203a and\n\u2039gratuitous\u203a. The cycle has been completed when Competition has\nbrought back the remuneration of the producers of \u2039x\u203a to the general\nand normal rate yielded by all analogous work. Then the nine-tenths\nof the labour, which by the hypothesis we supposed to be saved by the\ninvention, become an acquisition to mankind at large. The utility of\nthe commodity \u2039x\u203a remains the same; but nine-tenths of that commodity\nare now the product of gravitation, a force which was formerly\ncommon to all in principle, but has now become common to all in this\nspecial application. So true is this, that all the consumers of that\ncommodity throughout the world may now acquire it with one-tenth\nof the labour which it formerly cost. The surplus labour has been\nentirely annihilated by the new process.\n\nIf we consider that there is no human invention which has not\ndescribed this circle, that \u2039x\u203a is here an algebraical sign which\nrepresents corn, clothing, books, ships,\u2014in the production of\nwhich an [p301] incalculable amount of Labour or Value has been\nannihilated, by the plough, the spinning-jenny, the printing-press,\nand the sail; that this observation is applicable to the humblest of\ntools as well as to the most complicated mechanism, to the nail, the\nwedge, the lever, as well as to the steam-engine and the electric\ntelegraph, we shall come, I trust, to understand the solution of\nthis grand problem of human society, \u2039that an amount of utility and\nenjoyment, always greater, and more and more equally distributed,\ncomes to remunerate each determinate quantity of human labour\u203a.\n\n3. I have shown how Competition brings into the domain of the \u2039common\nand gratuitous\u203a both \u2039natural agents\u203a and the \u2039processes\u203a by which\nthey are made operative. It remains to show that Competition executes\nthe same function with reference to the instruments by means of which\nwe set these agents to work. It is not enough that there should exist\nin nature a force, such as heat, light, gravitation, electricity;\nit is not enough that intelligence conceives the means of making\nthat force available;\u2014there must be \u2039instruments\u203a to realize this\nconception of the mind, and \u2039provisions\u203a to maintain those who devote\nthemselves to it during the operation.\n\nAs regards remuneration, there is a third circumstance which favours\na man, or a class of men, namely, the possession of \u2039Capital\u203a.\nThe man who has in his hands the tools necessary for labour, the\nmaterials to work upon, and the provisions for his subsistence during\nthe operation, is in a situation to determine his own remuneration.\nThe principle of this is equitable, for capital is only anterior\nlabour which has not yet been remunerated. The capitalist is in a\ngood position to impose terms; but observe that, even when free from\nCompetition, there is a limit which his demands never can exceed\u2014this\nlimit is the point at which his remuneration would absorb all the\nadvantages of the service which he renders. In these circumstances,\nit is unreasonable to talk, as is so often done, of the \u2039tyranny of\ncapital\u203a, seeing that even in the most extreme cases neither its\npresence nor its absence can injure the condition of the labourer.\nLike the inhabitant of the tropics, who has an intensity of heat at\nhis disposal which nature has denied to colder regions\u2014or like the\ninventor, who possesses the secret of a process unknown to other\nmen\u2014all that the capitalist can say is: \u201cWould you profit by my\nlabour\u2014I set such a price upon it; if you find it too high, do as you\nhave done hitherto\u2014do without it.\u201d\n\nBut Competition takes place among capitalists. Tools, materials, and\nprovisions, contribute to the creation of utilities only [p302]\nwhen employed. There is an emulation, then, among capitalists to\nfind employment for their capital. All that this emulation forces\nthem to abate from the extreme demand, of which I have just assigned\nthe limits, resolving itself into a reduction of the price of the\ncommodity, is so much clear profit, so much \u2039gratuitous\u203a gain, for\nthe consumer, that is to say, for mankind.\n\nThis gain, however, can clearly never be \u2039absolutely gratuitous\u203a;\nfor, since capital represents labour, that capital must always\npossess in itself the principle of remuneration.\n\nTransactions relative to Capital are subject to the universal law\nof exchanges; and exchanges take place only because there is an\nadvantage for the two contracting parties in effecting them,\u2014an\nadvantage which has no doubt a tendency to be equalized, but which\naccidentally may be greater for the one than for the other. There is\na limit to the remuneration of capital, beyond which limit no one\nwill consent to borrow it. This limit is the minimum of service for\nthe borrower. In the same way, there is a limit beyond which no one\nwill consent to lend, and this limit is the minimum of remuneration\nfor the lender. This is self-evident. If the requirements of one\nof the contracting parties are pushed so far as to reduce to zero\nthe benefit to be derived by the other from the transaction, the\nloan becomes impossible. The remuneration of capital oscillates\nbetween these two extreme terms, pressed towards the maximum by the\nCompetition of borrowers, brought back towards the minimum by the\nCompetition of lenders; so that, by a necessity which is in harmony\nwith justice, it rises when capital is scarce, and falls when it is\nabundant.\n\nMany Economists imagine that the number of borrowers increases more\nrapidly than it is possible to create capital to lend to them, whence\nit would follow that the natural tendency of interest is to rise.\nThe \u2039fact\u203a is decidedly the other way, and on all sides accordingly\nwe perceive civilisation lowering the return for capital. This\nreturn, it is said, is 30 or 40 per cent. at Rome, 20 per cent. in\nBrazil, 10 per cent. in Algeria, 8 per cent. in Spain, 6 per cent. in\nItaly, 5 per cent. in Germany, 4 per cent. in France, 3 per cent. in\nEngland, and still less in Holland. Now all that part of the return\nfor capital which is annihilated by progress, although lost to the\ncapitalist, is not lost to mankind. If interest, originally at 40 per\ncent., is reduced to 2 per cent., all commodities will be freed from\n38 parts in 40 of this element of cost. They will reach the consumer\nfreed from this charge to the extent of nineteen-twentieths. This is\na force which, like \u2039natural agents\u203a, like expeditive \u2039processes\u203a,\nresolves itself into \u2039abundance\u203a, \u2039equalization\u203a, [p303] and,\nfinally, into an elevation of the general level of the human race.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI have still to say a few words on the Competition of labourer with\nlabourer,\u2014a subject which in these days has given rise to so much\nsentimental declamation. But have we not already exhausted this\nsubject? I have shown that, owing to the action of Competition, men\ncannot long receive an exceptional remuneration for the co-operation\nof \u2039natural forces\u203a, for their acquaintance with new \u2039processes\u203a,\nor for the possession of \u2039instruments\u203a by means of which they avail\nthemselves of these forces. This proves that efforts have a tendency\nto be exchanged on a footing of equality, or, in other words, that\nvalue tends to become proportionate to labour. Then I do not see\nwhat can justly be termed the Competition of labourers; still less\ndo I see how it can injure their condition, since in this point of\nview workmen are themselves the consumers. The working class means\neverybody, and it is precisely this vast community which reaps\nultimately the benefits of Competition, and all the advantage of\nvalues successively annihilated by progress.\n\nThe evolution is this: Services are exchanged against services,\nvalues against values. When a man (or a class) appropriates a\nnatural agent or a new process, his demands are regulated, not by\nthe labour which he undergoes, but by the labour which he saves to\nothers. He presses his exactions to the extreme limit, without ever\nbeing able to injure the condition of others. He sets the greatest\npossible value on his services. But gradually, by the operation of\nCompetition, this value tends to become proportioned to the labour\nperformed; so that the evolution is brought to a conclusion when\nequal labour is exchanged for equal labour, both serving as the\nvehicle of an ever-increasing amount of gratuitous utility, to the\nbenefit of the community at large. In such circumstances, to assert\nthat Competition can be injurious to the labourer, would be to fall\ninto a palpable contradiction.\n\nAnd yet this is constantly asserted, and constantly believed; and\nwhy? Because by the word labourer is understood not the great\nlabouring community, but a particular class. You divide the community\ninto two classes. On one side you place all those who are possessed\nof capital, who live wholly or partly on anterior labour, or by\nintellectual labour, or the proceeds of taxation; on the other, you\nplace those who have nothing but their hands, who live by wages,\nor\u2014to use the consecrated expression\u2014the \u2039prol\u00e9taires\u203a. You look to\nthe relative position of these two classes, [p304] and you ask if,\nin that relative position, the Competition which takes place among\nthose who live by wages is not fatal to them?\n\nThe situation of men of this last class, it is said, is essentially\nprecarious. As they receive their wages from day to day, they live\nfrom hand to mouth. In the discussion which, under a free r\u00e9gime,\nprecedes every bargain, they cannot wait; they must find work for\nto-morrow on any terms, under pain of death. If this be not strictly\ntrue of them all, it is at least true of many of them, and that\nis enough to depress the entire class; for those who are the most\npressed and the poorest capitulate first, and establish the general\nrate of wages. The result is, that wages tend to fall to the lowest\nrate which is compatible with bare subsistence\u2014and in this state of\nthings, the occurrence of the least excess of Competition among the\nlabourers is a veritable calamity, for, as regards them, the question\nis not one of diminished prosperity, but of simple existence.\n\nUndoubtedly there is much that is true, much that is too true, \u2039in\nfact\u203a, in this description. To deny the sufferings and wretchedness\nof that class of men who bear so material a part in the business of\nproduction, would be to shut our eyes to the light of day. It is, in\nfact, this deplorable condition of a great number of our brethren\nwhich forms the subject of what has been justly called the \u2039social\nproblem\u203a; for although other classes of society are visited also\nwith disquietudes, sufferings, sudden changes of fortune, commercial\ncrises, and economic convulsions, it may nevertheless be said with\ntruth that \u2039liberty\u203a would be accepted as a solution of the problem,\ndid mere liberty not appear powerless to cure that rankling sore\nwhich we denominate Pauperism.\n\nAnd although it is here, pre-eminently, that the social problem lies,\nthe reader will not expect that I should enter upon it in this place.\nIts solution, please God, may be the result of the entire work, but\nit clearly cannot be the result of a single chapter.\n\nI am at present engaged in the exposition of general laws, which I\nbelieve to be harmonious; and I trust the reader will now begin to be\nconvinced that these laws exist, and that their action tends towards\ncommunity, and consequently towards equality. But I have not denied\nthat the action of these laws is profoundly troubled by disturbing\ncauses. If, then, we now encounter inequality as a stubborn \u2039fact\u203a,\nhow can we be in circumstances to form a judgment regarding it until\nwe have first of all investigated the regular laws of the social\norder, and the causes which disturb the action of these laws? [p305]\n\nOn the other hand, I have ignored neither the existence of evil nor\nits mission. I have ventured to assert, that \u2039free-will\u203a having been\nvouchsafed to man, it is not necessary to confine the term \u2039harmony\u203a\nto an aggregate from which evil should be excluded; for free-will\nimplies error, at least possible error, and error is evil. Social\nharmony, like everything which concerns man, is relative. Evil\nis a necessary part of the machinery destined to overcome error,\nignorance, injustice, by bringing into play two great laws of our\nnature\u2014responsibility and solidarity.\n\nNow, taking pauperism as an existing fact, are we to impute it to the\nnatural laws which govern the social order,\u2014or to human institutions\nwhich act in a sense contrary to these laws,\u2014or, finally, to the\npeople themselves, who are the victims, and who, by their errors and\ntheir faults, have brought down this severe chastisement on their own\nheads?\n\nIn other words, does pauperism exist by providential destination,\u2014or,\non the contrary, by what remains of the artificial in our political\norganization,\u2014or as a personal retribution? Fatality, Injustice,\nResponsibility\u2014to which of these three causes must we attribute this\nfrightful sore?\n\nI hesitate not to assert that it cannot be the result of the natural\nlaws which have hitherto been the subject of our investigations,\nseeing that these laws all tend to equalization by amelioration; that\nis to say, to bring all men to one and the same level, which level is\ncontinually rising. This, then, is not the place to seek a solution\nof the problem of pauperism.\n\nAt present, if we would consider specially that class of labourers\nwho execute the most material portion of the work of production, and\nwho, in general, having no interest in the profits, live upon a fixed\nremuneration called \u2039wages\u203a, the question we have to investigate\nis this: Apart from the consideration of good or bad economic\ninstitutions\u2014apart from the consideration of the evils which the men\nwho live by wages [the \u2039prol\u00e9taires\u203a] bring upon themselves by their\nfaults\u2014what is, as regards them, the proper effect of Competition?\n\nFor this class, as for all, the operation of Competition is twofold.\nThey feel it both as buyers and as sellers of services. The error\nof those who write upon these subjects is never to look but at one\nside of the question, like natural philosophers, who, if they took\ninto account only centrifugal force, would never cease to believe and\nto prophesy that all was over with us. Grant their false datum, and\nyou will see with what irrefragable logic they conduct you to this\nsinister conclusion. The same may be said of the [p306] lamentations\nwhich the Socialists found upon the exclusive consideration of\ncentrifugal Competition, if I may be allowed the expression. They\nforget to take into account centripetal Competition; and that is\nsufficient to reduce their doctrines to puerile declamation. They\nforget that the workman, when he presents himself in the market with\nthe wages he has earned, becomes a centre towards which innumerable\nbranches of industry tend, and that he profits then by that universal\nCompetition of which all trades complain in their turn.\n\nIt is true that the labourer, when he regards himself as a producer,\nas the person who supplies labour or services, complains also of\nCompetition. Grant, then, that Competition benefits him on one side,\nwhile it pinches him on the other, the question comes to be, Is the\nbalance favourable or unfavourable\u2014or is there compensation?\n\nI must have explained myself very obscurely if the reader does not\nsee that in the play of this marvellous mechanism, the action of\nCompetition, apparently antagonistic, tends to the singular and\nconsoling result, that there is a balance which is favourable to all\nat the same time; caused by gratuitous Utility continually enlarging\nthe circle of production, and falling continually into the domain\nof Community. Now, that which becomes common is profitable to all\nwithout hurting any one; we may even say\u2014for this is mathematically\ncertain\u2014is profitable to each in proportion to his previous poverty.\nIt is this portion of \u2039gratuitous\u203a utility, forced by Competition\nto become \u2039common\u203a, which causes the tendency of value to become\nproportioned to labour, to the evident benefit of the labourer. This,\ntoo, renders evident the social solution which I have pressed so much\non the attention of the reader, and which is only concealed by the\nillusions of habit,\u2014for a determinate amount of labour each receives\nan amount of satisfactions which tends to be increased and equalized.\n\nMoreover, the condition of the labourer does not depend upon one\neconomic law, but upon all. To become acquainted with that condition,\nto discover the prospects and the future of the labourer, this is\nPolitical Economy; for what other object could that science have in\nview?\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. But I am wrong\u2014we have still spoliators. What causes the\nequivalence of services? Liberty. What impairs that equivalence?\nOppression. Such is the circle we have still to traverse.\n\nAs regards the condition of that class of labourers who execute the\nmore immediate work of production, it cannot be appreciated until\nwe are in a situation to discover in what manner the law of [p307]\nCompetition is combined with that of Wages and Population, and also\nwith the disturbing effects of unequal taxes and monopolies.\n\nI shall add but a few words on the subject of Competition. It is\nvery clear that it has no natural tendency to diminish the amount of\nthe enjoyments which are distributed over society. Does Competition\ntend to make this distribution unequal? If there be anything evident\nin the world, it is that after having, if I may so express myself,\nattached to each service, to each value, a larger proportion of\nutility, Competition labours incessantly to level the services\nthemselves, to render them proportional to efforts. Is Competition\nnot the spur which urges men into profitable branches of industry,\nand urges them out of those which are unprofitable? Its proper\naction, then, is to realize equality more and more, by elevating the\nsocial level.\n\nLet us not misunderstand each other, however, on this word equality.\nIt does not imply that all men are to have the same remuneration, but\nthat they are to have a remuneration proportioned to the quantity,\nand even to the quality of their efforts.\n\nA multitude of circumstances contribute to render the remuneration\nof labour unequal (I speak here only of free labour, subject to\nCompetition); but if we look at it more narrowly, we shall find that\nthis fancied inequality, almost always just and necessary, is in\nreality nothing else than substantial equality.\n\n\u2039C\u00e6teris paribus\u203a, there are larger profits in those trades which are\nattended with danger than in those which are not so; in those which\nrequire a lengthened apprenticeship, and expensive training long\nunremunerated\u2014which imply the patient exercise of certain domestic\nvirtues\u2014than in those where mere muscular exertion is sufficient; in\nprofessions which demand a cultivated mind and refined taste, than\nin trades which require mere brute force. Is not all this just? Now,\n\u2039Competition\u203a establishes necessarily these distinctions\u2014and society\nhas no need of the assistance of Fourier or Louis Blanc in the matter.\n\nOf all these circumstances, that which operates in the greatest\nnumber of cases is the inequality of instruction. Now here, as\neverywhere else, we find Competition exerting its twofold action,\nlevelling classes, and elevating society.\n\nIf we suppose society to be composed of two layers or strata,\nplaced one above another, in one of which the intelligent principle\nprevails, and in the other the principle of brute force; and if\nwe study the natural relations of these two layers, we shall\neasily discover a force of attraction in the one, and a force of\naspiration in the other, which co-operate towards their fusion.\nThe very inequality [p308] of profits breathes into the inferior\nranks an inextinguishable ardour to mount to the region of ease\nand leisure; and this ardour is seconded by the superior knowledge\nwhich distinguishes the higher classes. The methods of teaching are\nimproved; books fall in price; instruction is acquired in less time,\nand at a smaller cost; science, formerly monopolized by a class or a\ncaste, and veiled in a dead language, or sealed up in hieroglyphics,\nis written and printed in the vulgar tongue; it pervades the\natmosphere, if I may use the expression, and is breathed as freely as\nthe air of heaven.\n\nNor is this all. At the same time that an education more universal\nand more equal brings the two classes of society into closer\napproximation, some very important economic phenomena, which are\nconnected with the great law of Competition, come to aid and\naccelerate their fusion. The progress of the mechanical arts\ndiminishes continually the proportion of manual labour. The division\nof labour, by simplifying and separating each of the operations\nwhich concur in a productive result, brings within the reach of\nall, branches of industry which could formerly be engaged in only\nby a few. Moreover, a great many employments which required at the\noutset much knowledge and varied acquirements, fall, by the mere\nlapse of time, into \u2039routine\u203a, and come within the sphere of action\nof classes generally the least instructed, as has happened in the\ncase of agriculture. Agricultural processes, which in ancient times\nprocured to their discoverers the honours of an apotheosis, are now\ninherited and almost monopolized by the rudest of men; and to such a\ndegree, that this important branch of human industry is, so to speak,\nentirely withdrawn from the \u2039well-educated\u203a classes.\n\nFrom the preceding observations it is possible that a false\nconclusion may be drawn. It may be said\u2014\u201cWe perceive, indeed, that\nCompetition lowers remuneration in all countries, in all departments\nof industry, in all ranks, and levels, \u2039by reducing\u203a, it; but in that\ncase the wages of unskilled labour, of physical exertion, must become\nthe type, the standard, of all remuneration.\u201d\n\nI must have been misunderstood, if you have not perceived that\n\u2039Competition\u203a, which labours to bring down all excessive remuneration\ntowards an average more and more uniform, raises \u2039necessarily\u203a this\naverage. I grant that it pinches men in their capacity of producers,\nbut in so doing it ameliorates the condition of the human race\nin the only way in which it can reasonably be elevated, namely,\nby an increase of material prosperity, ease, leisure, moral and\nintellectual improvement, in a word, by enlarging \u2039consumption\u203a.\n[p309]\n\nWill it be said that, in point of fact, mankind have not made the\nprogress that this theory seems to imply?\n\nI answer, in the first place, that in modern society Competition\nis far from occupying the sphere of its natural action. Our laws\nrun counter to it, at least in as great a degree as they favour its\naction; and when it is asked whether the inequality of conditions is\nowing to its presence or its absence, it is sufficient to look at\nthe men who make the greatest figure among us, and dazzle us by the\ndisplay of their scandalous wealth, in order to assure ourselves that\ninequality, so far as it is artificial and unjust, has for foundation\nconquests, monopolies, restrictions, privileged offices, functions,\nand places, ministerial trafficking, public borrowing,\u2014all things\nwith which Competition has nothing to do.\n\nMoreover, I believe we have overlooked the real progress which\nmankind have made since the very recent epoch to which we must\nassign the partial enfranchisement of labour. It has been justly\nsaid that much philosophy is needed in order to discern facts which\nare continually passing before us. We are not astonished at what an\nhonest and laborious family of the working class daily consumes,\nbecause habit has made us familiar with this strange phenomenon. If,\nhowever, we compare the comfortable circumstances in which such a\nfamily finds itself, with the condition in which it would be placed\nunder a social order which excluded Competition\u2014if statisticians,\narmed with an instrument of sufficient precision, could measure,\nas with a dynamometer, the relation of a working man\u2019s labour to\nhis enjoyments at two different periods, we should acknowledge that\nliberty, restrained as it still is, has accomplished in his favour\na prodigy which its very permanency hinders us from remarking. The\ncontingent of human efforts which, in relation to a given result, has\nbeen annihilated, is truly incalculable. Time was when the artisan\u2019s\nday\u2019s labour would not have sufficed to procure him the most trumpery\nalmanac. At the present day, for a halfpenny, or the fiftieth\npart of his day\u2019s wages, he can obtain a gazette containing the\nmatter of a volume. The same might be said of clothing, locomotion,\ncarriage, lighting, and a multitude of other satisfactions. To what\nis this result owing? To this, that an enormous proportion of human\nlabour, which had formerly to be paid for, has been handed over\nto be performed by the gratuitous forces of nature. It is a value\nannihilated, and to be no longer recompensed. Under the action of\nCompetition, it has been replaced by common and gratuitous utility.\nAnd it is worthy of remark, that when, in consequence of progress,\nthe price of any commodity comes to fall, [p310] the labour \u2039saved\u203a\nto the poor purchaser in obtaining it is always \u2039proportionally\u203a\ngreater than the labour saved to the rich purchaser. That is\ndemonstrable.\n\nIn fine, this constantly increasing current of utilities which labour\npours into all the veins of the body politic, and which Competition\ndistributes, is not all summed up in an accession of wealth. It is\nabsorbed, in great part, by the stream of advancing numbers. It\nresolves itself into an increase of population, according to laws\nwhich have an intimate affinity with the subject which now engages\nus, and which will be explained in another chapter.\n\nLet us now stop for a moment and take a rapid glance at the ground\nover which we have just travelled.\n\nMan has wants which are unlimited\u2014desires which are insatiable. In\norder to provide for them he has materials and agents which are\nfurnished to him by nature\u2014faculties, instruments, all things which\n\u2039labour\u203a sets in motion. Labour is the resource which has been most\nequally distributed to all. Each man seeks instinctively, and of\nnecessity, to avail himself to the utmost of the co-operation of\nnatural forces, of talents natural and acquired, and of capital, in\norder that the result of this co-operation may be a greater amount\nof utilities produced, or, what comes to the same thing, a greater\namount of satisfactions acquired. Thus, the more active co-operation\nof natural agents, the indefinite development of intelligence,\nthe progressive increase of capital, give rise to this phenomenon\n(which at first sight seems strange)\u2014that a given quantity of labour\nfurnishes an always increasing amount of utilities, and that each\nman can, without despoiling anyone, obtain a mass of consumable\ncommodities out of all proportion to what his own efforts could have\nrealized.\n\nBut this phenomenon, which is the result of the divine harmony which\nProvidence has established in the mechanism of society, would have\nbeen detrimental to society, by introducing the germ of indefinite\ninequality, had there not been combined with it a harmony no less\nadmirable, namely, Competition, which is one of the branches of the\ngreat law of human \u2039solidarity\u203a.\n\nIn fact, were it possible for an individual, a family, a class, a\nnation, possessed of certain natural advantages, of an important\ndiscovery in manufactures, or of the instruments of production in the\nshape of accumulated capital, to be set permanently free from the law\nof Competition, it is evident that this individual, this family, this\nnation, would have for ever the monopoly of an exceptionally high\nremuneration, at the expense of mankind at large. In what situation\nshould we be if the inhabitants of the tropical [p311] regions,\nset free from all rivalry with each other, could exact from us, in\nexchange for their sugar, their coffee, their cotton, their spices,\nnot the equivalent of labour equal to their own, but an amount of\nlabour equal to what we must ourselves undergo in order to produce\nthese commodities under our inclement skies? What an incalculable\ndistance would separate the various conditions of men, if the race\nof Cadmus alone could read, if the direct descendants of Triptolemus\nalone could handle the plough, if printing were confined to the\nfamily of Gutenberg, cotton-spinning to the children of Arkwright,\nand if the posterity of Watt could alone work the steam engine!\nProvidence has not ordered things thus, but, on the contrary, has\nplaced in the social machine a spring whose power is only less\nsurprising than its simplicity\u2014a spring by the operation of which all\nproductive power, all superiority in manufacturing processes, in a\nword, all exclusive advantages, slip from the hands of the producer,\nhaving remained there, in the shape of exceptional remuneration, only\nlong enough to excite his zeal, and come at length to enlarge the\ncommon and gratuitous patrimony of mankind, and resolve themselves\ninto individual enjoyments always progressive, and more and more\nequally distributed\u2014this spring is \u2039Competition\u203a. We have already\nseen its economical effects\u2014and it now remains for us to take a rapid\nsurvey of its moral and political consequences. I shall confine\nmyself to the more important of these.\n\nSuperficial thinkers have accused Competition of introducing\n\u2039antagonism\u203a among men. This is true and inevitable, if we consider\nmen only in the capacity of producers, but, regarded from another\npoint of view, as consumers, the matter appears in a very different\nlight. You then see this very Competition binding together\nindividuals, families, classes, nations, and races, in the bonds of\nuniversal fraternity.\n\nSeeing that the advantages which appear at first to be the property\nof certain individuals become, by an admirable law of Divine\nbeneficence, the common patrimony of all; seeing that the \u2039natural\nadvantages\u203a of situation, of fertility, of temperature, of mineral\nriches, and even of manufacturing aptitude, slip in a short time from\nthe hands of producers, by reason of their competition with each\nother, and turn exclusively to the profit of consumers, it follows\nthat there is no country which is not interested in the advancement\nand prosperity of all other countries. Every step of progress made in\nthe East is wealth in perspective for the West. Fuel discovered in\nthe South warms the men of the North. Great Britain makes progress\nin her spinning mills; [p312] but her capitalists do not alone reap\nthe profit, for the interest of money does not rise; nor do her\noperatives, for the wages of labour remain the same. In the long-run,\nit is the Russian, the Frenchman, the Spaniard; in a word, it is\nthe human race, who obtain equal satisfactions at a less expense of\nlabour, or, what comes to the same thing, superior satisfactions with\nequal labour.\n\nI have spoken only of the advantages\u2014I might say as much of the\ndisadvantages\u2014which affect certain nations and certain regions.\nThe peculiar action of Competition is to render general what was\nbefore exclusive. It acts exactly on the principle of \u2039Insurance\u203a.\nA scourge visits the fields of the agriculturist, and the consumers\nof the bread are the sufferers. An unjust tax is laid upon the vines\nof France, and this means dear \u2039wine\u203a for all wine-drinkers. Thus,\nadvantages and disadvantages, which have any permanence, only glance\nupon individuals, classes, or nations. Their providential destination\nin the long-run is to affect humanity at large, and elevate or\nlower the condition of mankind. Hence to envy a certain people the\nfertility of their soil, or the beauty of their harbours and rivers,\nor the warmth of their sun, is to overlook the advantages in which\nwe are called to participate. It is to contemn the abundance which\nis offered to us. It is to regret the labour which is saved to us.\nHence national jealousies are not only perverse feelings;\u2014they are\nabsurd. To hurt others is to injure ourselves. To place obstacles in\nthe way of others\u2014tariffs, wars, or workmen\u2019s strikes\u2014is to obstruct\nour own progress. Hence bad passions have their chastisement, just\nas generous sentiments have their reward. The inevitable sanction of\nan exact distributive justice addresses itself to men\u2019s interests,\nenlightens opinion, proclaims and establishes among men these maxims\nof eternal truth: that the useful is one of the aspects of the just;\nthat Liberty is the fairest of social Harmonies; and that Honesty is\nthe best Policy.\n\nChristianity has introduced into the world the grand principle of\nhuman fraternity. It addresses itself to our hearts, our feelings,\nour noble instincts. Political Economy recommends the same principle\nto our cool judgment; and, exhibiting the connexion of effects\nwith their causes, reconciles in consoling harmony the vigilant\ncalculations of interest with the inspirations of the sublimest\nmorality.\n\nA second consequence which flows from this doctrine is, that society\nis truly a \u2039Community\u203a. Messieurs Owen and Cabet may save themselves\nthe trouble of seeking the solution of the great [p313] \u2039Communist\u203a\nproblem\u2014it is found already\u2014it results not from their arbitrary\ncombinations, but from the organization given by God to man, and\nto society. Natural forces, expeditive processes, instruments of\nproduction, everything is \u2039common\u203a among men, or has a tendency to\nbecome so, everything \u2039except pains\u203a, labour, individual effort.\nThere is, and there can be, but one \u2039inequality\u203a\u2014an inequality which\nCommunists the most absolute must admit,\u2014that which results from\nthe inequality of efforts. These efforts are what are exchanged for\none another at a price bargained for. All the utility which nature,\nand the genius of ages, and human foresight, have implanted in the\ncommodities exchanged, we obtain \u2039into the bargain\u203a. Reciprocal\nremunerations have reference only to reciprocal efforts, whether\nactual under the name of Labour, or preparatory under the name\nof Capital. Here then is Community in the strictest sense of the\nword, unless we are to pretend that the personal share of enjoyment\nshould be equal, although the quota of labour furnished is not so,\nwhich indeed would be the most iniquitous, the most monstrous, of\ninequalities,\u2014I will add, the most fatal; for it would not destroy\nCompetition\u2014it would only give it a retrograde action. We should\nstill compete, but the Competition would be a rivalry of idleness,\nstupidity, and improvidence.\n\nIn fine, the doctrine\u2014so simple, and, as we think, so true\u2014which\nwe have just developed, takes the great principle of human\n\u2039perfectibility\u203a out of the domain of declamation, and transfers\nit to that of rigorous demonstration. This internal motive, which\nis never at rest in the bosom of the individual, but stirs him up\nto improve his condition, gives rise to the progress of art, which\nis nothing else than the progressive co-operation of forces, which\nfrom their nature call for no remuneration. To Competition is owing\nthe concession to the community of advantages at first individually\nobtained. The intensity of the labour required for the production of\neach given result goes on continually diminishing, to the advantage\nof the human race, which thus sees the circle of its enjoyments and\nits leisure enlarging from one generation to another, whilst the\nlevel of its physical, intellectual, and moral improvement is raised;\nand by this arrangement, so worthy of our study and of our profound\nadmiration, we behold mankind recovering the position they had lost.\n\nLet me not be misunderstood, however. I do not say that all\nfraternity, all community, all perfectibility, are comprised and\nincluded in Competition. I say only that Competition is allied and\ncombined with these three great social dogmas\u2014that it forms part\n[p314] of them, that it exhibits them, that it is one of the most\npowerful agents of their realization.\n\nI have endeavoured to describe the general effects of Competition,\nand consequently its benefits, for it would be impious to suppose\nthat any great law of nature should be at once hurtful and\npermanent; but I am far from denying that the action of Competition\nis accompanied with many hardships and sufferings. It appears to\nme that the theory which has just been developed explains at once\nthose sufferings, and the inevitable complaints to which they give\nrise. Since the work of Competition consists in \u2039levelling\u203a, it must\nnecessarily run counter to all who proudly attempt to rise above\nthe general level. Each producer, in order to obtain the highest\nprice for his labour, endeavours, as we have seen, to retain as long\nas possible the exclusive use of an \u2039agent\u203a, a \u2039process\u203a, or an\n\u2039instrument\u203a, of production. Now the proper mission and result of\nCompetition being to withdraw this exclusive use from the individual,\nin order to make it \u2039common\u203a property, it is natural that all\nmen, in their capacity of producers, should unite in a concert of\nmaledictions against \u2039Competition\u203a. They cannot reconcile themselves\nto Competition otherwise than by taking into account their interests\nas consumers, and regarding themselves, not as members of a coterie\nor a corporation, but as men.\n\nPolitical Economy, we must say, has not yet exerted herself\nsufficiently to dissipate this fatal illusion, which has been the\nsource of so much heartburning, calamity, and irritation, and of so\nmany wars. This science, from a preference not very philosophical,\nhas exhausted her efforts in analyzing the phenomena of production.\nThe very nomenclature of the science, in fact, convenient as it\nis, is not in harmony with its object. Agriculture, manufactures,\ncommerce, may be an excellent classification, when the object is\nto describe the \u2039processes\u203a of art; but that description, however\nessential in technology, has little connexion with social economy;\u2014I\nshould even say that it is positively dangerous. When we have classed\nmen as agriculturists, manufacturers, and merchants, of what can we\nspeak but of their class interests, of those special interests to\nwhich Competition is antagonistic, and which are placed in opposition\nto the general good? It is not for the sake of agriculturists that\nagriculture exists, of manufacturers that we have manufactures, or of\nmerchants that we have exchanges, but in order that men should have\nat their disposal the greatest amount of commodities of every kind.\n\u2039Consumption\u203a, its laws, what favours it, and renders it equitable\nand moral\u2014that is the interest which is truly social, and which truly\naffects the human [p315] race. It is the interest of the consumer\nwhich constitutes the real object of Political Economy, and upon\nwhich the science should concentrate its clearest lights. This, in\ntruth, forms the bond which unites classes, nations, races\u2014it is the\nprinciple and explanation of human fraternity. It is with regret,\nthen, that we see Economists expending their talents and sagacity on\nthe anatomy of production, and throwing into the fag-end of their\nbooks, or into supplementary chapters, a few common-places on the\nphenomena of consumption. Have we not even seen a justly celebrated\nprofessor suppressing entirely that branch of the science, confining\nhimself to the \u2039means\u203a, without ever speaking of the \u2039result\u203a,\nand banishing from his course everything in connexion with the\n\u2039consumption of wealth\u203a, as pertaining, in his opinion, to morals\nrather than to Political Economy? Can we be surprised that men are\nmore struck with the inconveniences of Competition than with its\nadvantages, since the former affect them specially as producers,\u2014in\nwhich character they are constantly considered and talked of; while\nthe latter affect them only in their capacity of consumers,\u2014a\ncapacity which is altogether disregarded and overlooked?\n\nI repeat that I do not deny or ignore, on the contrary I deplore\nas much as any one can, the sufferings attendant on Competition;\nbut is this any reason for shutting our eyes to its advantages? And\nit is all the more consoling to observe these advantages, inasmuch\nas I believe Competition, like all the great laws of nature, to\nbe indestructible. Had it been otherwise, it would assuredly have\nsuccumbed to the universal resistance which all the men who have ever\nco-operated in the production of commodities since the beginning\nof the world have offered to it, and more especially it would have\nperished under the \u2039lev\u00e9e en masse\u203a of our modern reformers. But if\nthey have been foolish enough to attempt its destruction, they have\nnot been strong enough to effect it.\n\nAnd what progressive principle, I would ask, is to be found in the\nworld, the beneficent action of which is not mingled, especially in\nthe beginning, with suffering and misery? The massing together of\nhuman beings in vast agglomerations is favourable to boldness and\nindependence of thought, but it frequently sets private life free\nfrom the wholesome restraint of public opinion, and gives shelter to\ndebauchery and crime. Wealth and leisure united give birth to mental\ncultivation, but they also give birth to pride and luxury among the\nrich, and to irritation and covetousness among the poor. The art of\nprinting brings home knowledge and truth to all ranks of society,\nbut it has brought also afflicting doubt and subversive error.\nPolitical liberty has unchained [p316] tempests and revolutions,\nand has modified the simple manners of primitive nations, to such a\ndecree as to induce thinking men to ask themselves whether they would\nnot have preferred tranquillity under the cold shade of despotism.\nChristianity herself has cast the noble seed of love and charity into\na soil saturated with the blood of martyrs.\n\nWhy has it entered into the designs of Infinite Goodness and Justice\nthat the happiness of one region or of one era should be purchased at\nthe expense of the sufferings of another region or of another era?\nWhat is the Divine purpose which is concealed under this great law\nof \u2039solidarity\u203a, of which Competition is only one of the mysterious\naspects? Human science cannot answer. What we do know is this, that\ngood always goes on increasing, and that evil goes on diminishing.\nFrom the beginning of the social state, such as conquest had made\nit, when there existed only masters and slaves, and the inequality\nof conditions was extreme, the work of Competition in approximating\nranks, fortunes, intelligences, could not be accomplished without\ninflicting individual hardships, the intensity of which, however,\nas the work proceeded, has gone on diminishing, like the vibrations\nof sound and the oscillations of the pendulum. To the sufferings\nyet in reserve for them, men learn every day to oppose two powerful\nremedies\u2014namely, \u2039foresight\u203a, which is the fruit of knowledge and\nexperience; and \u2039association\u203a, which is organized foresight.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn the first part of this work\u2014alas! too hastily written\u2014I have\nendeavoured to keep the reader\u2019s attention fixed upon the line of\ndemarcation, always flexible, but always marked, which separates the\ntwo regions of the economic world\u2014natural co-operation, and human\nlabour\u2014the bounty of God, and the work of man\u2014the gratuitous, and\nthe onerous\u2014that which in exchange is remunerated, and that which\nis transferred without remuneration\u2014aggregate utility, and the\nfractional and supplementary utility which constitutes value\u2014absolute\nwealth, and relative wealth\u2014the co-operation of chemical or\nmechanical forces, constrained to aid production by the instruments\nwhich render them available, and the just recompense of the labour\nwhich has created these instruments themselves\u2014Community and Property.\n\nIt is not enough to mark these two orders of phenomena which are\nso essentially different, it is necessary also to describe their\nrelations, and, if I may so express myself, their harmonious\nevolutions. I have essayed to explain how the business of Property\nconsists in conquering utility for the human race, and, casting it\n[p317] into the domain of Community, to move on to new conquests\u2014so\nthat each given effort, and consequently the aggregate of efforts,\nshould continually be delivering over to mankind satisfactions which\nare always increasing. Human services exchanged, while preserving\ntheir relative value, become the vehicle of an always increasing\nproportion of utility which is gratuitous, and, therefore, common;\nand in this consists progress. The possessors of value, then,\nwhatever form it assumes, far from usurping and monopolizing the\ngifts of God, multiply these gifts, without causing them to lose the\ncharacter which Providence has affixed to them, of being\u2014Gratuitous.\n\nIn proportion as the satisfactions which are handed over by progress\nto the charge of nature fall by that very fact into the domain of\nCommunity, they become \u2039equal\u203a\u2014it being impossible for us even to\nconceive inequality except in the domain of human services, which are\ncompared, appreciated, and \u2039estimated\u203a with a view to an exchange;\nwhence it follows that Equality among men is necessarily progressive.\nIt is so, likewise, in another respect, the action of Competition\nhaving for its inevitable result to level and equalize the services\nthemselves, and to bring their recompense more and more into\nproportion with their merit.\n\nLet us now throw a glance back on the ground over which we have\npassed.\n\nBy the light of the theory, the foundation of which has been laid in\nthe present volume, we shall have to investigate:\n\nThe relations of man with the Economic phenomena, in his capacity of\nproducer, and in his character of consumer;\n\nThe law of Rent;\n\nThat of Wages;\n\nThat of Credit;\n\nThat of Taxation, which, introducing us into the domain of Politics,\nproperly so called, will lead us to compare those services which are\nprivate and voluntary with those which are public and compulsory;\n\nThe law of Population.\n\nWe shall then be in a situation to solve some practical problems\nwhich are still disputed\u2014Free-trade, Machinery, Luxury, Leisure,\nAssociation, Organization of Labour, etc.\n\nI hesitate not to say, that the result of this exposition may be\nexpressed beforehand in these terms: \u2039The constant approximation\nof all men towards a level which is always rising\u203a\u2014in other terms:\n\u2039Improvement and Equalization\u203a; in a single word, \u00abHarmony\u00bb.\n\nSuch is the definitive result of the arrangements of Providence\u2014of\n[p318] the great laws of nature\u2014when they act without impediment,\nwhen we regard them as they are in themselves, and apart from any\ndisturbance of their action by error and violence. On beholding this\nHarmony, the Economist may well exclaim, like the astronomer who\nregards the planetary movements, or the physiologist who contemplates\nthe structure and arrangement of the human organs\u2014\u2039Digitus Dei est\nhic!\u203a\n\nBut man is a free agent, and consequently fallible. He is subject\nto ignorance and to passion. His will, which is liable to err,\nenters as an element into the play of the economic laws. He may\nmisunderstand them, forget them, divert them from their purpose. As\nthe physiologist, after admiring the infinite wisdom displayed in\nthe structure and relations of our organs and viscera, studies these\norgans likewise in their abnormal state when sickly and diseased,\nwe shall have to penetrate into a new world\u2014the world of social\nDisturbances.\n\nWe shall pave the way for this new study by some considerations on\nman himself. It would be impossible for us to give an account of\n\u2039social evil\u203a, of its origin, its effects, its design\u2014of the limits,\nalways more and more contracted, within which it is shut up by its\nown action (which constitutes what I might almost venture to call\na harmonic dissonance), did we not extend our investigation to the\nnecessary consequences of Free-Will, to the errors of Self-Interest,\nwhich are constantly corrected, and to the great laws of human\nResponsibility and Solidarity.\n\nWe have seen the germ of all the \u2039social Harmonies\u203a included in these\ntwo principles\u2014\u00abProperty\u00bb, \u00abLiberty\u00bb. We shall see that all \u2039social\nDissonances\u203a are only the development of these two antagonistic\nprinciples\u2014\u00abSpoliation\u00bb, \u00abOppression\u00bb.\n\nThe words Property and Liberty, in fact, express only two aspects\nof the same idea. In an economical point of view, Liberty is allied\nto the act of production\u2014Property to the things produced. And since\nValue has its foundation in the human act, we may conclude that\nLiberty implies and includes Property. The same relation exists\nbetween Oppression and Spoliation.\n\nLiberty! here at length we have the principle of harmony. Oppression!\nhere we have the principle of dissonance. The struggle of these two\npowers fills the annals of the human race.\n\nAnd as the design of Oppression is to effect an unjust appropriation,\nas it resolves itself into and is summed up in spoliation, it is\nSpoliation that must form the subject of our inquiry.\n\nMan comes into this world bound to the yoke of Want, which is pain.\n[p319]\n\nHe cannot escape from it but by subjecting himself to the yoke of\nLabour, which is pain also.\n\nHe has, then, only a choice of pains, and he detests pain.\n\nThis is the reason why he looks around him, and if he sees that\nhis fellow-man has accumulated wealth, he conceives the thought of\nappropriating it. Hence comes false property, or Spoliation.\n\nSpoliation! here we have a new element in the economy of society.\n\nFrom the day when it first made its appearance in the world down to\nthe day when it shall have completely disappeared, if that day ever\ncome, this element has affected and will affect profoundly the whole\nsocial mechanism; it will disturb, and to the extent of rendering\nthem no longer recognisable, those laws of social harmony which we\nhave endeavoured to discover and describe.\n\nOur duty, then, will not have been accomplished until we have\ncompleted the monography of Spoliation.\n\nIt may be imagined that we have here to do with an accidental\nand exceptional fact, a transient derangement unworthy of the\ninvestigations of science.\n\nBut in truth it is not so. On the contrary, Spoliation, in the\ntraditions of families, in the history of nations, in the occupations\nof individuals, in the physical and intellectual energies of classes,\nin the schemes and designs of governments, occupies nearly as\nprominent a place as Property itself.\n\nNo; Spoliation is not an ephemeral scourge, affecting accidentally\nthe social mechanism, and which economical science may disregard as\nexceptional.\n\nThe sentence pronounced upon man in the beginning was, \u2039In the sweat\nof thy brow shalt thou eat bread\u203a. Whence it appears that effort and\nsatisfaction are indissolubly united, and that the one must be always\nthe recompense of the other. But on all sides we find man revolting\nagainst this law, and saying to his brother, Thine be the labour, and\nmine the fruit of that labour.\n\nRepair to the hut of the savage hunter, or to the tent of the nomad\nshepherd, and what spectacle meets your eyes? The wife, lank, pale,\ndisfigured, affrighted, prematurely old, bears the whole burden of\nthe household cares, while the man lounges in idleness. What idea can\nwe form of family Harmonies? The idea has disappeared, for Strength\nhere throws upon Feebleness the weight of labour. And how many ages\nof civilizing effort will be needed to raise the wife from this state\nof frightful degradation?\n\nSpoliation, in its most brutal form, armed with torch and sword,\n[p320] fills the annals of the world. Of what names is history made\nup? Cyrus, Sesostris, Alexander, Scipio, C\u00e6sar, Attila, Tamerlane,\nMahomet, Pizarro, William the Conqueror\u2014pure Spoliation from\nbeginning to end in the shape of Conquest. Hers are the laurels, the\nmonuments, the statues, the triumphal arches, the song of the poet,\nthe intoxicating enthusiasm of the fair!\n\nThe Conqueror soon finds that he can turn his victories to more\nprofitable account than by putting to death the vanquished; and\nSlavery covers the earth. Down to our own times, all over the world\nthis has been the form in which societies have existed, bringing with\nit hates, resistance, internal struggles, and revolutions. And what\nis Slavery but organized oppression\u2014organized for the purpose of\nSpoliation?\n\nBut Spoliation not only arms Force against Feebleness\u2014she turns\nIntelligence against Credulity. What hard-working people in the\nworld has escaped being sweated by sacerdotal theocracies, Egyptian\npriests, Greek oracles, Roman auguries, Gallic druids, Indian\nbrahmins, muftis, ulemas, bonzes, monks, ministers, mountebanks,\nsorcerers, soothsayers,\u2014spoliators of all garbs and of all\ndenominations. Assuming this guise, Spoliation places the fulcrum\nof her lever in heaven, and sacrilegiously prides herself on the\ncomplicity of the gods! She enslaves not men\u2019s limbs only, but their\nsouls. She knows how to impress the iron of slavery as well upon the\nconscience of S\u00e9ide[65] as upon the forehead of Spartacus\u2014realizing\nwhat would seem impossible\u2014Mental Slavery.\n\nMental Slavery! what a frightful association of words! O Liberty! we\nhave seen thee hunted from country to country, crushed by conquest,\ngroaning under slavery, insulted in courts, banished from the\nschools, laughed at in saloons, misunderstood in workshops, denounced\nin churches. It seems thou shouldst find in thought an inviolable\nrefuge. But if thou art to surrender in this thy last asylum, what\nbecomes of the hopes of ages, and of what value is human existence?\n\nAt length, however, the progressive nature of man causes Spoliation\nto develop in the society in which it exists, resistance which\nparalyzes its force, and knowledge which unveils its impostures.\nBut Spoliation does not confess herself conquered for all that; she\nonly becomes more crafty, and, enveloping herself in the forms of\ngovernment and in a system of checks and counterpoises, she gives\nbirth to Politics, long a prolific resource. We then see her usurping\nthe liberty of citizens, the better to get hold of their wealth,\n[p321] and draining away their wealth to possess herself more\nsurely of their liberty. Private activity passes into the domain of\npublic activity. Everything is transacted through functionaries,\nand an unintelligent and meddling bureaucracy overspreads the land.\nThe public treasury becomes a vast reservoir into which labourers\npour their savings, to be immediately distributed among placemen.\nTransactions are no longer regulated by free bargaining and\ndiscussion, and the \u2039mutuality of services\u203a disappears.\n\nIn this state of things the true notion of Property is extinguished,\nand every one appeals to the Law to give his services a factitious\nvalue.\n\nWe enter then upon the era of privileges. Spoliation, ever\nimproving in subtilty, fortifies herself in Monopoly, and takes\nrefuge behind Restrictions. She displaces the natural current of\nexchanges, and sends capital into artificial channels, and with\ncapital, labour\u2014and with labour, population. She gets painfully\nproduced in the North what is produced with facility in the South;\ncreates precarious classes and branches of industry; substitutes\nfor the gratuitous forces of nature the onerous fatigues of labour;\ncherishes establishments which can sustain no rivalry, and invokes\nagainst competitors the employment of force; provokes international\njealousies; flatters patriotic arrogance; and invents ingenious\ntheories, which make auxiliaries of her own dupes. She constantly\nrenders imminent industrial crises and bankruptcies, shakes to its\nfoundation all confidence in the future, all faith in liberty, all\nconsciousness of what is just. At length, when science exposes\nher misdeeds, she stirs up against science her own victims, by\nproclaiming a Utopia! and ignores not only the science which places\nobstacles in her path, but the very idea of any possible science, by\nthis crowning sentence of scepticism\u2014There are no principles!\n\nUnder the pressure of suffering, at length the masses rise, and\noverturn everything which is above them. Government, taxes,\nlegislation, everything is at their mercy, and you imagine perhaps\nthat there is now an end to the reign of Spoliation;\u2014that the\nmutuality of services is about to be established on the only possible\nor even imaginable basis\u2014Liberty. Undeceive yourself. The fatal idea,\nalas! has permeated the masses, that Property has no other origin, no\nother sanction, no other legitimacy, no other foundation, than Law;\nand then the masses set to work legislatively to rob one another.\nSuffering from the wounds which have been inflicted upon them, they\nundertake to cure each of their members by conceding to him the\nright to oppress his neighbour, and call [p322] this Solidarity\nand Fraternity. \u201cYou have produced\u2014I have not produced\u2014we are\n\u2039solidaires\u203a\u2014let us divide.\u201d \u201cYou have something\u2014I have nothing\u2014we\nare brethren\u2014let us share.\u201d It will be our duty then to examine\nthe improper use which has been made in these latter days of the\nterms association, organization, labour, \u2039gratuit\u00e9 du cr\u00e9dit\u203a, etc.\nWe shall have to subject them to this test\u2014Do they imply Liberty\nor Oppression? In other words, are they in unison with the great\nEconomical laws, or are they disturbances of those laws?\n\nSpoliation is a phenomenon too universal, too persistent, to permit\nus to attribute to it a character purely accidental. In this, as in\nmany other matters, we cannot separate the study of natural laws from\nthe study of their Perturbations.\n\nBut, it may be said, if spoliation enters necessarily into the play\nof the social mechanism as a \u2039dissonance\u203a, how can you venture to\nassert the Harmony of the Economic laws?\n\nI must repeat here what I have said in another place, namely, that\nin all which concerns man, a being who is only \u2039perfectible\u203a because\nhe is \u2039imperfect\u203a, Harmony consists, not in the absolute absence of\n\u2039evil\u203a, but in its gradual diminution. The social body, like the\nhuman body, is provided with a curative force, a \u2039vis medicatrix\u203a,\nthe laws and infallible power of which it is impossible to study\nwithout again exclaiming, \u2039Digitus Dei est hic\u203a. [p323]\n\n\n\n\n XI.\n PRODUCER\u2014CONSUMER.\n\n\nIf the level of the human race is not continually rising, man is not\na perfectible being.\n\nIf the social tendency is not a constant approximation of all men\ntowards this progressive elevation, the economic laws are not\nharmonious.\n\nNow, how can the level of humanity be rising, if each given\nquantity of labour does not yield a constantly increasing amount\nof enjoyments, a phenomenon which can be explained only by the\ntransformation of onerous into gratuitous utility.\n\nAnd, on the other hand, how can this utility, having become\ngratuitous, bring men nearer and nearer to a common level, if the\nutility has not at the same time itself become common?\n\nHere, then, we discover the essential law of social harmony.\n\nI should have been pleased had the language of Political Economy\nfurnished me with two words other than the terms \u2039production\u203a and\n\u2039consumption\u203a, to designate services which are rendered and received.\nThese terms savour too much of materiality. There are evidently\nservices, like those of the clergyman, the professor, the soldier,\nthe artist, which tend to the furtherance of morality, education,\nsecurity, taste, which have nothing in common with mechanical or\nmanufacturing industry, except this, that the end to be attained is\n\u2039satisfaction\u203a or enjoyment.\n\nThe terms I have referred to are those generally employed, and I\nhave no wish to become a neologist. But let it be understood that by\n\u2039production\u203a I mean what confers utility, and by \u2039consumption\u203a the\nenjoyment to which that utility gives rise.\n\nLet the protectionist school\u2014which is in reality a phase of\nCommunism\u2014believe that in employing the terms \u2039producer\u203a and\n\u2039consumer\u203a we are not absurd enough to wish to represent the human\nrace as divided into two distinct classes, the one engaged [p324]\nexclusively in the work of producing, the other exclusively in that\nof consuming. The naturalist divides the human race into whites\nand blacks, or into men and women, and the economist, forsooth, is\nnot to classify them as producers and consumers, because, as the\nprotectionist gentlemen sagely remark, \u2039producer and consumer make\nbut one person\u203a!\n\nWhy, it is for the very reason that they do make but one that each\nindividual comes to be considered by the science of Political Economy\nin this double capacity. Our business is not to divide the human\nrace into two classes, but to study man under two very different\naspects. If the protectionists were to forbid grammarians to employ\nthe pronouns \u2039I\u203a and \u2039thou\u203a, on the pretext that every man is in\nturn \u2039the person speaking\u203a and \u2039the person spoken to\u203a, it would be\na sufficient answer to say, that although it be perfectly true that\nwe cannot place all the tongues on one side, and all the ears on the\nother, since every man has both ears and a tongue, it by no means\nfollows that, with reference to each proposition enunciated, the\ntongue does not pertain to one man and the ear to another. In the\nsame way, \u2039with reference to every service\u203a, the man who renders it\nis quite distinct from the man who receives it. The producer and\nconsumer are always set opposite each other, so much so that they\nhave always a controversy.\n\nThe very people who object to our studying mankind under the double\naspect of producers and consumers have no difficulty in making this\ndistinction when they address themselves to legislative assemblies.\nWe then find them demanding monopoly or freedom of trade, according\nas the matter in dispute refers to a commodity which they sell, or a\ncommodity which they purchase.\n\nWithout dwelling longer, then, on this preliminary exception taken by\nthe protectionists, let us acknowledge that in the social order the\nseparation of employments causes each man to occupy two situations,\nsufficiently distinct to render their action and relations worthy of\nour study.\n\nIn general, we devote ourselves to some special trade, profession, or\ncareer, and it is not from that particular source that we expect to\nderive our satisfactions. We render and receive services; we supply\nand demand values; we make purchases and sales; we work for others,\nand others work for us; in short, we are \u2039producers and consumers\u203a.\n\nAccording as we present ourselves in the market in one or other of\nthese capacities, we carry thither a spirit which is very different,\nor rather, I should say, very opposite. Suppose, for example, that\ncorn is the subject of the transaction. The same man has very [p325]\ndifferent views when he goes to market as a purchaser, from what\nhe has when he goes there as a seller. As a purchaser, he desires\nabundance; as a seller, scarcity. In either case, these desires\nmay be traced to the same source\u2014personal interest; but as to sell\nor buy, to give or to receive, to supply or to demand, are acts as\nopposite as possible, they cannot but give rise, and from the same\nmotive, to opposite desires.\n\nAntagonistic desires cannot at one and the same time coincide with\nthe general good.\n\nIn another work,[66] I have endeavoured to show that the wishes or\ndesires of men in their capacity of consumers are those which are\nin harmony with the public interest; and it cannot be otherwise.\nFor seeing that enjoyment is the end and design of labour, and that\nthe labour is determined only by the obstacle to be overcome, it is\nevident that labour is in this sense an \u2039evil\u203a, and that everything\nshould tend to diminish it; that enjoyment is a \u2039good\u203a, and that\neverything should tend to increase it.\n\nAnd here presents itself the great, the perpetual, the deplorable\nillusion which springs from the erroneous definition of \u2039value\u203a, and\nfrom confounding value with \u2039utility\u203a.\n\nValue being simply a relation, is of as much greater importance to\neach individual as it is of less importance to society at large.\n\nWhat renders service to the masses is utility alone; and value is not\nat all the measure of it.\n\nWhat renders service to the individual is still only utility. But\nvalue is the measure of it; for, with each determinate value, he\nobtains from society the utility of his choice, in the proportion of\nthat value.\n\nIf we regard man as an isolated being, it is as clear as day that\nconsumption, and not production, is the essential thing; for\nconsumption to a certain extent implies labour, but labour does not\nimply consumption.\n\nThe separation of employments has led certain economists to measure\nthe general prosperity, not by consumption, but by labour. And by\nfollowing these economists we have come to this strange subversion of\nprinciple, to favour labour at the expense of its results.\n\nThe reasoning has been this: The more difficulties are overcome the\nbetter. Then augment the difficulties to be conquered.\n\nThe error of this reasoning is manifest.\n\nNo doubt, a certain amount of difficulties being given, it is\nfortunate that a certain quantity of labour also given should [p326]\nsurmount as many of these difficulties as possible. But to diminish\nthe power of the labourer or augment that of the difficulties, in\norder to increase value, is positively monstrous.\n\nAn individual member of society is interested in this, that his\nservices, while preserving even the same degree of utility, should\nincrease in value. Suppose his desires in this respect to be\nrealized, it is easy to perceive what will happen. He is better off,\nbut his brethren are worse off, seeing that the total amount of\nutility has not been increased.\n\nWe cannot then reason from particulars to generals, and say: Pursue\nsuch measures as in their result will satisfy the desire which all\nindividuals entertain to see the value of their services augmented.\n\nValue being a relation, we should have accomplished nothing if the\nincrease in all departments were proportionate to the anterior value;\nif it were arbitrary and unequal for different services, we should\nhave done nothing but introduce injustice into the distribution of\nutilities.\n\nIt is of the nature of every bargain or mercantile transaction to\ngive rise to a \u2039debate\u203a. But by using this word debate, shall I not\nbring down upon myself all the sentimental schools which are nowadays\nso numerous? \u2039Debate\u203a implies \u2039antagonism\u203a, it will be said. You\nadmit, then, that antagonism is the natural state of society. Here\nagain I have to break another lance; for in this country economic\nscience is so little understood, that one cannot make use of a word\nwithout raising up an opponent.\n\nI have been justly reproached for using the phrase that \u201cBetween\nthe seller and buyer there exists a radical antagonism.\u201d The word\n\u2039antagonism\u203a, when strengthened by the word \u2039radical\u203a, implies much\nmore than I meant to express. It would seem to imply a permanent\nopposition of interests, consequently an indestructible social\ndissonance; while what I wished to indicate was merely that transient\ndebate or discussion which precedes every commercial transaction, and\nwhich is inherent in the very idea of a bargain.\n\nAs long as, to the regret of the sentimental utopiast, there shall\nremain a vestige of liberty in the world, buyers and sellers will\ndiscuss their interests, and higgle about prices; nor will the\nsocial laws cease to be harmonious on that account. Is it possible\nto conceive that the man who \u2039offers\u203a and the man who \u2039demands\u203a a\nservice should meet each other in the market without having for the\nmoment a different idea of its \u2039value\u203a? Is that to set the world on\nfire? Must all commercial transactions, all exchanges, all barter,\nall liberty, be banished from this earth, or are we to allow each of\n[p327] the contracting parties to defend his position, and urge and\nput forward his motives? It is this very free debate or discussion\nwhich gives rise to the equivalence of services and the equity of\ntransactions. By what other means can our system-makers ensure this\nequity which is so desirable? Would they by legislation trammel the\nliberty of one of the parties only? Then the one must be in the power\nof the other. Would they take away from both the liberty of managing\ntheir own affairs, under the pretext that they ought henceforth\nto buy and sell on the principle of fraternity? Let me tell the\nSocialists that it is here their absurdity becomes apparent, for,\nin the long-run, these interests must be regulated and adjusted. Is\nthe discussion to be inverted, the purchaser taking the part of the\nseller and \u2039vice versa\u203a? Such transactions would be very diverting,\nwe must allow. \u201cPlease, sir, give me only 10 francs for this cloth.\u201d\n\u201cWhat say you? I will give you 20 for it.\u201d \u201cBut, my good sir, it\nis worth nothing\u2014it is out of fashion\u2014it will be worn out in a\nfortnight,\u201d says the merchant. \u201cIt is of the best quality, and will\nlast two winters,\u201d replies the customer. \u201cVery well, sir, to please\nyou, I will add 5 francs\u2014this is all the length that fraternity will\nallow me to go.\u201d \u201cIt is against my Socialist principles to pay less\nthan 20 francs, but we must learn to make sacrifices, and I agree.\u201d\nThus this whimsical transaction will just arrive at the ordinary\nresult, and our system-makers will regret to see accursed liberty\nstill surviving, although turned upside down and engendering a new\nantagonism.\n\nThat is not what we want, say the \u2039organisateurs\u203a; what we desire\nis liberty. Then, what would you be at? for services must still\nbe exchanged, and conditions adjusted. We expect that the care of\nadjusting them should be left to us. I suspected as much.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\nFraternity! bond of brotherhood, sacred flame kindled by heaven in\nman\u2019s soul, how has thy name been abused! In thy name all freedom\nhas been stifled. In thy name a new despotism, such as the world had\nnever before seen, has been erected; and we are at length driven to\nfear that the very name of fraternity, after being thus sullied, and\nhaving served as the rallying cry of so many incapables, the mask of\nso much ambition, and proud contempt of human dignity, should end by\nlosing altogether its grand and noble significance.\n\nLet us no longer, then, aim at overturning everything, domineering\nover everything and everybody, and withdrawing all\u2014men and\nthings\u2014from the operation of natural laws. Let us leave the world\nas God has made it. Let us, poor scribblers, not imagine [p328]\nourselves anything else than observers, more or less exact, of what\nis passing around us. Let us no longer render ourselves ridiculous\nby pretending to change human nature, as if we were ourselves beyond\nhumanity and its errors and weaknesses. Let us leave producers and\nconsumers to take care of their own interests, and to arrange and\nadjust these interests by honest and peaceful conventions. Let us\nconfine ourselves to the observation of relations, and the effects\nto which they give rise. This is precisely what I am about to do,\nkeeping always in view this general law, which I apprehend to be the\nlaw of human society, namely, the gradual equalization of individuals\nand of classes, combined with general progress.\n\nA line no more resembles a force or a velocity, than it does a value\nor a utility. Mathematicians, nevertheless, make use of diagrams; and\nwhy should not the economist do the same?\n\nWe have values which are equal, values the mutual relations of which\nare known as the half, the quarter, double, triple, etc. There is\nnothing to prevent our representing these differences by lines of\nvarious lengths.\n\nBut the same thing does not hold with reference to \u2039utility\u203a. General\nutility, as we have seen, may be resolved into gratuitous utility\nand onerous utility, the former due to the action of nature, the\nlatter the result of human labour. This last being capable of being\nestimated and measured, may be represented by a line of determinate\nlength; but the other is not susceptible of estimation or of\nmeasurement. No doubt in the production of a measure of wheat, of a\ncask of wine, of an ox, of a stone of wool, a ton of coals, a bundle\nof faggots, nature does much. But we have no means of measuring this\nnatural co-operation of forces, most of which are unknown to us, and\nwhich have been in operation since the beginning of time. Nor have we\nany interest in doing so. We may represent gratuitous utility, then,\nby an indefinite line.\n\nNow, let there be two products, the \u2039value\u203a of the one being double\nthat of the other, they may be represented by these lines:\u2014\n\n I              A                   B\n ................\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n\n I              C         D\n ................\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n\n IB, ID, represent the total product, general utility, what satisfies\n man\u2019s wants, absolute wealth. [p329]\n\n IA, IC, the co-operation of nature, gratuitous utility, the part\n which belongs to the domain of community.\n\n AB, CD, human service, onerous utility, \u2039value\u203a, relative wealth,\n the part which belongs to the domain of property.\n\nI need not say that AB, which you may suppose, if you will, to\nrepresent a house, a piece of furniture, a book, a song sung by Jenny\nLind, a horse, a bale of cloth, a consultation of physicians, etc.,\nwill exchange for twice CD, and that the two men who effect the\nexchange will give into the bargain, and without even being aware of\nit, the one, once IA, the other twice IC.\n\nMan is so constituted that his constant endeavour is to diminish the\nproportion of effort to result, to substitute the action of nature\nfor his own action; in a word, to accomplish more with less. This is\nthe constant aim of his skill, his intelligence, and his energy.\n\nLet us suppose then that John, the producer of IB, discovers a\nprocess by means of which he accomplishes his work with one-half the\nlabour which it formerly cost him, taking everything into account,\neven the construction of the instrument by means of which he avails\nhimself of the co-operation of nature.\n\nAs long as he preserves his secret, we shall have no change in the\nfigures we have given above; AB and CD will represent the same\nvalues, the same relations; for John alone of all the world being\nacquainted with the improved process, he will turn it exclusively to\nhis own profit and advantage. He will take his ease for half the day,\nor else he will make, each day, twice the quantity of IB, and his\nlabour will be better remunerated. The discovery he has made is for\nthe good of mankind, but mankind in this case is represented by one\nman.\n\nAnd here let us remark, in passing, how fallacious is the axiom of\nthe English Economists that \u2039value comes from labour\u203a, if thereby\nit is intended to represent \u2039value\u203a and \u2039labour\u203a as proportionate.\nHere we have the labour diminished by one-half, and yet no change\nin the value. This is what constantly happens, and why? Because the\nservice is the same. Before as after the discovery, as long as it\nis a secret, he who gives or transfers IB renders the same service.\nBut things will no longer be in the same position when Peter, the\nproducer of ID, is enabled to say, \u201cYou ask me for two hours of my\nlabour in exchange for one hour of yours; but I have found out your\nprocess, and if you set so high a price on your service, I shall\nserve myself.\u201d\n\nNow this day must necessarily come. A process once realized [p330]\nis not long a mystery. Then the value of the product IB will fall by\none-half, and we shall have these two figures.\n\n I                 A              A\u00b4         B\n .................................\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n\n I                                C          D\n .................................\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n\nAA\u00b4 represent value annihilated, relative wealth which has\ndisappeared, property become common, utility formerly onerous, now\ngratuitous.\n\nFor, as regards John, who here represents the producer, he is\nreinstated in his former condition. With the same effort which it\ncost him formerly to produce IB, he can now produce twice as much. In\norder to obtain twice ID, we see him constrained to give twice IB, or\nwhat IB represents, be it furniture, books, houses, or what it may.\n\nWho profits by all this? Clearly Peter, the producer of ID, who here\nrepresents consumers in general, including John himself. If, in fact,\nJohn desires to consume his own product, he profits by the saving of\ntime represented by the suppression of AA\u00b4. As regards Peter, that\nis to say as regards consumers in general, they can now purchase IB\nwith half the expenditure of time, effort, labour, value, compared\nwith what it would have cost them before the intervention of natural\nforces. These forces, then, are gratuitous, and, moreover, common.\n\nSince I have ventured to illustrate my argument by geometrical\nfigures, perhaps I may be permitted to give another example, and I\nshall be happy if by this method\u2014somewhat whimsical, I allow, as\napplied to Political Economy\u2014I can render more intelligible to the\nreader the phenomena which I wish to describe.\n\nAs a producer, or as a consumer, every man may be considered as a\ncentre from whence radiate the services which he renders, and to\nwhich tend the services which he receives in exchange.\n\nSuppose then that there is placed at A (Fig. 1) a producer, a\ncopyist, for example, or transcriber of manuscripts, who here\nrepresents all producers, or production in general. He furnishes to\nsociety four manuscripts. If at the present moment the \u2039value\u203a of\neach of these manuscripts is equal to 15, he renders services equal\nto 60, and receives an equal value, variously spread over a multitude\nof services. To simplify the demonstration, I suppose only [p331]\nfour of them, proceeding from four points of the circumference BCDE.\n\n [Illustration: \u00abFig. 1.\u00bb\n Value produced   = 60\n Value received   = 60\n Utility produced =  4]\n\n [Illustration: \u00abFig. 2.\u00bb\n Value produced   = 60\n Value received   = 60\n Utility produced =  6]\n\nThis man, we now suppose, discovers the art of printing. He can\nthenceforth produce in 40 hours what formerly would have cost him\n60. Admit that competition forces him to reduce proportionally the\nprice of his books, and that in place of being worth 15, they are now\nworth only 10. But then in place of four our workman can now produce\nsix books. On the other hand, the fund of remuneration proceeding\nfrom the circumference, amounting to 60, has not changed. There is\nremuneration for six books, worth 10 each, just as there was formerly\nremuneration for four manuscripts, each worth 15.\n\nThis, let me remark briefly, is what is always lost sight of in\ndiscussing the question of machinery, of free-trade, and of progress\nin general. Men see the labour set free and rendered disposable by\nthe expeditive process, and they become alarmed. They do not see that\na corresponding proportion of remuneration is rendered disposable\nalso by the same circumstance.\n\nThe new transactions we have supposed are represented by Fig. 2,\nwhere we see radiate from the centre A, a total value of 60, spread\nover six books, in place of four manuscripts. From the circumference\nstill proceeds a value, equal to 60, necessary now as formerly, to\nmake up the balance.\n\nWho then has gained by the change? As regards \u2039value\u203a, no one. As\nregards real wealth, positive satisfactions, the countless body\nof consumers ranged round the circumference. Each of them can now\npurchase a book with an amount of labour reduced by one-third. But\nthe consumers are the human race. For observe that [p332] A himself,\nif he gains nothing in his capacity of producer,\u2014if he is obliged,\nas formerly, to perform 60 hours\u2019 labour in order to obtain the old\nremuneration,\u2014nevertheless, in as far as he is a consumer of books,\ngains exactly as others do. Like them, if he desires to read, he can\nprocure this enjoyment with an economy of labour equal to one-third.\n\nBut if, in his character of producer, he finds himself at length\ndeprived of the profit of his own inventions, by competition, where\nin that case is his compensation?\n\nHis compensation consists, \u20391st\u203a, in this, that as long as he was\nable to preserve his secret, he continued to sell 15 of what he\nproduced at the cost of 10; \u20392dly\u203a, In this, that he obtains books\nfor his own use at a smaller cost, and thus participates in the\nadvantages he has procured for society. But, \u20393dly\u203a, His compensation\nconsists above all in this, that just in the same way as he has been\nforced to impart to his fellow-men the benefit of his own progress,\nhe benefits by the progress of his fellow-men.\n\n[Illustration: \u00abFig. 3.\u00bb]\n\nJust as the progress accomplished by A has profited B, C, D, E, the\nprogress realized by B, C, D, E has profited A. By turns A finds\nhimself at the centre and at the circumference of universal industry,\nfor he is by turns producer and consumer. If B, for example, is a\ncotton-spinner who has introduced improved machinery, the profit will\nredound to A as well as to C, D. If C is a mariner who has replaced\nthe oar by the sail, the economy of labour will profit B, A, E.\n\nIn short, the whole mechanism reposes on this law:\u2014\n\nProgress benefits the producer, as such, only during the time\nnecessary to recompense his skill. It soon produces a fall of value,\nand leaves to the first imitators a fair, but small, recompense. At\nlength value becomes proportioned to the diminished labour, and the\nwhole saving accrues to society at large.\n\nThus all profit by the progress of each, and each profits by the\nprogress of all. The principle, \u2039each for all, all for each\u203a, put\nforward by the Socialists, and which they would have us receive as a\nnovelty, the germ of which is to be discovered in their organizations\nfounded on oppression and constraint, God himself has given us; and\nHe has educed it from liberty. [p333]\n\nGod, I say, has given us this principle, and He has not established\nit in a model community, presided over by M. Consid\u00e9rant, or in\na \u2039Phalanst\u00e8re\u203a of six hundred \u2039harmoniens\u203a, or in a tentative\n\u2039Icarie\u203a,[67] on condition that a few fanatics should submit\nthemselves to the arbitrary power of a monomaniac, and that the\nfaithless should pay for the true believers. No, God has established\nthe principle \u2039each for all and all for each\u203a generally, universally,\nby a marvellous mechanism, in which justice, liberty, utility, and\nsociability are mingled and reconciled in such a degree as ought to\ndiscourage these manufacturers of social organizations.\n\nObserve that this great law of \u2039each for all and all for each\u203a is\nmuch more universal than my demonstration supposes it. Words are\ndull and heavy, and the pen still more so. The writer is obliged\nto exhibit successively, and one after the other, with despairing\nslowness, phenomena which recommend themselves to our admiration only\nin the aggregate.\n\nThus, I have just spoken of \u2039inventions\u203a. You might conclude that\nthis was the only case in which progress, once attained, escapes from\nthe producer, and goes to enlarge the common fund of mankind. It is\nnot so. It is a general law that every advantage of whatever kind,\nproceeding from local situation, climate, or any other liberality\nof nature, slips rapidly from the hands of the person who first\ndiscovered and appropriated it\u2014not on that account to be lost, but to\ngo to feed the vast reservoir from which the enjoyments of mankind\nare derived. One condition alone is attached, which is, that labour\nand transactions should be free. To run counter to liberty is to run\ncounter to the designs of Providence; it is to suspend the operation\nof God\u2019s law, and limit progress in a double sense.\n\nWhat I have just said with reference to the transfer of advantages\nholds equally true of evils and disadvantages. Nothing remains\npermanently with the producer\u2014neither advantages nor inconveniences.\nBoth tend to disseminate themselves through society at large.\n\nWe have just seen with what avidity the producer seeks to avail\nhimself of whatever may facilitate his work; and we have seen,\ntoo, in how short a time the profit arising from inventions and\ndiscoveries slips from the inventor\u2019s hands. It seems as if that\nprofit were not in the hands of a superior intelligence, but of a\nblind and obedient instrument of general progress.\n\nWith the same ardour he shuns all that can shackle his action; and\nthis is a happy thing for the human race, for it is to mankind\n[p334] at large that in the long-run obstacles are prejudicial.\nSuppose, for example, that A, the producer of books, is subjected to\na heavy tax. He must add the amount of that tax to the price of his\nbooks. It will enter into the value of the books as a constituent\npart, the effect of which will be that B, C, D, E must give more\nlabour in exchange for the same satisfaction. Their compensation will\nconsist in the purpose to which Government applies the tax. If the\nuse to which it is applied is beneficial, they may gain instead of\nlosing by the arrangement. If it is employed to oppress them, they\nwill suffer in a double sense. But as far as A is concerned, he is\nrelieved of the tax, although he pays it in the first instance.\n\nI do not mean to say that the producer does not frequently suffer\nfrom obstacles of various kinds, and from taxes among others.\nSometimes he suffers most seriously from the operation of taxes,\nand it is precisely on that account that taxes tend to shift their\nincidence, and to fall ultimately on the masses.\n\nThus, in France, wine has been subjected to a multitude of exactions.\nAnd then a system has been introduced which restricts its sale abroad.\n\nIt is curious to observe what skips and bounds such burdens make\nin passing from the producer to the consumer. No sooner has the\ntax or restriction begun to operate than the producer endeavours\nto indemnify himself. But the \u2039demand\u203a of the consumers, as well\nas the supply of wine, remaining the same, the price cannot\nrise. The producer gets no more for his wine after, than he did\nbefore, the imposition of the tax. And as before the tax he\nreceived no more than an ordinary and adequate price, determined\nby services freely exchanged, he finds himself a loser by the\nwhole amount of the tax. To cause the price to rise, he is\nobliged to diminish the quantity of wine produced.[68]\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\nThe consumer, then,\u2014the public,\u2014is relatively to the loss or profit\nwhich affects in the first instance certain classes of producers what\nthe earth is to electricity\u2014the great common reservoir. All proceeds\nfrom it, and after some detours, longer or shorter as the case may\nbe, and after having given rise to certain phenomena more or less\nvaried, all returns to it again.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWe have just shown that the economic effects only glance upon the\nproducer, so to speak, on their way to the consumer, and that\nconsequently all great and important questions of this kind must\n[p335] be regarded from the consumer\u2019s point of view if we wish to\nmake ourselves masters of their general and permanent consequences.\n\nThis subordination of the interests of the producer to that of the\nconsumer, which we have deduced from the consideration of \u2039utility\u203a,\nis fully confirmed when we advert to the consideration of \u2039morality\u203a.\n\nResponsibility, in fact, always rests with the initiative. Now where\nis the initiative? In \u2039demand\u203a.\n\n\u2039Demand\u203a (which implies the means of remuneration) determines all\u2014the\ndirection of capital and of labour, the distribution of population,\nthe morality of professions, etc. \u2039Demand\u203a answers to Desire, while\n\u2039Supply\u203a answers to Effort. Desire is reasonable or unreasonable,\nmoral or immoral. Effort, which is only an effect, is morally neuter,\nor has only a reflected morality.\n\nDemand or Consumption says to the producer, \u201cMake that for me.\u201d\nThe producer obeys. And this would be evident in every case if the\nproducer always and everywhere waited for the demand.\n\nBut in practice this is not the case.\n\nIs it exchange which has led to the division of labour, or the\ndivision of labour which has given rise to exchange? This is a subtle\nand thorny question. Let us say that man makes exchanges, because,\nbeing intelligent and sociable, he comprehends that this is one means\nof increasing the proportion of result to effort. That which results\nexclusively from the division of labour and from foresight, is that\na man does not wait for a specific request to work for another.\nExperience teaches him tacitly that demand exists.\n\nHe makes the effort beforehand which is to satisfy the demand, and\nthis gives rise to trades and professions. Beforehand he makes shoes,\nhats, etc., or prepares himself to sing, to teach, to plead, to\nfight, etc. But is it really the supply which precedes the demand,\nand determines it?\n\nNo. It is because there is a sufficient certainty that these\ndifferent services will be demanded that men prepare to render them,\nalthough they do not always know precisely from what quarter the\ndemand may come. And the proof of it is, that the relation between\nthese different services is sufficiently well known, that their value\nhas been so widely tested that one may devote himself with some\nsecurity to a particular manufacture, or embrace a particular career.\n\nThe impulse of demand is then pre-existent, seeing that one may\ncalculate the intensity of it with so much precision. [p336]\n\nMoreover, when a man betakes himself to a particular trade or\nprofession, and sets himself to produce commodities, about what\nis he solicitous? Is it about the utility of the article which\nhe manufactures, or its results, good or bad, moral or immoral?\nNot at all; he thinks only of its \u2039value\u203a. It is the demander who\nlooks to the \u2039utility\u203a. Utility answers to his want, his desire,\nhis caprice. Value, on the contrary, has relation only to the\neffort made, to the service transferred. It is only when, by means\nof exchange, the producer in his turn becomes the demander that\nutility is looked to. When I resolve to manufacture hats rather than\nshoes, I do not ask myself the question, whether men have a greater\ninterest in protecting their heads or their heels. No, that concerns\nthe demander, and determines the demand. The demand in its turn\ndetermines the value, or the degree of esteem in which the public\nholds the service. Value, in short, determines the effort or the\nsupply.\n\nHence result some very remarkable consequences in a moral point of\nview. Two nations may be equally furnished with values, that is to\nsay, with relative wealth (see chap. vi), and very unequally provided\nwith real utilities, or absolute wealth; and this happens when one\nof them forms desires which are more unreasonable than those of the\nother\u2014when the one considers its real wants, and the other creates\nfor itself wants which are factitious or immoral.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAmong one people a taste for education may predominate; among another\na taste for good living. In such circumstances we render a service to\nthe first when we have something to teach them; to the other, when we\nplease their palate.\n\nNow, services are remunerated according to the degree of importance\nwe attach to them. If we do not exchange, if we render these services\nto ourselves, what should determine us if not the nature and\nintensity of our desires?\n\nIn one of the countries we have supposed, professors and teachers\nwill abound; in the other, cooks.\n\nIn both, the services exchanged may be equal in the aggregate, and\nmay consequently represent equal values, or equal relative wealth,\nbut not the same absolute wealth. In other words, the one employs its\nlabour well, and the other employs it ill.\n\nAnd as regards satisfactions the result will be this, that the one\npeople will have much instruction, and the other good dinners.\nThe ultimate consequences of this diversity of tastes will have\nconsiderable influence not only upon real, but upon relative wealth;\n[p337] for education may develop new means of rendering services,\nwhich good dinners never can.\n\nWe remark among nations a prodigious diversity of tastes, arising\nfrom their antecedents, their character, their opinions, their\nvanity, etc.\n\nNo doubt there are some wants so imperious (hunger and thirst, for\nexample) that we regard them as determinate quantities. And yet it\nis not uncommon to see a man scrimp himself of food in order to have\ngood clothes, while another never thinks of his dress until his\nappetite is satisfied. The same thing holds of nations.\n\nBut these imperious wants once satisfied, everything else depends\ngreatly on the will. It becomes an affair of taste, and in that\nregion morality and good sense have much influence.\n\nThe intensity of the various national desires determines always the\nquantity of labour which each people subtracts from the aggregate of\nits efforts in order to satisfy each of its desires. An Englishman\nmust, above all things, be well fed. For this reason he devotes\nan enormous amount of his labour to the production of food, and\nif he produces any other commodities, it is with the intention of\nexchanging them abroad for alimentary substances. The quantity\nof corn, meat, butter, milk, sugar, etc., consumed in England\nis frightful. A Frenchman desires to be amused. He delights in\nwhat pleases his eye, and in frequent changes. His labours are in\naccordance with his tastes. Hence we have in France multitudes of\nsingers, mountebanks, milliners, elegant shops, coffee-rooms, etc.\nIn China, the natives dream away life agreeably under the influence\nof opium, and this is the reason why so great an amount of their\nnational labour is devoted to procuring this precious narcotic,\neither by direct production, or indirectly by means of exchange. In\nSpain, where the pomp of religious worship is carried to so great a\nheight, the exertions of the people are bestowed on the decoration of\nchurches, etc.\n\nI shall not go the length of asserting that there is no immorality\nin services which pander to immoral and depraved desires. But the\nimmoral principle is obviously in the desire itself.\n\nThat would be beyond doubt were man living in a state of isolation;\nand it is equally true as regards man in society, for society is only\nindividuality enlarged.\n\nWho then would think of blaming our labourers in the south of France\nfor producing brandy? They satisfy a \u2039demand\u203a. They dig their\nvineyards, dress their vines, gather and distil the grapes, without\nconcerning themselves about the use which will be made of the\nproduct. It is for the man who seeks the enjoyment to [p338] consider\nwhether it is proper, moral, rational, or productive of good. The\nresponsibility rests with him. The business of the world could be\nconducted on no other footing. Is the tailor to tell his customer\nthat he cannot make him a coat of the fashion he wants because it is\nextravagant, or because it prevents his breathing freely, etc., etc.\n\nThen what concern is it of our poor vine-dressers if rich diners-out\nin London indulge too freely in claret? Or can we seriously accuse\nthe English of raising opium in India with the deliberate intention\nof poisoning the Chinese?\n\nA frivolous people requires frivolous manufactures, just as a serious\npeople requires industry of a more serious kind. If the human race is\nto be improved, it must be by the improved morality of the consumer,\nnot of the producer.\n\nThis is the design of religion in addressing the rich\u2014the great\n\u2039consumers\u203a\u2014so seriously on their immense responsibility. From\nanother point of view, and employing a different language, Political\nEconomy arrives at the same conclusion, when she affirms that we\ncannot check the \u2039supply\u203a of any commodity which is in \u2039demand\u203a; that\nas regards the producer, the commodity is simply a \u2039value\u203a, a sort\nof current coin which represents nothing either good or evil, whilst\nit is in the intention of the consumer that \u2039utility\u203a, or moral or\nimmoral enjoyment, is to be discovered; consequently, that it is\nincumbent on the man who manifests the desire or makes the demand for\nthe commodity to weigh the consequences, whether useful or hurtful,\nand to answer before God and man for the good or bad direction which\nhe impresses upon industry.\n\nThus from whatever point of view we regard the subject, we see\nclearly that consumption is the great end of Political Economy;\nand that good and evil, morality and immorality, harmonies and\ndissonances, all come to centre in the consumer, for he represents\nmankind at large. [p339]\n\n\n\n\n XII.\n THE TWO APHORISMS.\n\n\nModern moralists who oppose the maxim, \u2039Chacun pour tous, tous pour\nchacun\u203a, to the old proverb, \u2039Chacun pour soi, chacun chez soi\u203a, have\nformed a very incomplete, and for that reason a very false, and, I\nwould add, a very melancholy idea of Society.\n\nLet us eliminate, in the first place, from these two celebrated\nsayings what is superfluous. \u2039All for each\u203a is a redundancy,\nintroduced from love of antithesis, for it is expressly included in\n\u2039each for all\u203a. As regards the saying \u2039chacun chez soi\u203a, the idea has\nno direct relation with the others; but, as it is of great importance\nin Political Economy, we shall make it hereafter the subject of\ninquiry.\n\nIt remains for us to consider the assumed opposition between\nthese two members of the adages we have quoted, namely, \u2039each\nfor all\u203a\u2014\u2039each for himself\u203a. The one, it is said, expresses the\nsympathetic principle, the other the individualist or selfish\nprinciple. The first unites, the second divides.\n\nNow, if we refer exclusively to the motive which determines the\neffort, the opposition is incontestable. But I maintain that if we\nconsider the aggregate of human efforts in their results, the case\nis different. Examine Society, as it actually exists, obeying, as\nregards services which are capable of remuneration, the individualist\nor selfish principle; and you will be at once convinced that every\nman in working \u2039for himself\u203a is in fact working \u2039for all\u203a. This is\nbeyond doubt. If the reader of these lines exercises a profession or\ntrade, I entreat him for a moment to turn his regards upon himself;\nand I would ask him whether all his labours have not the satisfaction\nof others for their object, and, on the other hand, whether it is not\nto the exertions of others that he himself owes all his satisfactions.\n\nIt is evident that they who assert that \u2039each for himself\u203a and \u2039each\u203a\n[p340] \u2039for all\u203a are contradictory, conceive that an incompatibility\nexists between individualism and association. They think that \u2039each\nfor himself\u203a implies isolation, or a tendency to isolation; that\npersonal interest divides men, in place of uniting them, and that\nthis principle tends to the \u2039chacun chez soi\u203a, that is to say, to the\nabsence of all social relations.\n\nIn taking this view, I repeat, they form a false, because incomplete\nidea of society. Even when moved only by personal interest, men\nseek to draw nearer each other, to combine their efforts, to\nunite their forces, to work for one another, to render reciprocal\nservices, to \u2039associate\u203a. It would not be correct to say that they\nact in this way in spite of self-interest; they do so in obedience\nto self-interest. They \u2039associate\u203a because they find their account\nin it. If they did not find it for their advantage, they would not\nassociate. Individualism, then, or a regard to personal interest,\nperforms the work which the sentimentalists of our day would confide\nto Fraternity, to self-sacrifice, or some other motive opposed to\nself-love. And this just establishes the conclusion at which we never\nfail to arrive\u2014that Providence has provided for the social state\nmuch better than the men can who call themselves its prophets. For\nof two things one; either union is injurious to individuality, or\nit is advantageous to it. If it injures it, what are the Socialist\ngentlemen to do, how can they manage, and what rational motive\ncan they have to bring about a state of things which is hurtful\nto everybody? If, on the contrary, union is advantageous, it will\nbe brought about by the action of personal interest, which is the\nstrongest, the most permanent, the most uniform, the most universal,\nof all motives, let men say what they will.\n\nJust look at how the thing actually works in practice. A \u2039squatter\u203a\ngoes away to clear a field in the \u2039Far West\u203a. Not a day passes\nwithout his experiencing the difficulties which isolation creates.\nA second squatter now makes his way to the desert. Where does he\npitch his tent? Does he retire \u2039naturally\u203a to a distance from the\nfirst? No; he draws near to him \u2039naturally\u203a\u2014and why? Because he knows\nall the advantages that men derive, with equal exertion, from the\nvery circumstance of proximity. He knows that on various occasions\nthey can accommodate each other by lending and borrowing tools and\ninstruments, by uniting their action, by conquering difficulties\ninsurmountable by individual exertion, by creating reciprocally a\nmarket for produce, by interchanging their views and opinions, and\nby providing for their common safety. A third, a fourth, a fifth\nsquatter penetrates into [p341] the desert, and is invariably\nattracted by the smoke of the first settlements. Other people will\nthen step in with larger capital, knowing that they will find hands\nthere ready to be set to work. A colony is formed. They change\nsomewhat the mode of culture; they form a path to the highway, by\nwhich the mail passes; they import and export; construct a church,\na school-house, etc., etc. In a word, the power of the colonists is\naugmented by the very fact of their proximity, and to such a degree\nas to exceed, to an incalculable extent, the sum of their isolated\nand individual forces; and this is the motive which has attracted\nthem towards each other.\n\nBut it may be said that \u2039every man for himself\u203a is a frigid maxim,\nwhich all the reasoning and paradoxes in the world cannot render\notherwise than repugnant; that it smells of egotism a mile off, and\nthat egotism is more than an evil in society, being itself the source\nof most other evils.\n\nNow, listen a little, if you please.\n\nIf the maxim \u2039every man for himself\u203a is understood in this sense,\nthat it is to regulate all our thoughts, acts, and relations, that we\nare to find it at the root of all our family and domestic affections,\nas fathers, sons, brothers, husbands, friends, citizens, or rather\nthat it is to repress and to extinguish these affections, then I\nadmit that it is frightful, horrible, and such, that were there\none man upon the earth heartless enough to make it the rule of his\nconduct, that man dared not even proclaim it in theory.\n\nBut will the Socialists, in the teeth of fact and experience, always\nrefuse to admit that there are two orders of human relations\u2014one\ndependent on the sympathetic principle, and which we leave to\nthe domain of morals,\u2014another springing from self-interest, and\nregulating transactions between men who know nothing of each other,\nand owe each other nothing but justice,\u2014transactions regulated by\nvoluntary covenants freely adjusted? Covenants of this last species\nare precisely those which come within the domain of Political\nEconomy. It is, in truth, no more possible to base commercial\ntransactions on the principle of sympathy, than it is to base family\nand friendly relations on self-interest. To the Socialists I shall\nnever cease to address this remonstrance: You wish to mix up two\nthings which cannot be confounded. If you were fools enough to wish\nto confound them, you have not the power to do it. The blacksmith,\nthe carpenter, and the labourer, who exhaust their strength in rude\navocations, may be excellent fathers, admirable sons; they may have\nthe moral sense thoroughly developed, and carry in their breasts\nhearts of large and expansive sympathy. [p342] In spite of all\nthat, you will never persuade them to labour from morning to night\nwith the sweat of their brow, and impose upon themselves the hardest\nprivations, upon a mere principle of devotion to their fellow-men.\nYour sentimental lectures on this subject are, and always will be,\npowerless. If, unfortunately, they could mislead a few operatives,\nthey would just make so many dupes. Let the merchant set to work\nto sell his wares on the principle of Fraternity, and I venture to\npredict that, in less than a month, he will see himself and his\nchildren reduced to beggary.\n\nProvidence has done well, then, in giving to the social state very\ndifferent guarantees. Taking man as we find him,\u2014sensibility and\nindividuality, benevolence and self-love being inseparable,\u2014we\ncannot hope, we cannot desire to see the motive of personal\ninterest universally eradicated\u2014nor can we understand how it could\nbe. And yet nothing short of this would be necessary in order to\nrestore the equilibrium of human relations; for if you break this\nmainspring of action only in certain chosen spirits, you create two\nclasses,\u2014scoundrels whom you thus tempt to make victims of their\nfellow-men\u2014and the virtuous, for whom the part of victims is reserved.\n\nSeeing, then, that as regards labour and exchanges, the principle\n\u2039each for himself\u203a must inevitably have the predominance as a motive\nof action, the marvellous and admirable thing is, that the Author of\nall should have made use of that principle in order to realize, in\nthe social order, the maxim of the advocates of Fraternity, \u2039each for\nall\u203a. In His skilful hand the obstacle has become the instrument.\nThe general interest has been intrusted to personal interest, and\nthe one has become infallible because the other is indestructible.\nTo me it would seem that, in presence of these wondrous results,\nthe constructors of artificial societies might, without any excess\nof humility, acknowledge that, as regards organization, the Divine\nArchitect has far surpassed them.\n\nRemark, too, that in the natural order of society, the principle\nof \u2039each for all\u203a, based upon the principle of \u2039each for himself\u203a,\nis much more complete, much more absolute, much more personal,\nthan it would be in the Socialist and Communist point of view. Not\nonly do we work for all, but we cannot realize a single step of\nprogress without its being profitable to the Community at large. (See\nchapter x., and \u2039ante\u203a, chapter xi.) The order of things has been so\nmarvellously arranged, that when we have invented a new process, or\ndiscovered the liberality of nature in any department\u2014some new source\nof fertility in the soil, or some new mode of [p343] action in one\nof the laws of the physical world,\u2014the profit is ours temporarily,\ntransiently, so long as to prove just as a recompense, and useful as\nan encouragement,\u2014after which the advantage escapes from our grasp,\nin spite of all our efforts to retain it. From individual it becomes\nsocial, and falls for ever into the domain of the common and the\ngratuitous. And while we thus impart the fruits of our progress to\nour fellow-men, we ourselves become participators in the progress\nwhich other men have achieved.\n\nIn short, by the rule \u2039each for himself\u203a, individual efforts,\nreinforced and invigorated, act in the direction of \u2039each for all\u203a,\nand every partial step of progress brings a thousand times more to\nsociety, in gratuitous utility, than it has brought to its inventor\nin direct profits.\n\nWith the maxim \u2039each for all\u203a no one would act exclusively \u2039for\nhimself\u203a. What producer would take it into his head to double his\nlabour in order to add a thirty-millionth part to his wages?\n\nIt may be said, then, why refute the Socialist aphorism? What\nharm can it do? Undoubtedly it will not introduce into workshops,\ncounting-rooms, warehouses, nor establish in fairs and markets, the\nprinciple of self-sacrifice. But then it will either tend to nothing,\nand then we may let it sleep in peace, or it will bend somewhat\nthat stiffness of the egotistical principle, which, excluding all\nsympathy, has scarcely right to claim any.\n\nWhat is false is always dangerous. It is always a dangerous thing\nto represent as detestable and pernicious an eternal and universal\nprinciple which God has evidently destined to the conservation and\nadvancement of the human race; a principle, I allow, as far as motive\nis concerned, which does not come home to our heart, but which, when\nviewed with reference to its results, astonishes and satisfies the\nmind; a principle, moreover, which leaves the field perfectly free to\nthe action of those more elevated motives which God has implanted in\nthe heart of man.\n\nBut, then, what happens? The Socialist public adopts only one-half\nthe Socialist maxim\u2014the last half, \u2039all for each\u203a. They continue as\nbefore to work \u2039each for himself\u203a, but they require, over and above,\nthat all should work for them.\n\nIt must be so. When dreamers desired to change the grand mainspring\nof human exertion, by substituting fraternity for individualism,\nthey found it necessary to invent a hypocritical contradiction. They\nset themselves to call out to the masses,\u2014\u201cStifle self-love in your\nhearts and follow us; you will be rewarded for it [p344] by unbounded\nwealth and enjoyment.\u201d When men try to parody the Gospel, they\nshould come to a Gospel conclusion. Self-denial implies sacrifice\nand pain\u2014self-devotion means, \u201cTake the lowest seat, be poor, and\nsuffer voluntarily.\u201d But under pretence of abnegation to promise\nenjoyment; to exhibit wealth and prosperity behind the pretended\nsacrifice; to combat a passion which they brand with the name of\negotism by addressing themselves to the grossest and most material\ntendencies;\u2014this is not only to render homage to the indestructible\nvitality of the principle they desire to overthrow, but to exalt it\nto the highest point while declaiming against it; it is to double the\nforces of the enemy, instead of conquering him; to substitute unjust\ncovetousness for legitimate individualism; and, in spite of all the\nartifice of a mystical jargon, to excite the grossest sensualism. Let\navarice answer this appeal.[69]\n\nAnd is that not the position in which we now are? What is the\nuniversal cry among all ranks and classes? \u2039All for each.\u203a In\npronouncing the word \u2039each\u203a, we are thinking of ourselves, and what\nwe ask is to have a share which we have not merited, in the fruits\nof other men\u2019s labour. In other words, we systematize spoliation. No\ndoubt, spoliation, simple and naked, is so unjust that we repudiate\nit; but, by dint of the maxim \u2039all for each\u203a, we allay the scruples\nof conscience. We impose upon others the \u2039duty\u203a of working for us,\nand we arrogate to ourselves the \u2039right\u203a to enjoy the fruits of\nother men\u2019s labour. We summon the State, the law, to impose the\npretended \u2039duty\u203a, to protect the pretended \u2039right\u203a, and we arrive at\nthe whimsical result of robbing one another in the sacred name of\nFraternity. We live at other men\u2019s expense, and attribute heroism\nto the sacrifice. What an odd, strange thing the human mind is! and\nhow subtle is covetousness! It is not enough that each of us should\nendeavour to increase his share at the expense of his fellows, it is\nnot enough that we should desire to profit by labour that we have\nnot performed; we persuade ourselves that in acting thus we are\ndisplaying a sublime example of self-sacrifice. We almost go the\nlength of comparing ourselves to the primitive Christians, and yet we\nblind ourselves so far as not to see that the sacrifices which make\nus weep in fond admiration [p345] of our own virtue, are sacrifices\nwhich we do not make, but which, on the contrary, we exact.[70]\n\nIt is worth observing the manner in which this mystification is\neffected.\n\nSteal! Oh fy, that is mean\u2014besides it leads to the hulks, for the law\nforbids it. But if the law authorized it, and lent its aid, would not\nthat be very convenient?\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. What a happy thought!\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\nNo time is lost in soliciting from the law some trifling privilege,\na small monopoly, and as it may cost some pains to protect it, the\nState is asked to take it under its charge. The State and the law\ncome to an understanding to realize exactly that which it was their\nbusiness to prevent or to punish. By degrees the taste for monopolies\ngains ground. No class but desires a monopoly. \u2039All for each\u203a, they\ncry; we desire also to appear as philanthropists, and show that we\nunderstand solidarity.\n\nIt happens that the privileged classes, in thus robbing each other,\nlose at least as much by the exactions to which they are subject, as\nthey gain by the contributions which they levy. Besides, the great\nbody of the working classes, to whom no monopolies can be accorded,\nsuffer from them until they can endure it no longer. They rise up,\nand cover the streets with barricades and blood; and then we must\ncome to a reckoning with them.\n\nWhat is their demand? Do they require the abolition of the abuses,\nprivileges, monopolies, and restrictions under which they suffer?\nNot at all. They also are imbued with philanthropy. They have\nbeen told that the celebrated apophthegm \u2039all for each\u203a is the\nsolution of the social problem. They have had it demonstrated to\nthem over and over again that monopoly (which in reality is only a\ntheft) is nevertheless quite moral if sanctioned by law. Then they\ndemand\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. What?\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. Monopolies! They also summon the State\nto supply them with education, employment, credit, assistance, at the\nexpense of the people. What a strange illusion! and how long will it\nlast? We can very well conceive how all the higher classes, beginning\nwith the highest, can come to demand favours and privileges. Below\nthem there is a great popular mass upon whom the burden falls. But\nthat the people, when once conquerors, should take it into their\nheads to enter into the privileged class, and create monopolies for\nthemselves at their own expense; that they should enlarge the area of\nabuses in order to live upon them; that they should not [p346] see\nthat there is nothing below them to support those acts of injustice:\nthis is one of the most astonishing phenomena of our age, or of any\nage.\n\nWhat has been the consequence? By pursuing this course, Society has\nbeen brought to the verge of shipwreck. Men became alarmed, and with\nreason. The people soon lost their power, and the old spread of\nabuses has been provisionally resumed.\n\nThe lesson, however, has not been quite lost upon the higher\nclasses. They find that it is necessary to do justice to the\nworking class. They ardently desire to succeed in this, not only\nbecause their own security depends upon it, but impelled, as we\nmust acknowledge, by a spirit of equity. Of this I am thoroughly\nconvinced, that the wealthier classes desire nothing more than to\ndiscover the solution of the great problem. I am satisfied that if\nwe were to ask the greater part of our wealthy citizens to give\nup a considerable portion of their fortune in order to secure\nthe future happiness and contentment of the people, they would\ncheerfully make the sacrifice. They anxiously seek the means of\ncoming (according to the consecrated phrase) \u2039to the assistance of\nthe labouring classes\u203a. But for that end on what plan have they\nfallen!\u00a0.\u00a0. Still the communism of monopolies; a mitigated communism,\nhowever, and which they hope to subject to prudential regulation.\nThat is all\u2014they go no farther.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. [p347]\n\n\n\n\n XIII.\n RENT.[71]\n\n\nIf, with an increase in the value of land, a corresponding\naugmentation took place in the value of the products of the soil, I\ncould understand the opposition which the theory I have explained in\nthe present work (chap. ix.) has encountered. It might be argued,\n\u201cthat in proportion as civilisation is developed the condition of the\nlabourer becomes worse in comparison with that of the proprietor.\nThis may be an inevitable necessity, but assuredly it is not a law of\nharmony.\u201d\n\nHappily it is not so. In general those circumstances which cause an\naugmentation of the value of land diminish at the same time the price\nof landed produce.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. Let me explain this by an example.\n\nSuppose a field worth \u00a3100 situated ten leagues from a town. A road\nis made which passes near this field, and opens up a market for its\nproduce. The field immediately becomes worth \u00a3150. The proprietor\nhaving by this means acquired facilities for improvement and for a\nmore varied culture, then increases the value of the land, and it\ncomes to be worth \u00a3200.\n\nThe value of the field is now doubled. Let us examine this added\nvalue\u2014both as regards the question of justice and as regards the\nutility which accrues, not to the proprietor, but to the consumers of\nthe neighbouring town.\n\nAs far as concerns the increase of value arising from ameliorations\nwhich the proprietor has made at his own cost, there can be no\nquestion. The capital he has expended follows the law of all capital.\n\nI venture to say the same thing of the capital expended in [p348]\nforming the road. The operation is more circuitous, but the result is\nthe same.\n\nIn point of fact, the proprietor has contributed to the public\nexpenditure in proportion to the value of his field. For many\nyears he contributed to works of general utility executed in more\nremote parts of the country, and at length a road has been made in\na direction which is profitable to him. The gross amount of taxes\nwhich he has paid may be compared to shares taken in a Government\nenterprise, and the annual augmentation of rent which he derives from\nthe formation of this new road may be compared to \u2039dividends\u203a upon\nthese shares.\n\nWill it be said that a proprietor may pay taxes for ever, without\nreceiving anything in return?\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. But this just comes back to\nthe case we have already put. The amelioration, although effected by\nthe complex and somewhat questionable process of taxation, may be\nconsidered as made by the proprietor at his own cost, in proportion\nto the partial advantage he derives from it.\n\nI have put the case of a road. I might have cited any other instance\nof Government intervention. Security, for example, contributes to\ngive value to land, like capital, or labour. But who pays for this\nsecurity? The proprietor, the capitalist, the labourer.\n\nIf the State expends its revenue judiciously, the value expended\nwill reappear and be replaced, in some form or other, in the hands\nof the proprietor, the capitalist, or the labourer. In the case of\nthe proprietor, it must take the form of an increase in the value\nof his land. If, on the other hand, the State expends its revenue\ninjudiciously, it is a misfortune. The tax is lost; and that is the\ntaxpayer\u2019s look-out. In that case, there is no augmentation of the\nvalue of the land, but that is no fault of the proprietor.\n\nBut for the produce of the soil thus augmented in value, by the\naction of Government and by individual industry, do the consumers of\nthe neighbouring town pay an enhanced price? In other words, does the\ninterest of the \u00a3100 become a charge on each quarter of wheat which\nthe field produces? If we paid formerly \u00a315 for it, shall we now be\nobliged to pay more than \u00a315? That is an interesting question, seeing\nthat justice and the universal harmony of interests depend on its\nsolution.\n\nI answer boldly, \u2039No\u203a.\n\nNo doubt the proprietor will now get \u00a35 more (I assume the rate of\ninterest to be 5 per cent.); but he gets this addition at the expense\nof nobody. On the contrary, the purchaser will derive a still greater\nprofit. [p349]\n\nThe field we have supposed having been formerly at a distance from\nthe market, was made to produce little, and on account of the\ndifficulty of transit what was sent to market sold at a high price.\nNow, production is stimulated, and transport made cheaper, a greater\nquantity of wheat comes to market, and comes there at less cost, and\nis sold cheaper. Whilst yielding the proprietor a total profit of \u00a35,\nits purchaser, as we have already said, may realize a still greater\nprofit.\n\nIn short, an economy of power has been realized. For whose benefit?\nFor the benefit of both of the contracting parties. According to what\nlaw is this gain distributed? According to the law which we have\ndescribed in the case of capital, seeing that this augmentation of\nvalue is itself capital.\n\nWhen capital increases, the portion falling to the proprietor or\ncapitalist increases in absolute value and diminishes in relative\nvalue; while the portion falling to the labourer (or consumer)\nincreases both in absolute and relative value.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\nObserve how this takes place. In proportion as civilisation\nadvances, lands which are situated near populous centres rise in\nvalue. Productions of an inferior kind in such places give way to\nproductions of a superior description. First of all, pasture gives\nway to cereal crops, then cereal crops give way to market gardening.\nProducts are brought from a greater distance at less cost, so that\n(and this in point of fact is incontestable) meat, bread, vegetables,\neven flowers, are sold in such places cheaper than in neighbourhoods\nless advanced, although manual labour costs more.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\n\nLE CLOS-VOUGEOT.[72]\n\n\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. \u2039Services are exchanged for services.\u203a Frequently services\nprepared beforehand are exchanged for present or future services.\n\nThe value of services is determined not by the labour they exact or\nhave exacted, but by the labour which they save.\n\nNow, in point of fact, human labour goes on constantly improving in\nefficiency.\n\nFrom these premises we may deduce a phenomenon which is very\nimportant in social economy, which is, that \u2039in general\u203a anterior\nlabour loses in exchange with present labour.\n\nTwenty years ago I manufactured a commodity which cost me [p350] 100\ndays\u2019 labour. I propose an exchange, and I say to the purchaser, Give\nme in exchange a thing which cost you also 100 days\u2019 labour. Probably\nhe will be in a situation to make this reply, That great progress has\nbeen made in twenty years. What you ask 100 days\u2019 labour for can be\nmade now in 70 days. I don\u2019t measure your service by the time it has\ncost you, but by the service it renders me. That service is equal\nonly to 70 days\u2019 labour, for in that time I can render it to myself,\nor find one who will render it to me.\n\nThe consequence is that the value of capital goes on continually\ndeteriorating, and that anterior labour and capital are not so much\nfavoured as superficial economists believe.\n\nApart from tear and wear, there is no machine a little old but loses\nvalue, for the single reason that better machines of the same kind\nare made nowadays.\n\nThe same thing holds in regard to land. There are few soils, to bring\nwhich into their present state of culture and fertility, has not\ncost more labour than would be necessary now with our more effective\nmodern appliances.\n\nThis is what happens in the \u2039usual\u203a case, but not \u2039necessarily\u203a so.\n\nAnterior labour may, at the present day, render greater services\nthan it did formerly. This is rare, but it sometimes happens. For\nexample, I store up wine which cost me twenty days\u2019 labour to\nproduce. Had I sold it immediately, my labour would have yielded me\na certain remuneration. I have preserved my wine; it has improved;\nthe succeeding vintage has failed; in short, the price has risen, and\nmy remuneration is greater. Why? Because I render a greater amount\nof service\u2014my customers would have greater difficulty in procuring\nthemselves such wine than I myself experienced\u2014I satisfy a want which\nhas become greater, more felt, etc.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\nThis is a consideration which must always be looked to.\n\nThere are a thousand of us. Each has his piece of land, and clears\nit. Some time elapses, and we sell it. Now it so happens that out of\n1000 there are 998 who never receive as many days\u2019 present labour\nin exchange for their land as it cost them formerly; and this\njust because the anterior labour, which was of a ruder and less\nefficient description, does not render as great an amount of service\ncomparatively as present labour. But there are two of the proprietors\nwhose labour has been more intelligent, or, if you will, more\nsuccessful. When they bring their land to market, they find that it\nis capable of rendering service which cannot be rivalled. Every man\nsays to himself, It would cost me a great [p351] deal to render this\nservice to myself, therefore I must pay well for it, for I am quite\ncertain that it would cost me more to obtain what I am in quest of by\nmy own exertions.\n\nThis is just the case of the celebrated vineyard, the Clos-Vougeot,\nand it is the same case as that of the man who finds a diamond,\nor possesses a fine voice, or other personal advantages or\npeculiarities, etc.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn my neighbourhood there is much uncultivated land. A stranger\nasks, Why not cultivate this field? Because the soil is bad. But\nhere, alongside of it, you have another of the same quality which is\ncultivated. To this objection the native has no answer.\n\nWas he wrong in the first answer he gave, namely, \u2039It is bad\u203a?\n\nNo. The reason which induces him not to clear new fields is not\nthat they are bad, for there are excellent fields which also remain\nuncultivated. His reason is that it would cost him more to bring this\nfield into the same state of cultivation as the adjoining field which\nis cultivated, than to buy the latter.\n\nNow, to any thinking man this proves incontestably that the field has\nno intrinsic value.\n\n(Illustrate this idea by considering it in various points of\nview.)[73] [p352]\n\n\n\n\n MONEY.[74]\n\n\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\n\n\n\n CREDIT.[75]\n\n\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\n\n\n\n XIV.\n WAGES.\n\nMen are always anxiously on the outlook for something fixed. We\nmeet sometimes with restless and unquiet spirits who have a craving\nfor risk and adventure. But, taking mankind in the gross, we may\nsafely affirm that what they desire is to be tranquil as regards\ntheir future, to know what they have to count upon, and be enabled\nto make their arrangements beforehand. To be convinced how precious\nfixity is in their eyes, we have only to observe how very anxious\nmen are to obtain for themselves Government employments. Nor is this\non account of the honour which such places confer, for there are\nmany of these situations where the work is not of a very elevated\ndescription, consisting in watching and vexing their fellow-citizens,\nand prying into their affairs. Such places, however, are not the\nless sought after\u2014and why? Because they confer an assured position.\nWho has not heard a father speak [p353] thus of his son: \u201cI am\nsoliciting for him a place as a candidate or supernumerary in such\nor such a Government office. It is a pity, no doubt, that so costly\nan education is required\u2014an education which might have ensured his\nsuccess in a more brilliant career. As a public functionary he will\nnot get rich, but he is certain to live. He will always have bread.\nFour or five years hence he will begin to receive a salary of thirty\npounds a year, which will rise by degrees to a hundred and twenty or\na hundred and sixty. After thirty years\u2019 service he will be entitled\nto retire. His livelihood then is secured, and he must learn to live\nupon a small income,\u201d etc.\n\nFixity, then, has for most men an irresistible attraction.\n\nAnd yet, when we consider the nature of man, and of his occupations,\nfixity would seem to be incompatible with them.\n\nGo back in imagination to the origin of human society, and you\nwill have difficulty in comprehending how men can ever succeed in\nobtaining from the community a fixed, assured, and constant quantity\nof the means of subsistence. Yet this is one of those phenomena which\nstrike us less because we have them constantly before our eyes. We\nhave public functionaries who receive fixed salaries; proprietors\nwho can count beforehand on their revenues; men of fortune who can\ncalculate on their dividends; workmen who earn every day the same\nwages. Apart from the consideration of money, which is only employed\nto facilitate exchanges and estimates of value, we perceive that what\nis fixed is the quantity of the means of subsistence, the value of\nthe satisfactions received by the various classes of workmen. Now, I\nmaintain that this fixity, which by degrees extends to all men and\nall departments of industry, is a miracle of civilisation, and a\nmarvellous effect of that social state which, in our day, is so madly\ndecried.\n\nFor, let us go back to a primitive social state, and suppose a nation\nof hunters, or fishers, or shepherds, or warriors, or agriculturists,\nto be told, \u201cIn proportion as you advance on the road of progress,\nyou will know more and more beforehand what amount of enjoyment will\nbe secured to you for each year,\u201d they would not believe us. They\nwould reply, \u201cThat must always depend on something which eludes\ncalculation,\u2014the inconstancy of the seasons, etc.\u201d The truth is, they\ncould form no idea of the ingenious efforts by means of which men\nhave succeeded in establishing a sort of mutual assurance between all\nplaces and all times.\n\nNow, this mutual assurance against all the risks and chances of the\nfuture is entirely dependent on a branch of human science which\nI shall denominate \u2039experimental statistics\u203a. This department\n[p354] of science, depending as it does upon experience, admits of\nindefinite progress, and consequently the fixity of which we have\nspoken also admits of indefinite progress. That fixity is favoured\nby two circumstances which are permanent in their operation: \u20391st\u203a,\nMen desire it. \u20392dly\u203a, They acquire every day greater facilities for\nrealizing it.\n\nBefore showing how this fixity is established in human transactions,\nin which it is little thought of, let us first of all see how it\noperates in a transaction of which it is the special object. The\nreader will, in this way, comprehend what I mean by experimental\nstatistics.\n\nA number of men have each a house. One of these houses happens to\nbe burnt down and its owner is ruined. All the rest immediately\ntake alarm, and each says to himself, \u201cThe same thing may happen to\nme.\u201d We cannot be surprised, then, that these proprietors should\nunite and divide the risk of such accidents as much as possible, by\nestablishing a mutual assurance against fire. The bargain is very\nsimple\u2014here is its formula: \u201cIf the house of one of us is burnt down,\nthe rest will club to make good the loss to the man who is burnt out.\u201d\n\nBy this means each proprietor acquires a double security; in the\nfirst instance he must take a small share in all losses of this\nnature; but then he is assured that he will never himself be obliged\nto suffer the whole loss arising from any such misfortune.\n\nIn reality, and if we extend the calculation over a great number of\nyears, we see that the proprietor makes, so to speak, a bargain with\nhimself. He sets aside a sufficient fund to repair the misfortunes\nwhich may afterwards befall him.\n\nThis is \u2039association\u203a. Indeed it is to arrangements of this nature\nthat the Socialists give exclusively the name of \u2039association\u203a.\nWhenever speculation intervenes, association, as they think,\ndisappears. It is improved and perfected, as I think, and as we shall\nafterwards see.\n\nWhat has led the proprietors to associate, to enter into this mutual\nassurance, is the love of fixity, of security. They prefer known\nrisks to risks which are unknown, a multitude of small risks to one\ngreat one.\n\nTheir design, however, has not yet been completely attained, and\nthere is still much uncertainty in their position. Each of them\nmay say, \u201cIf accidents are multiplied, my \u2039quota\u203a will become\ninsupportable. In any case, I should like to know beforehand, and\nto have insured in the same way my furniture, my merchandise, etc.\u201d\n[p355]\n\nIt would seem that such inconveniences belong to the nature of\nthings, and that it is impossible for men to get rid of them. After\neach step of progress we are tempted to think that all has been\naccomplished. How, indeed, can we elude this \u2039uncertainty\u203a, which\ndepends upon accidents still unknown to us?\n\nBut mutual assurance has developed in the social state an\nexperimental knowledge, namely, the average annual proportion between\nthe values lost by accident and the values assured.\n\nHaving made all the necessary calculations, a company or an\nindividual says to the proprietors, \u201cIn entering into a mutual\nassurance, you have wished to purchase freedom from anxiety, and the\nindeterminate quota which you reserve annually to cover accidents is\nthe price which you pay for this immunity. But if you do not know\nwhat this price is beforehand, your tranquillity is never perfect. I\nnow propose to you, therefore, another expedient. In consideration of\na \u2039fixed annual premium\u203a which you shall pay me, I take upon myself\nall your chances of accidents. I will insure you all, and here is the\ncapital which will guarantee the fulfilment of my engagement.\u201d\n\nThe proprietors accept the proposal, even although this fixed premium\nshould amount to somewhat more than the sum which their mutual\nassurance cost them; for their object is not so much to save a few\nshillings as to obtain perfect repose and freedom from anxiety.\n\nAt this point the Socialists pretend that the principle of\nassociation is destroyed. For my part, I think it is improved, and on\nthe road to other improvements to which I can see no limits.\n\nBut, say the Socialists, the assured have no longer any mutual tie.\nThey no longer see each other and come to a common understanding.\nIntermediary parasites have come among them, and the proof that the\nproprietors are now paying more than is required to cover accidents\nis to be found in the fact, that the insurers obtain large profits.\n\nIt is not difficult to answer this objection.\n\nFirst of all, association exists, but under another form. The premium\ncontributed by the assured is still the fund which is to make good\nthe losses. The assured have found the means of remaining in the\nassociation without taking part in its business. This is evidently\nan advantage to each of them, seeing that the design they have in\nview is nevertheless attained; and the possibility of remaining\nin the association whilst they have their [p356] independence of\nmovement and free use of their faculties restored to them, is just\nthe characteristic of social progress.\n\nAs regards the profit obtained by the intermediate party, it is\neasily explained and justified. The assured remain associated for the\npurpose of repairing accidents and making good what is lost. But a\ncompany has stepped in which offers them the following advantages:\n\u20391st\u203a, It takes away whatever of uncertainty remained in the position\nof the assured; \u20392dly\u203a, It frees them from all care and trouble in\nconnexion with accidents. These are \u2039services\u203a, and the rule is,\nservice for service. The proof that the intervention of the company\nis a service possessed of value is to be found in the fact that it\nis freely accepted and paid for. The Socialists only make themselves\nridiculous when they declaim against such middlemen. Do they intrude\nthemselves into commercial transactions by force? Have they any other\nmeans of introducing themselves and their services than by saying to\nthe parties with whom they deal, \u201cI will cost you some trouble, but I\nwill save you more?\u201d How, then, can they be called parasites or even\nintermediaries?\n\nI affirm, moreover, that association thus transformed is on the\ndirect road of progress in every sense.\n\nIn fact, companies which expect to realize profits proportioned to\nthe extent of their business, promote insurances. To aid them in this\nthey have agents in all quarters, they establish credits, they devise\na thousand combinations to increase the number of the assured\u2014in\nother words, of the \u2039associated\u203a parties. They undertake a multitude\nof risks which were unknown to the primitive mutual insurance\nassociations. In short, association is extended progressively to a\ngreater number of men and things. In proportion as this development\ntakes place, the companies find they can lower their prices; they are\neven forced by competition to do so. And here we again get a glimpse\nof the great law, that profit soon escapes from the hands of the\nproducer to settle in those of the consumer.\n\nNor is this all: companies insure each other by reassurances, so\nthat, with a view to providing for losses, which is the principal\nobject in view, a thousand associations scattered over England,\nFrance, Germany, and America, are melted into one grand and unique\nassociation. And what is the result? If a house is burnt down at\nBordeaux, Paris, or elsewhere, the proprietors of the whole world,\nEnglish, Belgians, Germans, Spaniards, club together and repair the\ndisaster.\n\nThis is an example of the degree of power, universality, and\nperfection, which may be reached by means of free and voluntary\n[p357] association. But to attain this they must be left free to\nmanage their own business. Now, what happened when the Socialists,\nthose great partisans of association, were in power? Their chief\nbusiness was to threaten association in every form, and principally\nassociation for insurance. And why? Just because, in order to render\nitself more universal, it adopted those expedients which left each of\nits members in a state of independence. How little these unfortunate\nSocialists understand the social mechanism! They would bring us\nback to the rude and primitive forms which association assumed when\nsociety was in its infancy, and they would suppress all progress\nunder the pretext that it has departed from these forms.\n\nWe shall see, by-and-by, that from the same prejudices, the same\nignorance, arise their incessant declamations against \u2039interest\u203a. The\n\u2039interest\u203a and \u2039wages\u203a are \u2039fixed\u203a, and, consequently, improved forms\nof remuneration for the use of labour and capital.\n\nThe wages-system [\u2039salariat\u203a] has been peculiarly the butt of the\nSocialists. They have almost gone the length of representing it as a\nmodified, and not greatly modified, system of slavery and thraldom.\nAt all events, they see in it only a bargain which is one-sided and\nleonine, founded on liberty merely in appearance, an oppression of\nthe weak by the strong, or the tyranny of capital over labour.\n\nContinually wrangling about new institutions to be founded, the\nSocialists display in their common hatred of existing institutions,\nand especially of the system of remuneration by wages, a striking\nunanimity. If they cannot attain unity as to the new social\norganization to be established, they are at least marvellously united\nin calumniating, decrying, running down, hating, and making hated,\neverything which actually exists. I have assigned the reason for this\nelsewhere.[76]\n\nMuch unfortunately takes place which is beyond the domain of\nphilosophical discussion; and the Socialist propaganda, seconded by\nan ignorant and cowardly press, which, without avowing Socialism,\nseeks for popularity in fashionable declamations, has succeeded in\ninstilling hatred of the wages-system into the minds of the very\npeople who live by wages. Workmen have become disgusted with this\nform of remuneration. It appears to them unjust, humiliating, and\nodious. They think it brands them with the mark of servitude. They\ndesire to participate on another principle in the distribution of\nwealth. Hence they have fallen passionately in love with the most\nextravagant Utopias. They had but one [p358] step to take, and\nthey have taken it. When the revolution of February broke out,\nthe grand object of the working classes was to get rid of wages.\nUpon the means of accomplishing this they consulted their oracles;\nbut when these oracles did not remain mute, they followed the\nusual mode by giving obscure utterances, in which the word which\npredominated was \u2039association\u203a, as if \u2039association\u203a and \u2039wages\u203a\nwere incompatible. Then the workmen would try all the forms of this\nliberty-giving association; and, to impart to it greater attraction,\nthey were pleased to invest it with all the charms of Solidarity,\nand attributed to it all the merits of Fraternity. For the moment,\none would have been led to believe that the human heart itself had\nbeen about to undergo a grand transformation, and to throw off the\nyoke of self-interest, in order to give place to the principle of\nsympathy. By a singular contradiction, they hoped from association to\nreap at once all the glory of self-sacrifice, and material profits\nof hitherto unheard-of amount. They fell down before the statue of\nFortune, prayed, and decreed to themselves the glory of martyrdom. It\nseemed as if these workmen, thus misled, and on the point of being\nseduced into a career of injustice, felt it necessary to shut their\neyes to their true position, to glorify the methods of spoliation\nwhich had been taught them by their apostles, and place them covered\nwith a veil in the sanctuary of a new revelation. Never, perhaps,\nhad so many and such dangerous errors, so many and such gross\ncontradictions, found their way before into the human brain.\n\nLet us inquire, then, what wages really are, and consider their\norigin, form, and effects. Let us trace the subject to its\nfoundation, and make sure whether, in the development of humanity,\nwages constitute retrogression or progress\u2014whether in receiving wages\nthere be anything humiliating or degrading, or which can in any\ndegree be allied with slavery.\n\nServices are exchanged for services, labour, efforts, pains, cares,\nnatural or acquired ability,\u2014these are what we give and receive.\nWhat we confer on one another is satisfaction or enjoyment. What\ndetermines the exchange is the common advantage, and its measure\nis the free appreciation of reciprocal services. The various\ncombinations to which human transactions give rise have necessitated\na voluminous economic vocabulary; but the words, Profits, Interest,\nWages, although indicating shades of difference, do not change the\nnature and foundation of things. We have still the \u2039do ut des\u203a, or\nrather the \u2039facio ut facias\u203a, which constitutes the basis of the\nwhole economic evolution.[77] [p359]\n\nThe class which lives by wages forms no exception to this law.\nExamine the subject attentively. Do these men render services?\nUnquestionably they do. Are services rendered to them? Undoubtedly\nthey are. Are these services exchanged freely and voluntarily? Do\nwe perceive in this kind of transaction any appearance of fraud or\nviolence? It is at this point, perhaps, that the grievances of the\nworkman begin. They don\u2019t go the length of pretending that they\nare deprived of their liberty, but they assert that this liberty\nis merely nominal and a mockery, because the man whose necessities\nforce the determination is not really free. It remains for us to\ninquire, then, whether the defect of liberty thus understood does not\nbelong to the situation of the workman rather than to the mode of his\nremuneration.\n\nWhen one man enters into the service of another, his remuneration may\nconsist in a part of the work produced, or in a determinate wage. In\neither case he must bargain for this part of the product\u2014for it may\nbe greater or less,\u2014or for this wage\u2014for it may be higher or lower.\nIf the man is in a state of absolute destitution, if he cannot wait,\nif he acts on the spur of urgent necessity, he must submit, and\ncannot get rid of the other\u2019s exactions. But you will observe that it\nis not the form of remuneration which gives rise to this dependence.\nWhether he runs the risk of the enterprise by stipulating for a share\nof the product, or bargains for a fixed remuneration whether the\nother gain or lose, it is his precarious situation which gives him an\ninferior position in the discussion which precedes the arrangement.\nThose innovators who have represented association to the working\nclasses as an infallible remedy have misled them, and are themselves\nmistaken. They can convince themselves of this by observing\nattentively the circumstances in cases where the indigent workman\nreceives part of the product in place of wages. There are assuredly\nno men in the country worse off than fishermen or vine-dressers,\nalthough they have the satisfaction of enjoying all the benefits\nwhich the Socialists denominate, exclusively, \u2039association\u203a.\n\nBut before proceeding to inquire into the circumstances which\ninfluence the quota of wages, I must define, or rather describe, the\nnature of the transaction.\n\nMen have a tendency\u2014which is natural, and, therefore, advantageous,\nmoral, universal, indestructible\u2014to desire security with reference to\nthe means of subsistence, to seek fixity, and avoid uncertainty.\n\nHowever, in the early stages of society uncertainty reigns supreme,\nand it has frequently astonished me that Political [p360] Economy\nhas failed to mark the great and happy efforts which have been made\nto restrain this uncertainty within narrower and narrower limits.\n\nTake the case of a tribe of hunters, or a nomad people, or a colony\nnewly founded,\u2014is there a single man who can say with certainty what\nto-morrow\u2019s labour will be worth? Would there not even seem to be an\nincompatibility between the two ideas, and that nothing can be of a\nmore causal nature than the result of labour, whether applied to the\nchase, to fishing, or to agriculture?\n\nIt will be difficult, then, to find, in an infant society, anything\nwhich resembles stipends, salaries, wages, revenues, rents, interest,\nassurance, etc., which are all things which have been invented in\norder to give more and more fixity to personal situations, to get\nquit, to a greater and greater degree, of that feeling so painful to\nmen of uncertainty with reference to the means of subsistence.\n\nThe progress which has been made in this direction is indeed\nadmirable, although custom has so familiarized us with this\nphenomenon that we fail to attend to it. In fact, since the results\nof labour, and consequently the enjoyments of mankind, may be so\nprofoundly modified by events, by unforeseen circumstances, by the\ncaprices of nature, the uncertainty of the seasons, and accidents of\nevery kind, we may ask how it comes to pass that so great a number of\nmen find themselves set free for a time, and some of them for life,\nby means of rents, salaries, and retiring pensions, from this species\nof \u2039eventuality\u203a, of uncertainty, which would seem to be essentially\npart of our nature.\n\nThe efficient cause, the motive power of this beautiful evolution of\nthe human race, is the tendency of all men towards competency and\nmaterial prosperity, of which Fixity is so essential a part. The\nmeans consist in the substitution of a fixed unconditional bargain\nfor one dependent merely on appreciable chances, or the gradual\nabandonment of that primitive form of association which consists in\ncommitting all the parties concerned irrevocably to all the risks\nand chances of the enterprise; in other words, the improvement of\nassociation. It is singular, at least, that all our great modern\nreformers exhibit association to us as destroyed by the very element\nwhich improves and perfects it.\n\nIn order that men should consent to take upon themselves,\nunconditionally, risks which fall naturally on others, it is\nnecessary that a species of knowledge, which I have called\n\u2039experimental statistics\u203a, should have made some progress; for\nexperience alone can place them in a situation to appreciate these\nrisks, at least [p361] approximately, and consequently to appreciate\nthe \u2039value of the service\u203a rendered in securing them against such\nrisks. This is the reason why the bargains and transactions of rude\nand ignorant nations admit no stipulations of this nature, and hence,\nas I have said, uncertainty exercises over such people uncontrolled\npower. Were a savage, grown old, and having laid up some stock of\ngame, to take a young hunter into his service, he would not give him\nfixed wages, but a share in the produce of the chase. How, indeed,\ncould either of them, from the known infer the unknown? The teachings\nof past experience do not permit them to insure the future beforehand.\n\nIn times of barbarism and inexperience, men, no doubt, \u2039associate\u203a,\nfor we have demonstrated that otherwise they could not exist; but\nassociation can assume among them only that primitive and elementary\nform which the Socialists represent as the only one which can secure\nour future safety.\n\nWhen two men have long worked on together, encountering equal risks,\nthere at length comes a time when, from experience, they can estimate\nand appreciate the value of these risks, and one of them consents to\ntake the entire risk upon his own shoulders, in consideration of a\nfixed recompense.\n\nThis arrangement is undoubtedly a step of progress, and it is shown\nto be so by the very fact that it has been effected freely and\nvoluntarily by the two parties, who would not have entered into it\nhad it not been felt to be for their mutual benefit. It is easy to\nsee in what the benefit consists. The one party gains by obtaining\nthe exclusive management of an undertaking of which he takes all the\nrisks upon himself; the other by obtaining that fixity of position\nwhich is so much desired. And society at large must be benefited by\nhaving an enterprise, formerly subjected to two minds and two wills,\nhenceforth conducted with unity of views and unity of action.\n\nBut although association is modified in this way, it by no means\nfollows that it is dissolved. The co-operation of the two men is\ncontinued, although the mode of dividing the product of their\nenterprise has been changed. Association is not vitiated by an\ninnovation voluntarily agreed to, and which satisfies all parties.\n\nThe co-operation of anterior labour and present labour is always, or\nalmost always, required in order to realize new means of satisfaction\nand enjoyment. Capital and labour, in uniting in a common\nundertaking, are, in the first instance, forced to undertake each its\nshare of the risk; and this continues until the value of the risk can\nbe experimentally estimated. Then two tendencies, which are [p362]\nalike natural to the human heart, manifest themselves\u2014I mean the\ntendencies towards \u2039unity of direction\u203a and \u2039fixity of situation\u203a.\nCapital then says to labour: \u201cExperience has taught us that your\neventual profit amounts, on an average, to so much. If you wish it, I\nwill ensure you this amount, and take charge of the operation, taking\nupon myself the chances of profit or loss.\u201d\n\nLabour may possibly answer: \u201cThis proposal suits me very well.\nSometimes I earned twenty pounds a year; sometimes I earn sixty.\nThese fluctuations are very inconvenient, for they hinder me from\nregulating uniformly my own expenditure and that of my family. It is\nan advantage to me to get rid of this uncertainty, and to receive a\nfixed recompense of forty pounds.\u201d\n\nBy this arrangement the terms of the contract will be changed. They\nwill continue to \u2039unite their efforts\u203a, and to \u2039share the proceeds\u203a,\nand consequently the association will not be dissolved; but it will\nbe modified in this way, that the capitalist will take all the risks\nwith the compensation of all the extraordinary profits, whilst the\nlabourer will be secured the advantages of fixity. Such is the origin\nof Wages.\n\nThe agreement may take place in the reverse way. Frequently the\nperson who undertakes a commercial enterprise says to the capitalist:\n\u201cHitherto we have worked together, sharing the risks. Now that we are\nin a situation to appreciate these risks, I propose to make a fixed\nbargain. You have invested a thousand pounds in the undertaking,\nfor which one year you receive twenty-five pounds, another year\nseventy-five. If you agree to it, I will give you fifty pounds, or 5\nper cent. per annum, and free you from all risk, on condition that I\nhave henceforth the entire management of the concern.\u201d\n\nThe capitalist will probably answer: \u201cSince, with great and\ntroublesome fluctuations, I receive, on an average, only fifty pounds\nper annum, I should much prefer to have that sum regularly assured to\nme. I shall, therefore, allow my capital to remain in the concern,\nbut I am to be exempted from all risk. My activity and intelligence\nwill now be free to engage in some other undertaking.\u201d\n\nThis is an advantage in a social, as well as an individual point of\nview.\n\nWe see that men are constantly in quest of a fixed and stable\nposition, and that there is an incessant effort to diminish and\ncircumscribe on all sides the element of uncertainty. Where two\nmen participate in a common risk, this risk, having a substantive\nexistence, cannot be annihilated; but the tendency is for one of\n[p363] them to take that risk upon himself. If the capitalist\nundertakes the risk, the labourer\u2019s remuneration is fixed under the\nname of \u2039wages\u203a. If the labourer runs the chances of profit or loss,\nthen the remuneration of the capitalist is fixed under the name of\n\u2039interest\u203a.\n\nAnd as capital is nothing else than human services, we may say that\n\u2039capital\u203a and \u2039labour\u203a are two words which in reality express one\nand the same idea; and, consequently, the same thing may be said of\n\u2039interest\u203a and \u2039wages\u203a. Thus, where false science never fails to find\nantagonism, true science ever finds identity.\n\nConsidered, then, with reference to their origin, nature, and form,\n\u2039wages\u203a have in them nothing degrading or humiliating any more\nthan \u2039interest\u203a has. Both constitute the return for present and\nanterior labour derived from the results of a common enterprise.\nOnly it almost always happens that one of the two associates agrees\nto take upon himself the risk. If it be the present labour which\nclaims a uniform remuneration, the chances of profit are given up in\nconsideration of wages. If it be the anterior labour which claims a\nfixed return, the capitalist gives up his eventual chance of profits\nfor a determinate rate of \u2039interest\u203a.\n\nFor my own part, I am convinced that this new stipulation which is\ningrafted on the primitive form of association, far from destroying\nit, improves and perfects it. I have no doubt of this, when I\nconsider that such a stipulation takes its rise from a felt want,\nfrom the natural desire of all men for stability; and, moreover, that\nit satisfies all parties, without injury, but, on the contrary, by\nserving the interests of the public.\n\nModern reformers, who, under pretence of having invented association,\ndesire to bring it back to its primitive and rudimentary forms, ought\nto tell us in what respect these \u2039fixed bargains\u203a are opposed to\njustice or equity, in what respect they are prejudicial to progress,\nand on what principle they wish to interdict them. They ought also to\ntell us why, if such stipulations bear the stamp of barbarism, they\nare constantly and more and more mixed up with that association which\nis represented as the perfection of human society.\n\nIn my opinion, such stipulations are among the most marvellous\nmanifestations, as they are among the most powerful springs, of\nprogress. They are at once the perfection and reward of a past and\nvery ancient civilisation, and the starting-point of a new and\nunlimited career of future civilisation. Had society adhered to\nthat primitive form of association which saddles all the parties\ninterested with a share of the risks of an enterprise, ninety-nine\n[p364] out of every hundred of such enterprises never would have\nbeen undertaken. The man who at the present day participates in a\nscore of enterprises would have been tied down for ever to one. Unity\nof design and of will would have been wanting in all commercial\noperations; and mankind would never have tasted that precious good\nwhich is perhaps the source of genius\u2014stability.\n\nThe \u2039wages-system\u203a [\u2039salariat\u203a], then, takes its rise in a natural\nand indestructible tendency. Observe, however, that it satisfies\nmen\u2019s desires but imperfectly. It renders the remuneration of workmen\nmore uniform, more equal, and brings it nearer to an average; but\nthere is one thing which it cannot do, and which their admission to a\nparticipation in profits and risks could not accomplish, namely, to\nensure them employment.\n\nAnd here I cannot help remarking how powerful the feeling is to which\nI have made reference throughout the whole of this chapter, and the\nvery existence of which our modern reformers do not seem even to\nsuspect,\u2014I mean men\u2019s aversion to uncertainty. It is exactly this\nvery feeling which has made it so easy for Socialist declaimers to\ncreate such a hatred on the part of the working classes to receive\ntheir remuneration in the shape of wages.\n\nWe can conceive three phases in the condition of the labourer: the\npredominance of uncertainty; the predominance of stability; and an\nintermediate state, from which uncertainty is partly excluded, but\nnot sufficiently so to give place to fixity and stability.\n\nWhat the working classes do not sufficiently understand is, that the\nassociation which the Socialists preach up to them is the infancy\nof society, the period when men are groping their way, the time of\nquick transitions and fluctuations, of alternations of plethora\nand atrophy\u2014in a word, the period when absolute uncertainty reigns\nsupreme. The wages-system, on the contrary, forms the intermediate\nlink between uncertainty and fixity.\n\nNow, the working classes, being far as yet from feeling themselves in\na state of stability, place their hopes\u2014like all men ill at ease\u2014on\na certain change of position. This is the reason why it has been an\neasy task for Socialism to impose upon them by the use of the grand\nterm \u2039association\u203a. The working classes fancy themselves pushed\nforward when they are in reality falling behind.\n\nYes, these unfortunate people are falling back to the primitive and\nrudimentary stage of the social movement; for what is the association\nnow so loudly preached up to them but the subjection of all to all\nrisks and contingencies? This is inevitable in times of ignorance,\nsince fixed bargains presuppose some progress at [p365] least in\nexperimental statistics. But the doctrine now inculcated is nothing\nelse than a pure and simple revival of the reign of uncertainty.\n\nThe workmen who were enthusiasts for association when they knew it\nonly in theory, were enchanted when the revolution of February seemed\nto render possible its practical adoption.\n\nAt that period many employers of labour, either infected with the\nuniversal infatuation, or giving way to their fears, offered to\nsubstitute a participation in the returns for payment by wages.\nBut the workmen did not much fancy this solidarity of risk. They\nunderstood very well what was offered them; for in case the\nenterprise turned out a losing concern, they would have had no\nremuneration of any kind,\u2014which to them was death.\n\nWe saw then what would not have been to the credit of our working\nclasses, had the blame not lain with the pretended reformers, in\nwhom, unhappily, they placed confidence. The working classes demanded\na sort of bastard association in which the rate of wages was to be\nmaintained, and in which they were to be entitled to a share of the\nprofits without being subject to any of the losses.\n\nThe workmen would probably never of themselves have thought of\nputting forward such pretensions. There is in human nature a fund of\ngood sense and a feeling of justice to which such barefaced iniquity\nis repugnant. To corrupt man\u2019s heart, you must begin by depraving his\nintellect.\n\nThis is what the leaders of the Socialist school did not fail to do;\nand with this fact before us I am frequently asked whether their\nintentions were not perverse. I am always inclined to respect men\u2019s\nmotives; but it is exceedingly difficult, under such circumstances,\nto exculpate the Socialist chiefs.\n\nAfter having, by the unjust and persevering declamations with which\ntheir books are filled, irritated the working classes against their\nemployers, after having persuaded them that they were in a state of\nwar, in which everything is fair against the enemy, they enveloped\nthe ultimatum of the workmen in scientific subtleties, and even in\nclouds of mysticism. They figured an abstract being called Society,\nwhich owed to each of its members a \u2039minimum\u203a, that is to say,\nan assured means of subsistence. \u201cYou have, then, a right,\u201d they\ntold the workmen, \u201cto demand a fixed wage.\u201d In this way they began\nby satisfying the natural desire of men for stability. Then they\nproceeded to teach them that, independently of wages, the workmen\nshould have a share in the profits; and when asked whether he was\nalso to bear his share of the losses, [p366] their answer was, that\nin virtue of State intervention and the guarantee of the taxpayer,\nthey had invented a system of universal industry, protected from all\nloss. By this means they removed all the remaining scruples of the\nunfortunate workmen; and when the revolution of February broke out we\nsaw them, as I have said, disposed to make three stipulations:\u2014\n\n \u20391st\u203a, Continuance of wages;\n \u20392d\u203a, Participation in profits;\n \u20393d\u203a, Immunity from losses.\n\nIt may be said, perhaps, that these stipulations were neither so\nunjust nor so impossible as they appeared, seeing that they are\nintroduced in many enterprises, having reference to newspapers,\nrailways, etc.\n\nI answer that there is something truly puerile in allowing oneself\nto be duped by high-sounding names applied to very trivial things.\nA little candour will at once convince us that this participation\nin profits, which some concerns allow to their workmen receiving\nwages, does not constitute association, nor merit that title, nor is\nit a great revolution introduced into the relations of two classes\nof society. It is only an ingenious and useful encouragement given\nto workmen receiving wages, under a form which is not exactly new,\nalthough it has been represented as an adhesion to Socialism.\nEmployers who, in adopting this custom, devote a tenth, a twentieth,\nor a hundredth part of their profits, when they have any, to this\n\u2039largesse\u203a bestowed on their workmen, may make a great noise about\nit, and proclaim themselves the generous renovators of the social\norder; but it is really unworthy of occupying more of our time at\npresent, and I return to my argument.\n\nThe system of payment by wages, then, was a step of progress. In the\nfirst instance, anterior labour and present labour were associated\ntogether with common risks, in common enterprises, the circle of\nwhich, in such circumstances, must have been very limited. If society\nhad not discovered other combinations, no important work could ever\nhave been undertaken. Men would have remained hunters and fishers,\nand there might have been perhaps some rude attempts at agriculture.\n\nAfterwards, in obedience to the double feeling which prompts us to\nseek stability, and, at the same time, retain the direction of those\noperations of which we must encounter the risks, the two associates,\nwithout putting an end to the association, seek to supersede the\njoint hazard by a fixed bargain, and agree that one of them should\ngive the other a fixed remuneration, and take [p367] upon himself\nthe whole risk, along with the exclusive direction of the enterprise.\nWhen this fixity applies to the anterior labour, or capital, it is\ncalled \u2039interest\u203a; when it applies to the present labour, it is\ncalled \u2039wages\u203a.\n\nBut, as I have already said, wages serve only imperfectly to\nconstitute a state of stability for a certain class of men, or of\nsecurity in regard to the means of subsistence. It is one step, and\na very marked one, towards the realization of this benefit, and so\ndifficult that at first sight we should have thought it impossible;\nbut it does not effect its entire realization.\n\nAnd it is perhaps worthy of remark in passing, that fixity of\nsituation, stability, resembles in one respect all the great results\nof which mankind are in pursuit. We are always approximating to such\nresults, but we never fully attain them. For the very reason that\nstability is a good, a benefit, we must always be making efforts more\nand more to extend its domain; but it is not in our nature ever to\nobtain complete possession of it. We may even go the length of saying\nthat to obtain such possession would not be desirable for man in his\npresent state. Absolute good of whatever kind would put an end to all\ndesire, all effort, all combination, all thought, all foresight, all\nvirtue. Perfection excludes the notion of perfectibility.\n\nThe working classes having then, with the lapse of time and the\nprogress of civilisation, reached the improved system of payment by\nwages, have not stopped short at that point, or relaxed their efforts\nto realize stability.\n\nNo doubt wages come in with certainty at the conclusion of the\nday\u2019s work; but when circumstances\u2014as, for example, an industrial\ncrisis, or a protracted illness\u2014have interrupted work, the wages are\ninterrupted also. What, then, is the workman to do? Are he and his\nwife and children to be deprived of food?\n\nHe has but one resource, and that is, to save, while employed, the\nmeans of supplying his wants in sickness and old age.\n\nBut, in the individual case, who can estimate beforehand the\ncomparative length of time in which he has to assist, or be assisted?\n\nWhat cannot be done in the individual case may be found more\npracticable with reference to the masses in virtue of \u2039the law of\naverages\u203a. The tribute paid by the workman while employed to provide\nfor his support in periods of stoppage answers the purpose much\nmore effectually, and with much more irregularity and certainty,\nwhen it is centralized by association, than when it is abandoned to\nindividual chances. [p368]\n\nHence the origin of \u2039Friendly Societies\u203a\u2014admirable institutions which\nbenevolence had given birth to long before the name of Socialism\nwas ever heard of. It would be difficult to say who was their\ninventor. The true inventor, I believe, was the felt want of some\nsuch institutions\u2014the desire of men for something fixed, the restless\nactive instinct which leads us to remove the obstacles which mankind\nencounter in their progress towards stability.\n\nI have myself seen friendly societies rise up spontaneously, more\nthan five-and-twenty years ago, among the most destitute labourers\nand artisans of the poorest villages in the department of the Landes.\n\nThe obvious design of these societies is to equalize enjoyments, and\nto spread and distribute over all periods of life the wages earned in\ndays of health and prosperity. In all localities in which they exist,\nthese societies have conferred immense benefits. The contributors\nare sustained by a feeling of security, a feeling the most precious\nand consolatory which can enter the heart of man in his pilgrimage\nhere below. Moreover, they feel their reciprocal dependence and their\nusefulness to each other. They see at what point the prosperity or\nadversity of each individual, or of each profession, becomes the\nprosperity or adversity of all.\n\nThey meet together on certain occasions for religious worship,\nas provided by their rules; and then they are called to exercise\nover each other that vigilant surveillance so proper to inspire\nself-respect, which is the first and most difficult step in the march\nof civilisation.\n\nWhat has hitherto ensured the success of these societies,\u2014a success\nwhich has been slow, indeed, like everything which concerns the\nmasses,\u2014is liberty: of this there can be no doubt.\n\nThe natural danger which they encounter is the removal of the sense\nof responsibility. It is never without creating great dangers and\ngreat difficulties for the future, that we set an individual free\nfrom the consequences of his own acts.[78]\n\nWere all our citizens to say, \u201cWe will club together to assist\nthose who cannot work, or who cannot find employment,\u201d we should\nfear to see developed to a dangerous extent man\u2019s natural tendency\nto idleness; we should fear that the laborious would soon become\nthe dupes of the slothful. Mutual assistance, then, implies mutual\nsurveillance, without which the common fund would soon be exhausted.\nThis reciprocal surveillance is for such association a necessary\nguarantee of existence\u2014a security for each contributor that he shall\nnot be made to play the part of dupe; [p369] and it constitutes\nbesides the true morality of the institution. By this means we see\ndrunkenness and debauchery gradually disappear; for what right\ncould that man have to assistance from the common fund who has\nbrought disease and want of employment upon himself by his own\nvicious habits? It is this surveillance which re-establishes that\nresponsibility which the association might otherwise tend to enfeeble.\n\nNow, in order that this surveillance should operate beneficially,\nfriendly societies must be free and select, and have the control of\ntheir own rules, as well as of their own funds. It is necessary also\nthat they should be able to suit their rules to the requirements of\neach locality.\n\nSuppose Government to interfere, it is easy to see the part which\nit would play. Its first business would be to lay hold of all these\nfunds, under the pretence of centralizing them; and to give a colour\nto the proceeding, it would promise to enlarge the funds from\nresources taken from the taxpayer. \u201cIs it not,\u201d it would be said,\n\u201cvery natural and very just that the State should contribute to so\ngreat, so generous, so philanthropic, so humane a work?\u201d This is the\nfirst injustice\u2014to introduce the element of force into the society,\nand, along with the contributions, to obtrude citizens who have no\nright to a share of the fund. And then, under pretence of unity, of\nsolidarity, the State would set itself to fuse all these associations\ninto one, subject to the same rules.\n\nBut, I would ask, what will become of the morality of the institution\nwhen its funds are augmented by taxation; when no one except a\nGovernment official has an interest to defend the common stock; when\nevery one, instead of feeling it his duty to prevent abuses, will\ntake pleasure in favouring them; when all mutual surveillance has\nceased; and when to feign disease would only be to play off a good\ntrick on the Government? The Government, to do it justice, is well\ndisposed to defend itself; but being no longer able to avail itself\nof private action, it must necessarily substitute official action. It\nwill name examiners, controllers, inspectors. Countless formalities\nwill be interposed between want and assistance. In short, what was\noriginally an admirable institution will be transformed into a mere\ndepartment of police.\n\nThe State will, in the first instance, perceive only the advantage\nof swelling the mob of its creatures, of multiplying the places at\nits disposal, and of extending its patronage and electioneering\ninfluence. It will not remark that in arrogating to itself a new\nfunction, it has assumed a new responsibility,\u2014a responsibility\n[p370] which I venture to designate as fearful. For what must the\nimmediate consequence be? The working classes will no longer regard\nthe common fund as a property which they administer and keep up, and\nthe limits of which are the limits of their rights. They will soon\naccustom themselves to regard assistance in cases of sickness or\nwant of employment, not as proceeding from a limited fund prepared\nby their own foresight, but as a debt due to them by society. Its\nresources will appear to them unbounded, and they will never be\ncontented with their share. The State will find itself under the\nnecessity of demanding constant additions to the budget. Encountering\nopposition in that, the Government will find itself involved in\ninextricable difficulties. Abuses will go on increasing, which, year\nafter year, they will shrink from reforming, until an explosion\ncomes at last. And then it will be found that we have to deal with\na population which can no longer act for itself, which expects\neverything from a minister or a prefect, even subsistence, and whose\nideas are so far perverted as to have lost all rational notions of\nRight, Property, Liberty, or Justice.\n\nSuch are some of the reasons which alarmed me, I confess, when I saw\nlately that a Commission of the Legislative Assembly had been charged\nto prepare a project of law on friendly societies. It struck me that\nthe hour of their destruction was approaching, and it afflicted me\nthe more that I had thought a great future was in store for them,\ncould we only preserve them in the bracing air of liberty. Is it\nthen, I would ask, so very difficult a thing to leave men to make\na trial, to feel their way, to make a choice, to find themselves\nmistaken, to rectify their mistakes, to inform themselves, to act in\nconcert, to manage their own property and their own interests, to act\nfor themselves on their own proper risk and peril, and on their own\nresponsibility? Is it not evident that this is the way to make them\nreally men? Shall we never cease to begin with the fatal hypothesis\nthat all governors are guardians, and the governed only children?\n\nI maintain that, left to the vigilance of the parties interested, our\nFriendly Societies have before them a great future, and I require no\nother proof of this than what has taken place on the other side of\nthe Channel.\n\n\u201cIn England, individual foresight has not waited for Government\nimpulse to organize a powerful and reciprocal association between\nthe working classes. For a long period, \u2039free\u203a associations,\nadministering their own affairs, have been founded in all the\nprincipal towns of Great Britain,\u201d etc.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. [p371]\n\n\u201cThe total number of these associations for the United\nKingdom amounts to 33,223, including not less than 3,052,000\nindividuals\u2014one-half of the adult population of Great\nBritain.\u201d\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\n\u201cThis great confederation of the working classes, this institution of\neffective and practical fraternity, rests on the most solid basis.\nTheir revenue is five millions sterling, and their accumulated\ncapital amounts to eleven millions and two hundred thousand pounds.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt is upon this fund that the contributors draw when out of\nemployment. We are astonished to see how England rallies from the\nimmense and profound perturbations which her gigantic industry\nexperiences from time to time, and almost periodically\u2014and the\nexplanation of the phenomenon is to a great extent to be found in the\nfacts now stated.\u201d\n\n\u201cMr Roebuck wished, on account of the great importance of the\nquestion, that the Government \u2039would assume the initiative\u203a by taking\nthe question into its own hands.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. This was opposed by the\nChancellor of the Exchequer.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhere individual interests are sufficient for their own free\ngovernment, power, in England, judges it useless to interpose its\naction. It watches from above to see that all goes on regularly;\nbut it leaves to every man the merit of his exertions, and the care\nof administering his affairs, according to his own notions and\nconvenience. It is to this independence of her citizens that England\nassuredly owes a portion of her greatness as a nation.\u201d[79]\n\nIt might have been added that it is to that independence also that\nthe citizens owe their experience and personal worth. To that\nindependence, too, the English Government owes its relative freedom\nfrom responsibility, and consequently its stability.\n\nAmong the institutions which may take their rise from Friendly\nSocieties, when they shall have made that advance which has scarcely\nyet been begun, I should give the first place, on account of their\nsocial importance, to the labourer\u2019s \u2039Caisse de Retraite\u203a.[80]\n\nThere are persons who treat such an institution as a chimera. Such\npeople, no doubt, pretend to be acquainted with the extreme limits\nas regards Stability, beyond which the human race is not permitted\nto go. I would ask them a few simple questions: If they had never\nknown anything beyond the social state of those barbarous tribes who\nlive by hunting and fishing, would they have been able to anticipate\nthe existence, I do not say of our present [p372] land revenues,\nof Government funds, and fixed salaries, but even of the system of\npayment by wages, which is the first step towards fixity in the\ncondition of the poorest classes? And then, if they had never seen\nanything beyond this wages-system, as it exists in countries which\nhave not yet displayed the spirit of association, would they have\nventured to predict the destinies reserved for \u2039Friendly Societies\u203a\nas we find them at work in our own day in England? Do they imagine\nthat these first steps of progress were more easy than it is for us\nto establish \u2039Caisses de Retraite\u203a? Is this third step more difficult\nto take than the other two?\n\nFor myself, I see clearly that mankind thirsts after stability. I see\nthem, century after century, adding to their incomplete conquests,\nfor the benefit of one class or another, and this by marvellous\nprocesses, which would seem to be much above individual invention,\nand I confess that I dare not venture to predict at what point men\nwill stop short on the road of progress.\n\nOne thing is certain, that these \u2039Caisses de Retraite\u203a are\nuniversally, unanimously, ardently desired by all our workmen; and\nvery naturally so.\n\nI have frequently interrogated them, and I have always found that\nthe great pain and grief of their existence is not the severity of\ntheir work, nor the smallness of their wages, nor even the irritation\nwhich the spectacle of inequality is calculated to excite. No, what\naffects them, discourages them, pains them, tortures them, is their\nuncertainty as regards the future. Whatever profession we may belong\nto, whether we are public functionaries, or men of independent\nfortune, or landed proprietors, or merchants, physicians, lawyers,\nsoldiers, magistrates, we enjoy without perceiving it, consequently\nwithout acknowledging it, the progress which has been realized by\nSociety\u2014so that we cannot comprehend the torture of uncertainty.\nLet us place ourselves, then, in the situation of a workman, of an\nartisan who, on getting up every morning, is haunted by such thoughts\nas these: \u201cI am young and robust; I work on, and sometimes harder\nthan my neighbours, and have less leisure than they. And yet I have\ndifficulty in providing for the modest wants of myself and of my\nwife and children. But what will become of me, what will become\nof them, when old age or disease shall have palsied my arm? To\nprovide for those days of helplessness by saving from my wages would\nrequire self-control and prudence almost superhuman. Yet in spite of\nsickness, I have the prospect of enjoying happiness by means of a\nFriendly Society. Old age, however, is not an eventuality; it will\ncome inevitably and without fail. Every day I feel its approach;\nit will soon [p373] overtake me; and then, after a life of honest\nlabour, what prospect have I before me? For myself the garret, the\nhospital, or the jail; fur my wife, beggary; for my daughter, worse\nstill. Oh, for some social institution which would compel me even by\nforce, while still young, to secure a provision for old age!\u201d\n\nSuch are the thoughts, feebly as I have expressed them, which every\nday, and every night, and every hour, haunt the terror-stricken\nimaginations of vast numbers of our fellow-men. And when a problem\npresents itself under such conditions, you may be very sure that it\nis not insoluble.\n\nIf in their efforts to impart more stability to their future, the\nworking classes have disseminated alarm among the other classes of\nsociety, it has arisen from their having given to these efforts a\nfalse, dangerous, and unjust direction. Their first idea, according\nto French custom, has been to attack the treasury; to found the\n\u2039Caisses de Retraite\u203a on the contributions of the taxpayer, and to\nbring into play the State and the Law, that is to say, to secure all\nthe profits of spoliation without incurring the dangers, or bearing\nthe shame of it.\n\nIt is not from this quarter of the social horizon that the\ninstitutions so much desired by the working classes may be expected\nto come. The \u2039Caisse de Retraite\u203a, in order that its origin may be\nin keeping with its end and design, and to ensure its being useful,\nsolid, and respectable, must proceed from the working classes\nthemselves, must be the fruit of their exertions, their energy, their\nsagacity, their experience, their foresight. It must be supported by\ntheir contributions, and fed and nourished by their sacrifices. All\nthey have to ask from Government is liberty of action and repression\nof fraud.\n\nBut has the time come when a \u2039Caisse de Retraite\u203a for the working\nclasses is possible? I think it has. In order that an institution\nwhich brings new stability to the interests of a class should be\nestablished, a certain amount of anterior progress is necessary. It\nis necessary that a certain stage of civilisation should have been\nreached by the Society in the midst of which such an institution\nis to be established, a healthful atmosphere must be prepared for\nit. If I am not mistaken, it is to friendly societies, with the\nmaterial resources which they create, and the spirit of association,\nthe experience, the foresight, and the sense of dignity which they\ninfuse into the working classes, that we are to owe the establishment\nof those kindred institutions which provide for the old age of the\nworkman.\n\nFor if you observe what is going on in England, you will be [p374]\nsatisfied that all such things are bound up together and depend upon\neach other, and that one step of progress, in order to be attainable,\nmust be preceded by another step of progress.\n\nIn England all the adults to whom it is an object to join benefit\nsocieties have done so of their own accord; and that is a point of\nvery great importance, seeing that operations of this kind require to\nbe conducted on a great scale, and according to the law of averages.\n\nThese societies are possessed of large accumulated capitals, and\nhave, besides, considerable annual revenues.\n\nWe cannot help thinking that, with the advance of civilisation, the\nprodigious sums which these societies now require to pay to their\nmembers will become proportionally smaller and smaller.\n\nGood health is one of the benefits which civilisation develops. The\nhealing art makes progress; machinery performs the harder and more\npainful part of labour; longevity increases. All these causes tend to\nlessen the calls on such associations.\n\nA still more decisive and infallible symptom is the disappearance of\ngreat commercial crises in England. Such convulsions have had their\norigin sometimes in sudden manias with which the English are now\nand then seized for enterprises which are more than hazardous, and\nwhich entail a great loss of capital; sometimes they arise from great\nfluctuations in the price of food, the consequence of restrictive\nlaws, for it is evident that when the price of bread and butcher\u2019s\nmeat is very high, all the resources of the people are absorbed in\nthe purchase of necessaries, and other branches of trade languish,\nand a stoppage of manufactures is the inevitable result.\n\nThe first of these causes is now disappearing under the teachings of\nexperience and public discussion; and we can already foresee that\nthe English nation, which in former days threw itself into American\nloans, Mexican mines, and railway schemes with such sheep-like\ncredulity, will now be much less a dupe than others to Californian\nillusions.\n\nWhat shall I say of Free Trade, the triumph of which is due to Mr\nCobden, not to Sir Robert Peel;\u2014for the apostle would always have\ncalled forth a statesman, but the statesman could not have dispensed\nwith the apostle. Here, then, we have a new power ushered into the\nworld, which I hope will go far to do away with commercial stoppages\nand convulsions. Restriction has the admitted tendency and effect of\nplacing many of the manufactures of the country, and, consequently,\npart of its population, in a precarious situation. As those piled-up\nwaves which a transient force keeps for a moment above the level of\nthe sea have a [p375] constant tendency to descend, so factitious\nindustries, surrounded on every side by victorious competition, have\na constant tendency to collapse. A modification in a single article\nof a single home or foreign tariff may bring ruin to them; and then\ncomes a crisis. The variations in the price of a commodity, moreover,\nare much greater when you limit the field of competition. Surround\na department, or a district, with custom-houses, and you render the\nfluctuation of prices much more marked. Liberty acts on the principle\nof insurance. In different countries, and in successive years, it\ncompensates bad harvests by good ones. It sustains prices thus\nbrought back to the average. It is a levelling and equalizing force.\nIt contributes to stability, and it combats instability which is the\ngreat source of convulsions and stoppages. There is no exaggeration\nin asserting that the first fruit of Mr Cobden\u2019s work will be to\nlessen many of those dangers which gave rise, in England, to friendly\nsocieties.\n\nMr Cobden has undertaken another task which will have a not less\nbeneficial influence on the stability of the labourer\u2019s lot, and\nI doubt not he will succeed in it; for good service in the cause\nof truth is always triumphant. I refer to his efforts for the\nsuppression of war, or, what is the same thing, for the infusion of\nthe spirit of peace into that public opinion by which the question\nof peace or war comes always to be decided. War constitutes always\nthe greatest disturbing force to which a nation can be subjected in\nits industry, in its commerce, in the disposal of its capital, even\nin its tastes. Consequently, it is a powerful cause of derangement\nand uneasiness to those classes who have difficulty in changing their\nemployment. The more, of course, this disturbing force is lessened,\nthe less onerous will the burdens be which fall upon benefit\nsocieties.\n\nOn the other hand, by dint of progress, by the mere lapse of time,\nthe resources of these societies will be extended; and a day will\ncome when they can undertake something more decisive\u2014with a view to\nlessen the instability which is inherent in human affairs. These\nsocieties might then be transformed into \u2039Caisses de Retraite\u203a, or\ninstitutions for old age, and this will undoubtedly happen, since it\nis the ardent and universal desire of the working classes that it\nshould be so.\n\nAnd it is worthy of remark, that while material circumstances\nthus pave the way for such a transformation, moral circumstances\narising from the influence of these very societies tend in the same\ndirection. These societies develop among the working classes habits,\nqualities, and virtues, the possession and diffusion of which [p376]\nare in this respect an essential preliminary. When we examine the\nmatter closely, we must be convinced that the creation of such\nsocieties presupposes a very advanced stage of civilisation. They\nare at once its effect and its reward. They could, in fact, have no\nexistence if men had not been previously in the habit of meeting, of\nacting in concert, and of managing in common their own affairs; they\ncould not exist if men were prone to vices which induce premature old\nage; nor could they exist were the working classes brought to think\nthat everything is fair as against the public, and that a common fund\nis the object at which every one intent on fraud may legitimately\ntake aim.\n\nIn order that the establishment of \u2039Caisses de Retraite\u203a should not\ngive rise to discord and misunderstanding, the working classes should\nbe made to feel that they must depend upon nobody but themselves;\nthat the common fund must be voluntarily created by those who are\nto have the benefit of it; and that it is supremely unjust and\nanti-social to call for co-operation from other classes, who are to\nhave no share in the advantage, and who can only be made to concur by\nmeans of the tax-gatherer, that is to say, by means of force. Now,\nwe have not yet got that length\u2014so far from it that the frequent\nappeals to the State show us but too plainly what are the hopes and\npretensions of the working classes. They think that their benefit\nsociety should be fed and alimented by State subventions like that\nfor public functionaries. And thus it is that one abuse always gives\nrise to another.\n\nBut if these \u2039Caisses de Retraite\u203a are to be maintained exclusively\nby the parties interested, may it not be said that they exist\nalready, seeing that life assurance companies present combinations\nwhich enable every workman to provide for the future by the sacrifice\nof the present?\n\nI have dwelt at great length upon friendly societies and \u2039Caisses de\nRetraite\u203a, although these institutions are only indirectly connected\nwith the subject of this chapter. I have given way to the desire to\nexhibit mankind marching gradually on to the conquest of stability,\nor rather (for stability implies something stationary), emerging\nvictorious from their struggle with \u2039uncertainty\u203a\u2014uncertainty, that\nstanding menace which mars all the enjoyments of life, that sword of\nDamocles which seems so fatally suspended over the human destinies.\nThat this menace may be progressively and indefinitely rendered less\nformidable by reducing to an average the risks and chances of all\ntimes, of all places, and of all men, is certainly one of the most\nadmirable social harmonies which can be presented to the view of the\nphilosophic economist. [p377]\n\nWe must not, however, conclude that this victory depends upon these\ntwo institutions, the establishment of which may be more or less\naccidental. No; did experience even demonstrate these institutions to\nbe impracticable, the human race would not the less find its way to\nfixity. It is enough to know that uncertainty is an evil, in order\nto be assured that it will be incessantly, and, sooner or later,\nsuccessfully, combated; for such is the law of our nature.\n\nIf, as we have seen, the system of remunerating labour by wages is,\nas regards stability, a more advanced form of association between\ncapital and labour, it still leaves too much room for the uncertain.\nAs long as he continues to work, the labourer knows on what he has\nto depend. But how long will he have employment, and how long will\nhe be fit for work? This is what he is ignorant of, and, as regards\nhis future, it places before him a fearful problem for solution. The\nuncertainty which affects the capitalist is different. With him it is\nnot a question of life or death. \u201cI shall always derive an interest\nfrom my means; but will that interest be higher or lower?\u201d That is\nthe question which affects capital or anterior labour.\n\nSentimental philanthropists who see in this a frightful inequality\nwhich they desire to get rid of by artificial, sometimes by unjust\nand violent, means, do not consider that after all we cannot change\nthe nature of things. Anterior labour must necessarily have more\nsecurity than present labour, simply for this reason, that products\nalready created must always present more certain resources than\nproducts which are yet to be created; that services already rendered,\nreceived, and estimated, present a more solid foundation for the\nfuture than services which are still in the state of supply. If\nyou are not surprised that of two fishermen, the one who, having\nlong laboured and saved, possesses lines, nets, boats, and some\nprevious supply of fish, is more at ease as regards his future than\nthe other who has absolutely nothing but his willingness to take\npart in the work, why should you be astonished that the social\norder presents to a certain extent the same differences? In order\nto justify the envy, the jealousy, the absolute spitefulness with\nwhich the labourer regards the capitalist, it would be necessary to\nconclude that the relative stability of the one is caused by the\ninstability of the other. But it is the reverse which is true. It is\nprecisely the capital which pre-exists in the hands of one man which\nis the guarantee of the wages of another, however insufficient that\nguarantee may appear. But for that capital, the uncertainty of the\nlabourer would be still greater and more striking. Would the [p378]\nincrease, and the extension to all, of that uncertainty be any\nadvantage to the labourer?\n\nTwo men run equal risks, which we may represent, for each, as equal\nto 40. One of them succeeds so well, by his labour and his foresight,\nthat he reduces the risks which affect him to 10. Those of his\ncompanion from the same cause, and in consequence of a mysterious\nsolidarity, are reduced, not to 10, but to 20. What can be more just\nthan that the man who has the greater merit should reap the greater\nreward? What more admirable than that the other should profit by\nthe virtues of his neighbour? Now, this is just what philanthropy\nrepudiates under the pretext that such an order of things is opposed\nto equality.\n\nSuppose that one fine day the old fisherman should thus address his\ncompanion: \u201cYou have neither boat, nor nets, nor any instrument to\nfish with, except your hands, and you are likely to make but a poor\nbusiness of it. You have no stock of provisions, and it is poor\nwork to fish with an empty stomach. Come along with me\u2014it is your\ninterest as well as mine. It is yours, for I will give you a share\nof the fish which we take, and, whatever the quantity be, it will\nat least be greater than the produce of your isolated exertions. It\nis my interest also, for the additional quantity caught with your\nassistance will be greater than the share I will have to give you.\nIn short, the union of your labour with my labour and capital, as\ncompared with their isolated action, will produce a \u2039surplus\u203a, and it\nis the division of this surplus which explains how association may be\nof advantage to both of us.\u201d\n\nThey proceed in this way in the first instance; but afterwards the\nyoung fisher will prefer to receive every day a fixed quantity of\nfish. His uncertain and fluctuating profits are thus converted into\nwages, without the advantages of association being destroyed, and, by\nstronger reason, without the association itself being dissolved.\n\nAnd it is in such circumstances as these that the pretended\nphilanthropy of the Socialists comes to declaim against the tyranny\nof boats and nets, against the situation, naturally less uncertain,\nof him who possesses them, and who has come to possess them just\nbecause he has constructed them in order to obviate this uncertainty!\nIt is in such circumstances that they endeavour to persuade the\ndestitute young fisherman that he is the victim of his \u2039voluntary\u203a\narrangement with the old fisherman, and that he ought instantly to\nreturn to his state of isolation!\n\nTo assert that the future of the capitalist is less uncertain than\n[p379] that of the workman, is just to assert that the man who\nalready possesses is in a better situation than the man who does not\nyet possess. It is so, and it must be so, for it is for this very\nreason that men aspire to possess.\n\nThe tendency, then, is for men to cease being workmen in receipt of\nwages in order to become capitalists. This progress is in conformity\nwith human nature. What workman does not desire to have tools of\nhis own, a stock of his own, a warehouse, a workshop, a field, a\ndwelling-house, of his own? What workman but aspires to become an\nemployer? Who is not delighted to command after having long obeyed?\nDo the great laws of the economic world, does the natural play of\nthe social organs, favour or oppose this tendency? This is the last\nquestion which we shall examine in connexion with the subject of\nwages.\n\nCan its solution be attended with any doubt?\n\nLet us revert once more to the necessary evolution of production:\ngratuitous utility substituting itself incessantly for onerous\nutility; human efforts constantly diminishing in relation to each\nresult, and, when rendered disposable, embarking in new enterprises;\nevery hour\u2019s labour corresponding to an always increasing amount\nof enjoyment. How, from these premises, can we fail to deduce\na progressive increase of \u2039useful efforts\u203a to be distributed,\nconsequently a sustained amelioration of the labourer\u2019s condition,\nconsequently, also, an endless increase and progression of that\namelioration?\n\nFor here the effect having become a cause, we see progress not only\nadvance, but become accelerated by its advance; \u2039vires acquirere\neundo\u203a. In point of fact, from century to century accumulation\nbecomes more easy, as the remuneration of labour becomes more ample.\nThen accumulation increases capital, increases the demand for\nlabour, and causes an elevation of wages. This rise of wages, in its\nturn, facilitates accumulation and the transformation of the paid\nlabourer into a capitalist. Between the remuneration of labour and\nthe accumulation of capital, then, there is a constant action and\nreaction, which is always favourable to the labouring class, always\ntending to relieve that class from the yoke of urgent necessity.\n\nIt may be said, perhaps, that I have brought together here all\nthat can dazzle the hopes of the working classes, and that I have\nconcealed all that could cause them discouragement. If there\nare tendencies towards equality, it may be said, there are also\ntendencies towards inequality. Why do you not analyze the whole,\nin order to explain the true situation of the labouring classes,\nand [p380] thus bring science into accord with the melancholy\nfacts to which it seems to shut its eyes? You show us gratuitous\nutility substituted for onerous utility, the gifts of God falling\nmore and more into the domain of community, and, by that very fact,\nhuman labour obtaining a continually increasing recompense. From\nthis increase of remuneration you deduce an increased facility\nof accumulation, and from this facility of accumulation a new\nincrease of remuneration, leading to new and still more abundant\naccumulations, and so on \u2039ad infinitum\u203a. It may be that this system\nis as logical as it is optimist; it may be that we are not in a\nsituation to oppose to it a scientific refutation. But where are the\nfacts which confirm it? Where do we find realized this emancipation\nfrom paid labour? Is it in the great centres of manufactures? Is it\namong the agricultural labourers? And if your theoretical predictions\nare not accomplished, is not this the reason, that alongside the\neconomic laws which you invoke, there are other laws which act in\nan opposite direction, and of which you say nothing. For instance,\nwhy do you tell us nothing of that competition which takes place\namong workmen, and which forces them to accept of lower wages; of\nthat urgent want of the necessaries of life which presses upon\nthe labourer, and obliges him to submit to the conditions of the\ncapitalist, so that, in fact, it is the most destitute, famished,\nisolated, and consequently the most clamant and exacting workman\nwho fixes the rate of wages for all? And if, in spite of so many\nobstacles, the condition of our unfortunate fellow-citizens comes\nto be improved, why do you not show us that law of population which\nsteps in with its fatal action, multiplying the multitude, stirring\nup competition, increasing the supply of labour, deciding the\ncontroversy in favour of the capitalist, and reducing the workman\nto receive, for twelve or sixteen hours\u2019 labour, only \u2039what is\nindispensable\u203a (that, forsooth, is the consecrated phrase) \u2039to the\nmaintenance of life\u203a?\n\nIf I have not touched upon all these phases of the question, the\nreason is, that it is scarcely possible to include everything\nwithin the limits of a single chapter. I have already explained the\ngeneral law of Competition, and we have seen that that law is far\nfrom furnishing any class, especially the poorer class, with serious\nreasons for discouragement. I shall, by-and-by, explain the law of\nPopulation, which will be found, I hope, in its general effects, not\nmore severe. It is not my fault if each great solution\u2014such, for\nexample, as the future of a whole class of men\u2014cannot be educed from\none isolated economic law, and consequently from [p381] one chapter\nof this work, but must be educed from the aggregate of these laws, or\nfrom the work taken as a whole.\n\nAnd here I must remind the reader of a distinction, which is by no\nmeans a subtlety, that when we have to do with an effect, we must\ntake good care not to attribute it to the action of general and\nprovidential laws, if, on the contrary, it be found to proceed from a\nviolation of these very laws.\n\nI by no means ignore the calamities which, under all forms,\u2014excessive\nlabour, insufficient wages, uncertainty as to the future, a feeling\nof inferiority,\u2014bear hard upon those of our fellow-citizens who\nhave not yet been able, by the acquisition of Property, to raise\nthemselves to a higher and more comfortable condition. But, then,\nwe must acknowledge that uncertainty, destitution, and ignorance\nconstitute the starting-point of the whole human race; and this being\nso, the question, it seems to me, is to discover,\u2014\u20391st\u203a, If the\ngeneral providential laws do not tend to relieve all classes from the\nweight of this triple yoke; \u20392dly\u203a, If the conquests already secured\nby the more advanced classes do not constitute a facility prepared\nbeforehand for the classes which yet lag behind. If the answer to\nthese questions be in the affirmative, we may conclude that the\nsocial harmony is established, and that the ways of Providence are\nvindicated, if, indeed, they needed vindication.\n\nMan being endowed with discretion and free will, the beneficent laws\nof Providence can profit him only while he conforms himself to their\noperation; and although I affirm that man\u2019s nature is perfectible,\nI must not be understood to assert that he makes progress when\nhe misunderstands or violates these laws. Thus, I maintain that\ntransactions which are natural, free, voluntary, and exempt from\nfraud or violence, have in themselves a principle of progress for\nall. But that is not to affirm that progress is inevitable, and must\nspring from war, monopoly, or imposture. I maintain that wages have a\ntendency to rise, that this rise facilitates saving, and that saving,\nin its turn, raises wages. But if the class which lives by wages, in\nconsequence of habits of dissipation and debauchery, neutralize at\nthe outset this cause of progressive effects, I do not say that those\neffects will exhibit themselves in the same way, for the contrary is\nimplied in my affirmation.\n\nIn order to bring the scientific deduction to the test of facts, we\nmust take two epochs; for example, 1750 and 1850.\n\nWe must first of all establish what, at these two periods, was the\nproportion of \u2039prol\u00e9taires\u203a to \u2039propri\u00e9taires\u203a\u2014of the men who live by\nwages without having any realized property, to the men in the actual\npossession of property. We shall find, I presume, that for [p382]\na century the number of people who possess some resources has much\nincreased relatively to the number of those who are in possession of\nno resources whatever.\n\nWe must then discover the specific situation of each of these\ntwo classes, which we cannot do otherwise than by observing the\nenjoyments and satisfactions which they possess; and very probably\nwe shall find that in our day they derive a greater amount of real\nsatisfaction and enjoyment, the one from accumulated labour, the\nother from present labour, than was possible in the middle of the\nlast century.\n\nIf the respective and relative progress of these classes, especially\nof the working class, has not been what we could wish, we must then\ninquire whether it has not been more or less retarded by acts of\ninjustice and violence, by errors, by passions\u2014in a word, by faults\nincident to mankind, by contingent causes which we cannot confound\nwith what are called the great and constant laws of the social\neconomy. Have we not, for example, had wars and revolutions which\nmight have been avoided? And have not these atrocities, in the first\ninstance, absorbed and afterwards dissipated an incalculable amount\nof capital, consequently diminished the funds for the payment of\nwages, and retarded the emancipation of the working classes? Have\nthey not diverted capital from its legitimate employment, seeking\nto derive from it, not enjoyment, but destruction? Have we not had\nmonopolies, privileges, and unequal taxation? Have we not had absurd\nexpenditure, ridiculous fashions, and a loss of power, which can be\nattributed only to puerile tastes and prejudices?\n\nAnd what has been the consequence?\n\nThere are general laws to which man may conform himself, or which he\nmay violate.\n\nIf it be incontestable that Frenchmen, during the last hundred\nyears, have frequently run counter to the natural order of social\ndevelopment; if we cannot forbear to attribute to incessant wars,\nto periodical revolutions, to acts of injustice, to monopolies, to\ndissipation, to follies of all kinds, a fearful sacrifice of the\npower of capital and of labour;\n\nAnd if, on the other hand, in spite of all this, which is undeniable,\nwe can establish another fact\u2014namely, that during this same period of\na hundred years the class possessed of property has been recruited\nfrom the labouring class, and that both have at the same time had at\ntheir command a greater amount of satisfaction and enjoyment\u2014do we\nnot, by rigorous deduction, arrive at this conclusion, namely, that,\n[p383]\n\n\u2039The general laws of the social world are in harmony, and that they\ntend in all respects to the improvement of the human race?\u203a\n\nFor since, after a period of a hundred years, during which these laws\nhave been so frequently and so deeply violated, men find themselves\nin a more advanced state of comfort and well-being, the action of\nthese laws must be beneficent, and sufficiently so even to compensate\nthe action of disturbing causes.\n\nHow indeed could it be otherwise? Is there not something equivocal,\nor rather redundant, in the expression, \u2039beneficent general laws\u203a?\nHow can general laws be other than beneficent? When God placed in\nman\u2019s heart an irresistible impulse to what is good, and, to enable\nhim to discern it, imparted to him sufficient light to enable him to\nrectify his errors, from that moment He decreed that the human race\nwas perfectible, and that, in spite of many errors, difficulties,\ndeceptions, oppressions, and oscillations, mankind should still march\nonwards on the road of progress. This onward march, while error,\ndeception, and oppression are absent, is precisely what we denominate\nthe general laws of the social order. Errors and oppressions are\nwhat I call the violation of these laws, or disturbing causes. It is\nnot possible, then, to doubt that the one should be beneficent, and\nthe other the reverse, unless we go the length of doubting whether\ndisturbing causes may not act in a manner more regular and permanent\nthan general laws. Now that conclusion would contradict the premises.\nOur intelligence, which may be deceived, can rectify its errors, and\nit is evident that, the social world being constituted as it is,\nerror might sooner or later be checked by Responsibility, and that,\nsooner or later, oppression must be destroyed by Solidarity. Whence\nit follows that disturbing causes are not in their nature permanent,\nand it is for that reason that the laws which countervail the action\nof such disturbances merit the name of General laws.\n\nIn order to conform ourselves to general laws, it is necessary to\nbe acquainted with them. Allow me then to enlarge a little on the\nrelations, so ill understood, of the capitalist and the labourer.\n\nCapital and labour are indispensable to one another. Perpetually\nconfronting each other, their adjustment constitutes one of the\nmost important and most interesting subjects which can come under\nthe observation of the economist. And it is a solemn consideration\nthat erroneous notions and superficial observations on this subject,\nif they become popular, may give rise to inveterate heartburnings,\nstruggles, and bloodshed.\n\nNow, I express my deliberate conviction when I say that for [p384]\nsome years the public mind has been saturated with the falsest\ntheories on this subject. We have been told that free and voluntary\ntransactions between the capitalist and the labourer lead, not\naccidentally, but necessarily, to monopoly for the capitalist, and\noppression for the labourer; from which the obvious conclusion is,\nthat liberty ought everywhere to be put down and stifled; for, I\nrepeat, that when men have accused liberty of engendering monopoly,\nthey have pretended not only to assert a fact, but to establish a\nlaw. In support of this thesis they have appealed to the action of\nmachinery and of competition. M. de Sismondi was, I believe, the\nfounder, and M. Buret the propagator, of these unhappy doctrines,\nalthough the latter has stated his conclusions very timidly, and the\nformer has not ventured to state any conclusion at all. But bolder\nspirits have succeeded them, who, after trumpeting their hatred to\ncapitalists and men of property, after having got the masses to\naccept as an incontestable axiom the discovery that \u2039liberty leads\ninevitably to monopoly\u203a, have, whether designedly or not, induced the\npeople to raise their hands against this accursed liberty.[81] Four\ndays of a sanguinary struggle brought emancipation, without restoring\nconfidence; for do we not constantly discover the hand of the State\n(obedient in this to vulgar prejudices) ever ready to interpose in\nthe relations of capital and labour?\n\nWe have already deduced the action of competition from our theory\nof value, and we shall do the same thing as regards the effects of\nmachinery.[82] We must limit ourselves in this place to an exposition\nof some general ideas upon the subject of the reciprocal relations of\nthe capitalist and the labourer.\n\nThe fact with which our pessimist reformers are much struck in the\noutset is, that the capitalists are richer than the workmen, and\nobtain a greater amount of satisfactions and enjoyments; whence\nit results that they appropriate to themselves a greater, and\nconsequently an unjust, share of the product elaborated by their\njoint exertions. It is in this direction that their statistics, more\nor less impartial, professing to explain the condition of the working\nclasses, tend.\n\nThese gentlemen forget that absolute poverty and destitution is the\ninevitable starting-point of the human race, and that men continue\ninevitably in this state until they have acquired something for\nthemselves, or have had something acquired for them by others.\n[p385] To remark, in the gross, that capitalists are better off than\nmere workmen, is simply to assert that those who have something, have\nmore than those who have nothing.\n\nThe questions which the workman ought to ask himself are not, \u201cDoes\nmy labour give me much? Does it give me little? Does it give me as\nmuch as it gives to another? Does it give me what I desire?\u201d The\nquestions he should ask himself are these: \u201cDoes my labour give me\nless because I employ it in the service of the capitalist? Would it\ngive me more if I worked in a state of isolation, or if I associated\nmy labour with that of other workmen as destitute as myself? I am\nill situated, but would I be better off were there no such thing\nas capital in the world? If the part which I obtain in consequence\nof my arrangement with capital is greater than what I would obtain\nwithout that arrangement, what reason have I to complain? And then,\naccording to what laws would our respective shares go on increasing\nor diminishing were transactions free? If it be of the nature of\nthese transactions to allow me, in proportion as the total product to\nbe divided increases, to obtain a continually increasing proportion\nof the excess (c. vii., p. 212), then in place of breathing hatred\nagainst capital, ought I not to treat it as a friend? If it be\nindisputably established that the presence of capital is favourable\nto my interests, and that its absence would be death to me, am I very\nprudent or well-advised in calumniating it, frightening it away, and\nforcing its dissipation or flight?\u201d In the discussion which precedes\nthe bargain, an inequality of situation is constantly alleged,\nbecause capital can afford to wait, but labour cannot. The one upon\nwhich the greatest pressure bears must give way to the other, so that\nthe capitalist in reality fixes the rate of wages.\n\nUndoubtedly, looking at the surface of things, he who has created a\nstock, and who in consequence of this foresight can wait on, has the\nadvantage in the bargain. Taking even an isolated transaction, the\nman who says, \u2039Do ut facias\u203a, is not in such a hurry to come to a\nconclusion as the man who replies, \u2039Facio ut des\u203a. For, when a man\ncan say \u2039do\u203a, he possesses something to give; and when he possesses\nsomething to give, he can wait.[83]\n\nWe must not, however, lose sight of this, that value has the same\nprinciple, whether it resides in the service or in the product. If\none of the parties says \u2039do\u203a, in place of \u2039facio\u203a, it is because he\nhas had the foresight to execute the \u2039facio\u203a beforehand. In reality,\nit is the service on both sides which is the measure of the value.\nNow, [p386] if delay for present labour is a suffering, for anterior\nlabour it is a loss. We must not then suppose that a man who says\n\u2039do\u203a, the capitalist, will amuse himself (above all if we consider\nthe aggregate of his transactions) by deferring the bargain. In\npoint of fact, do we see much capital idle for this reason? Do many\nmanufacturers stop their mills, or shipowners delay their voyages, or\nagriculturists defer their harvests, on purpose to depreciate wages,\nand get hold of their workmen by means of famine?\n\nBut without denying that the position of the capitalists in relation\nto the workman is favourable in this respect, is there not something\nelse to be considered with reference to their arrangements? For\ninstance, is it not a circumstance quite in favour of \u2039present\nlabour\u203a that \u2039accumulated labour\u203a loses value by mere lapse of time?\nI have elsewhere alluded to this phenomenon. But it is important to\nsolicit the reader\u2019s attention again to it in this place, seeing how\ngreat an influence it has upon the remuneration of present labour.\n\nThat which in my opinion renders Adam Smith\u2019s theory, that \u2039value\ncomes from labour\u203a, false, or at least incomplete, is that this\ntheory assigns to value only one element, whilst, being a relation,\nit has necessarily two. Besides, if value springs exclusively from\nlabour, and represents it, it would be proportionate to that labour,\nwhich is contrary to all observed facts.\n\nNo; value comes from service received and rendered; and the service\ndepends as much, if not more, on the pains saved to the man who\nreceives it, as upon the pains taken by the man who renders it. In\nthis respect the most common facts confirm our reasoning. When I\npurchase a product, I may indeed ask myself, \u201cHow long time has it\ntaken to make it?\u201d And this undoubtedly is one of the elements of my\nestimate of its value. But again, and above all, I ask, \u201cHow long\ntime would it take me to make it? How long time have I taken to make\nthe thing which is asked from me in exchange?\u201d When I purchase a\nservice, I not only ask how much it will cost another to render that\nservice to me, but how much it would cost me to render that service\nto myself.\n\nThese personal questions, and the answers which they call forth, are\nsuch essential elements in every estimate of value, that they most\nfrequently determine it.\n\nTry to purchase a diamond which has been found by chance. The seller\nwill transfer to you very little labour, but he will ask from you a\ngreat deal. Why, then, should you consent to this? Because you take\ninto account the labour which it saves you, the [p387] labour which\nyou would be obliged to undergo in order to satisfy by any other\nmeans your desire to possess a diamond.\n\nWhen an exchange, then, takes place between \u2039anterior labour\u203a and\n\u2039present labour\u203a, it is not at all on the footing of their intensity\nor duration, but on that of their value, that is to say, of the\nservice which they render, and their relative utility. If the\ncapitalist shall say, \u201cHere is a product which cost me formerly ten\nhours\u2019 labour;\u201d and if the labourer be in a situation to reply, \u201cI\ncan produce the same thing in five hours,\u201d the capitalist would be\nforced to give up the difference; for, I repeat, that it does not\nconcern the present acquirer of a commodity to ask how much labour it\nformerly cost to produce it. What concerns him is to know what labour\nit will save him now, what service he is to expect from it.\n\nA capitalist, in a general sense, is a man who, having foreseen that\nsuch or such a service would be in demand, has prepared beforehand to\nsatisfy this demand by incorporating the value in a commodity.\n\nWhen labour has been thus expended by anticipation, in expectation\nof future remuneration, we cannot tell whether, on a definite future\nday, it will render exactly the same service, or save the same\npains, or preserve, consequently, a uniform value. We cannot even\nhazard a probable conjecture as to this. The commodity may be very\n\u2039recherch\u00e9\u203a, very difficult to procure in any other way; it may come\nto render services which will be better appreciated, or appreciated\nby more people; it may acquire an increasing value with time,\u2014in\nother words, it may exchange for a continually increasing proportion\nof present labour. Thus it is not impossible that such a product, a\ndiamond for example, a violin of Stradivarius, a picture of Rapha\u00ebl,\na vine-plant from the Ch\u00e2teau-Laffitte, may come to exchange for a\nthousand times more labour than they cost. In fact it just comes to\nthis, that the anterior labour is well remunerated in these cases,\nbecause it renders a great amount of service.\n\nThe contrary may also happen. A commodity which has cost four hours\u2019\nlabour may come to exchange for one which has cost only three hours\u2019\nlabour of equal intensity.\n\nBut\u2014and this appears to me extremely important as regards the\ninterests of the working classes, of those classes who aspire so\nardently to get rid of their present state of uncertainty\u2014although\nthe two alternatives we have stated are both possible, and each may\nbe realized in its turn, although accumulated labour may sometimes\ngain, and sometimes lose value, in [p388] relation to present\nlabour, the first alternative, nevertheless, is so rare as to be\nconsidered accidental and exceptional; while the second is the result\nof a general law which is inherent in the very organization of man.\nThat man, with all his intellectual and experimental acquisitions, is\nof a progressive nature, is at least industrially speaking (for, in a\nmoral point of view, the assertion might be disputed) beyond doubt.\nIt is beyond doubt that the greater part of those commodities which\nexacted formerly a given amount of labour, exact at the present day\na less amount, in consequence of improvements in machinery and the\ngratuitous intervention of natural forces; and we may assert without\nhesitation, that in each period of ten years, for example, a given\nquantity of labour will accomplish, in the majority of cases, greater\nresults than the same quantity of labour could have accomplished in\nthe preceding decennial period.\n\nWhat is the conclusion to be drawn from this? Obviously, that\nanterior labour goes on constantly deteriorating in value relatively\nto present labour; that in every act of exchange it becomes necessary\nto give, of the first a greater number of hours than you receive of\nthe second; and this without any injustice, but simply to maintain\nthe equivalence of services. This is a consequence which progress\nforces upon us.\n\nYou say to me, \u201cHere is a machine; it was made ten years ago, but\nit is still new. It cost 1000 days\u2019 work to make it. I will give it\nto you in exchange for an equal number of days\u2019 labour.\u201d To this\nI reply, \u201cWithin the last ten years so many new tools have been\ninvented, and so many new processes discovered, that I can now\nconstruct, or, what comes to the same thing, get constructed for\nme, an equally good machine, with an expenditure of only 600 days\u2019\nlabour. I will not, therefore, give you more than 600 for yours.\u201d\n\u201cBut I should in this way lose 400 days\u2019 labour.\u201d \u201cNo,\u201d I reply; \u201cfor\n6 days\u2019 work now are worth 10 formerly. At all events, what you offer\nme for 1000 I can now procure for 600.\u201d This ends the debate; if the\nlapse of time has deteriorated the value of your labour, there is no\nreason why I should bear the loss.\n\nAgain you say to me, \u201cHere is a field. In order to bring it to its\npresent state of productiveness, I and my ancestors have expended\n1000 days\u2019 labour. They were unacquainted, no doubt, with the use\nof axe, and saw, and spade, and did all by muscular exertion. But\nno matter; give me first of all 1000 of your days\u2019 work, as an\nequivalent for the 1000 which I give to you, and then add 300 as\nthe value of the productive power of the soil, and you [p389] shall\nhave the field.\u201d I answer, \u201cI will not give you 1300, or even 1000,\ndays\u2019 labour for it; and here are my reasons: There are on the\nsurface of the globe an indefinite number of productive powers which\nare destitute of value. We are now accustomed to handle spade, and\naxe, and saw, and plough, and employ many other means of abridging\nlabour, and rendering it more productive; so that, with 600 days\u2019\nwork, I can either bring an uncultivated field into the state in\nwhich yours is, or (which comes absolutely to the same thing as far\nas I am concerned) \u2039I can procure myself, by an act of exchange, all\nthe advantages which you reap from your field\u203a. I will give you,\nthen, 600 days, and no more.\u201d \u201cIn that case, not only should I have\nno profit from the pretended value of the productive powers of the\nsoil; I should not even be reimbursed for the actual labour which I\nand my ancestors have devoted to the cultivation of this field. Is\nit not strange that I should be accused by Ricardo of selling the\npowers of nature; by Senior of intercepting the gifts of God; by all\nthe Economists of being a monopolist; by Proudhon of being a robber;\nwhile in reality I am only a dupe?\u201d You are no more a dupe than a\nmonopolist. You receive the equivalent of what you give; and it is\nneither natural, nor just, nor possible, that rude labour performed\nwith the hand centuries ago should exchange, day for day, against the\nmore intelligent and productive labour of the present time.\n\nThus we see that by an admirable effect of the social mechanism, when\nanterior and present labour are brought into juxtaposition, and when\nthe business is to know in what proportion the joint product of both\nis to be divided, the specific superiority of the one and of the\nother is taken into account; and they participate in the distribution\naccording to the relative services which they render. In exceptional\ncases it may happen that this superiority is on the side of anterior\nlabour. But in the great majority of cases it is otherwise; and the\nnature of man and the law of progress cause the superiority to be\nmanifested on the side of present labour. Progress is advanced by the\nlatter; and the deterioration falls upon capital.\n\nIndependently of this result, which shows how vain and hollow the\ndeclamations of our modern reformers on the pretended \u2039tyranny of\ncapital\u203a are, there is another consideration still more fitted to\nextinguish in the hearts of the working classes that factitious\nhatred of other classes, which it has been attempted but with too\nmuch success to light up.\n\nThe consideration I refer to is this:\n\nCapital, however far it may carry its pretensions, and however\n[p390] successful it may be in its endeavours to ensure the triumph\nof these pretensions, can never place labour in a worse situation\nthan it would occupy in a state of isolation. In other words, capital\nis always more favourable to labour by its presence than by its\nabsence.\n\nLet us revert to the example which I gave a little ago.\n\nTwo men live by fishing. One of them has nets, lines, a boat, and\nsome provisions to enable him to wait for the fruit of his labour.\nThe other has nothing but his personal exertions. It is their\ninterest to associate.[84] Whatever may be the terms on which they\nagree to share the produce, the condition of either of these two\nfishermen, whether the rich one or the poor one, never can be made\nworse, and for this obvious reason, that the moment either of them\nfinds association disadvantageous as compared with isolation, he may\nreturn to isolation.\n\nIn savage as in pastoral, in agricultural as in industrial life,\nthe relations of capital and labour are always represented by this\nexample.\n\nThe absence of capital is a limit which is always within the\npower of labour. If the pretensions of capital go the length of\nrendering joint action less profitable for labour than isolated\naction, labour can take refuge in isolation, an asylum always open\n(except in a state of slavery) to voluntary association found to be\ndisadvantageous. Labour can always say to capital, Rather than work\njointly on the conditions which you offer me, I prefer to work alone.\n\nIt may be objected that this resource is illusory and ridiculous,\nthat to labour isolated action is forbidden by a radical\nimpossibility, and that to dispense with tools and instruments would\nbe fatal to it.\n\nThis is no doubt true; but it just confirms the truth of my\nassertion, that even if capital carries its exactions to an extreme\nlimit, it still benefits labour by the very fact of its being\nassociated with it. Labour can be brought into a worse condition than\nthe worst association only when all association ceases and capital\nretires. Cease, then, apostles of misfortune, to cry out against the\ntyranny of capital, since you allow that its action is always\u2014in a\ngreater or less degree, no doubt, but always\u2014beneficent. Singular\ntyranny, whose power is beneficial to all those who desire to feel\nits effects, and is hurtful only when withdrawn.\n\nBut the objector may still insist that, although this might be so in\nthe earlier stages of society, capital has at the present day [p391]\ninvaded everything. It occupies every post, it lays hold of every\nfield. The working man has no longer either air, or space, or soil to\nput his foot on, or stone to lay his head on, without the permission\nof capital. He is subject to its inexorable law, and you would afford\nhim no refuge but isolation, which you admit is death!\n\nAll this displays a deplorable confusion of ideas, and a total\nignorance of the social economy.\n\nIf, as has been said, capital has possessed itself of all the forces\nof nature, of all lands, of all space, I would ask for whose profit?\nFor the profit of the capitalist, no doubt. But then, how does it\nhappen that a simple workman, who has nothing but his muscular\npowers, can obtain in France, in England, in Belgium, a thousand,\na million times greater amount of satisfaction and enjoyment than\nhe could have reaped in a state of isolation,\u2014not on the social\nhypothesis which you repudiate, but on that other hypothesis which\nyou cherish and cling to, that which presupposes capital to have been\nguilty of no usurpation.\n\nI shall continue to entertain this view of the subject, until your\nnew science can give a better account of it; for I am convinced\nI have assigned valid reasons for the conclusion at which I have\narrived.\u2014(Chapter vii.)\n\nTake the first workman you meet with on the streets of Paris. Find\nout the amount of his earnings and the amount of enjoyments he can\nprocure himself, and when you have fired off both against that\nmonster, capital, I will step in, and thus address the workman:\n\nWe are about to annihilate capital and all its works; and I am going\nto place you in the midst of a hundred thousand acres of the most\nfertile land, which I shall give you in full property and possession,\nwith everything above and below ground. You will not be elbowed by\nany capitalist. You will have the full enjoyment of the four natural\nrights of hunting, fishing, reaping the fruits, and pasturing the\nland. True, you will have no capital; for if you had, you would be in\nprecisely the situation you censure in the case of others. But you\nwill no longer have reason to complain of landlordism, capitalism,\nindividualism, usurers, stockjobbers, bankers, monopolists. The land\nwill be absolutely and entirely yours. Think if you would like to\naccept this position.\n\nThis workman would, no doubt, imagine at first that he had obtained\nthe fortune of a monarch. On reflection, however, he would probably\nsay: Well, let us calculate. Even when a man possesses a hundred\nthousand acres of land, he must live. Now, how does the \u2039bread\u203a\naccount stand in the two situations? At [p392] present I earn\nhalf-a-crown a day. At the present price of corn I can have three\nbushels a week, just as if I myself sowed and reaped. Were I\nproprietor of a hundred thousand acres of land, at the utmost I could\nnot, without capital, produce three bushels of corn in two years, and\nin the interim I might, die of famine.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. I shall, therefore,\nstick to my wages.\n\nThe truth is, we do not consider sufficiently the progress which the\nhuman race must have made, to be able even to maintain the wretched\nexistence of our workmen.[85]\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAmelioration of the labourer\u2019s lot found in wages themselves and in\nthe natural laws by which wages are regulated.\n\n\u20391st\u203a, The labourer tends to rise to the rank of a capitalist and\nemployer.\n\n\u20392d\u203a, Wages tend to rise.\n\n\u2039Corollary.\u203a\u2014The transition from the state of a paid workman to\nthat of an employer becomes constantly less desirable, and more\neasy.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. [p393]\n\n\n\n\n XV.\n SAVING.\n\n\n\u2039To save\u203a is not to accumulate quantities of corn, of game, or\nof crown-pieces. This hoarding-up of material and consumable\ncommodities, which must necessarily from its nature be restrained\nwithin narrow bounds, represents only \u2039the saving\u203a of man in a state\nof isolation. All that we have hitherto said of value, of services,\nof relative wealth, shows us that, socially, saving, although it\nproceeds from the same source, develops itself differently and\nassumes another character.\n\n\u2039To save\u203a is to interpose voluntarily an interval between the time\nwhen we render services to society and the time when we receive back\nfrom society equivalent services. A man, for example, may every\nday, from the time he is twenty until he is sixty, render to his\nneighbours professional services equal to four, and demand from them\nservices only equal to three. In that case he reserves the power of\ndrawing upon society in his old age, and when he can no longer work,\nfor payment of the remaining fourth of his forty years\u2019 labour.\n\nThe circumstance that he has received and accumulated through a\nsuccession of years notes of acknowledgment consisting of bills of\nexchange, promissory notes, bank notes, money, is quite secondary,\nand belongs only to the form of the transaction. It has relation\nonly to the means of execution. It changes neither the nature nor\nthe consequences of saving. The illusion to which the intervention\nof money gives rise in this respect is not the less an illusion,\nalthough we are almost always the dupes of it.\n\nIn fact, it is with difficulty that we can avoid believing that the\nman who saves withdraws from circulation a certain amount of value,\nand, in consequence, does a certain amount of harm to society.\n\nAnd here we encounter one of those apparent contradictions [p394]\nwhich are at war with logic, one of those barriers which would seem\nto oppose an insurmountable obstacle to progress, one of those\ndissonances which gives us pain by appearing to call in question the\nDivine power and will.\n\nOn the one hand, we know that the human race can only extend itself,\nraise itself, improve itself, acquire leisure, stability, and, by\nconsequence, intellectual development and moral culture, by the\nabundant creation and persevering accumulation of capital. It is\nthis rapid augmentation of capital on which depends the demand for\nlabour, the elevation of wages, and, consequently, the progress of\nmen towards equality.\n\nBut, on the other hand, \u2039to save\u203a is not the opposite of \u2039to spend\u203a,\nand if the man who spends gives a fillip to industry and additional\nemployment to labour, does the man who saves not do exactly the\nreverse? If every one set himself to economize as much as possible,\nwe should see labour languish in the same proportion, and if all\ncould be saved, we should have no fund for the employment of labour.\n\nIn such circumstances, what advice can we give? And what solid basis\ncan political economy offer to morals, when we appear to be able\nto educe from the former only this contradictory and melancholy\nalternative:\u2014\n\n\u201c\u2039If you do not save\u203a, capital will not be replaced, but dissipated,\nthe labouring class will be multiplied, while the fund for their\nremuneration will remain stationary; they will enter into competition\nwith each other, and offer their services at a lower rate; wages will\nbe depressed, and society will, in this respect, be on the decline.\nIt will be on the decline also in another respect, for unless you\nsave you will be without bread in your old age; you can no longer\nset your son out in the world, give a portion to your daughter, or\nenlarge your trade,\u201d etc.\n\n\u201c\u2039If you do save\u203a, you diminish the fund for wages, you injure a\ngreat number of your fellow-citizens, you strike a blow at labour,\nwhich is the universal creator of human satisfactions, and you lower,\nconsequently, the general level of humanity.\u201d\n\nNow these frightful contradictions disappear before the explanation\nwhich we have given of saving\u2014an explanation founded upon the ideas\nto which our inquiries on the subject of value conducted us.\n\nServices are exchanged for services.\n\nValue is the appreciation of two services compared with each other.\n\nIn this view, \u2039to save\u203a is to have rendered a service, and allow time\n[p395] for receiving the equivalent service, or, in other words, to\ninterpose an interval of time between the service rendered and the\nservice received.\n\nNow, in what respect can a man do injury to society or to labour who\nmerely abstains from drawing upon society for a service to which he\nhas right? I can exact the value which is due to me upon the instant,\nor I may delay exacting it for a year. In that case I give society\na year\u2019s respite. During that interval, labour is carried on, and\nservices are exchanged, just as if I did not exist. I have not by\nthis means caused any disturbance. On the contrary, I have added one\nsatisfaction more to the enjoyments of my fellow-citizens, and they\npossess it for a year gratuitously.\n\nGratuitously is not the word, for I must go on to describe the\nphenomenon.\n\nThe interval of time which separates the two services exchanged is\nitself the subject of a bargain, of an exchange, for it is possessed\nof \u2039value\u203a. It is the origin and explanation of \u2039interest\u203a.\n\nA man, for instance, renders a present service. His wish is to\nreceive the equivalent service only ten years hence. Here, then, is\na value of which he refuses himself the immediate enjoyment. Now,\nit is of the nature of \u2039value\u203a to be able to assume all possible\nforms. With a determinate value, we are sure to obtain any imaginable\nservice, whether productive or unproductive, of an equal value.\nHe who delays for ten years to call in a debt, not only delays an\nenjoyment, but he delays the possibility of further production. It\nis on this account that he will meet with people in the world who\nare disposed to bargain for this delay. They will say to him: \u201cYou\nare entitled to receive immediately a certain value. It suits you to\ndelay receiving it for ten years. Now, for these ten years, make over\nyour right to me, place me in your room and stead. I shall receive\nfor you the amount for which you are a creditor. I will employ it\nduring these ten years in a productive enterprise, and repay you at\nthe end of that time. By this means you will render me a \u2039service\u203a,\nand as every service has a value, which we estimate by comparing it\nwith another service, we have only to estimate this service which I\nsolicit from you, and so fix its \u2039value\u203a. This point being discussed\nand arranged, I shall have to repay you at the end of the ten years,\nnot only the value of the service for which you are a creditor, but\nthe value likewise of the service which you are about to render me.\u201d\n\nIt is the value of this temporary transference of values saved which\nwe denominate \u2039interest\u203a.\n\nFor the same reason that a third party may desire that we [p396]\nshould transfer to him, \u2039for an onerous consideration\u203a, the enjoyment\nof a value saved, the original debtor may also desire to enter into\nthe same bargain. In both cases this is called \u2039asking for credit\u203a.\nTo give credit is to give time for the acquittance of a debt, of a\nvalue; it is to deprive oneself of the enjoyment of that value in\nfavour of another, it is to render a service, it is to acquire a\ntitle to an equivalent service.\n\nBut to revert to the economic effects of saving, now that we are\nacquainted with all the details of the phenomenon, it is very evident\nthat it does no injury to general activity or to labour. Even when\nthe man who economizes realizes his economy, and, in exchange for\nservices rendered, receives hard cash, and hoards it, he does no harm\nto society, seeing that he has not been able to withdraw that amount\nof value from society without restoring to it equivalent values. I\nmust add, however, that such hoarding is improbable and exceptional,\ninasmuch as it is detrimental to the personal interests of the man\nwho would practise it. Money in the hands of such a man may be\nsupposed to say this: \u201cHe who possesses me has rendered services to\nsociety, and has not been paid for them. I have been put into his\nhands to serve him as a warrant; I am at once an acknowledgment,\na promise, and a guarantee. The moment he wills it, he can, by\nexhibiting and restoring me, receive back from society the services\nfor which he is a creditor.\u201d\n\nNow this man is in no hurry. Does it follow that he will continue to\nhoard his money? No; for we have seen that the lapse of time which\nseparates two services exchanged becomes itself the subject of a\ncommercial transaction. If the man who saves intends to remain ten\nyears without drawing upon society for the services that are owing\nto him, his interest is to substitute a representative, in order to\nadd to the value for which he is a creditor the value of this special\nservice. Saving, then, implies in no shape actual hoarding.\n\nLet moralists be no longer arrested by this consideration.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. [p397]\n\n\n\n\n XVI.\n POPULATION.\n\n\nI have been longing to enter upon the subject of this chapter, were\nit for no other purpose than to have an opportunity of vindicating\nMalthus from the violent attacks which have been made upon him. It is\nscarcely credible that a set of writers of no reputation or ability,\nand whose ignorance is transparent in every page of their works,\nshould, by echoing one another\u2019s opinions, have succeeded in lowering\nin public estimation a grave, conscientious, and philanthropic\nauthor; representing as absurd a theory which at all events deserves\nto be studied with serious attention.\n\nIt may be that I do not myself adopt all the opinions of Malthus.\nEvery question has two phases: and I believe that Malthus may have\nfixed his regards too exclusively upon the sombre side. In my own\neconomical studies and inquiries, I have been so frequently led to\nthe conclusion, that \u2039whatever is the work of Providence is good\u203a,\nthat when logic has seemed to force me to a different conclusion, I\nhave been inclined to distrust my logic. I am aware that this faith\nin final causes is not unattended with danger to the mind of an\ninquirer. But this will not prevent me from acknowledging that there\nis a vast amount of truth in the admirable work of this economist, or\nfrom rendering homage to that ardent love of mankind by which every\nline of it is inspired.\n\nMalthus, whose knowledge of the social economy was profound, had\na clear view of all the ingenious mechanism with which nature has\nprovided the human race to assure its onward march on the road of\nprogress. And yet he believed that human progress might find itself\nentirely paralyzed by one principle, namely, the principle of\nPopulation. In contemplating the world, he gave way to the melancholy\nreflection, that \u201cGod appears to have taken great care of the\nspecies, and very little of the individual. In fact, as regards a\ncertain class of animated beings, we see them endowed with a [p398]\nfecundity so prolific, a power of multiplication so extraordinary, a\nprofusion of germs so superabundant, that the destiny of the species\nwould seem undoubtedly well assured, while that of the individuals\nof the species appears very precarious; for the whole of these germs\ncannot be brought to life and maturity. They must either fail to\nlive, or must die prematurely.\u201d\n\n\u201cMan makes no exception to this law.\u201d [It is surprising that this\nshould shock the Socialists, who have never done telling us that\ngeneral must take precedence of individual right.] \u201cThis much is\ncertain, that God has secured the continuance of the human race by\nproviding it with a great power of reproduction. The numbers of\nmankind, then, would come naturally, but for prudence and foresight,\nto exceed what the earth could maintain. But man is endued with\nforesight, and it is his reason and his will which can alone\ninterpose a check to this fatal progression.\u201d\n\nSetting out from these premises, which you may dispute if you will,\nbut which Malthus regarded as incontestable, he attached necessarily\nthe highest value to the exercise of foresight. For there was no\nalternative;\u2014man must either restrain voluntarily this excessive\nmultiplication, or else he must become subject, like all the other\nspecies of living creatures, to the operation of positive or\nrepressive checks.\n\nMalthus, then, believed that he could never urge men too strongly\nto the exercise of foresight. His very philanthropy engaged him\nto exhibit in strong relief the fatal consequences of imprudent\nreproduction, in order to put men upon their guard. He said to them:\nIf you multiply inconsiderately, you cannot avoid the chastisement\nwhich awaits you in some form or other, and always in a hideous\nform\u2014famine, war, pestilence, etc. Benevolence, charity, poor-laws,\nand all other expedients are but ineffectual remedies.\n\nIn his ardour, Malthus allowed an expression to escape him, which,\nwhen separated from the rest of his system, and from the sentiment\nwhich dictated it, may appear harsh. It occurred in the first\nedition of his work, which was then only a brochure, and has since\nbecome a book of four volumes. It was represented to him that his\nmeaning in this objectionable passage might give rise to erroneous\ninterpretations. He immediately suppressed it, and it has never since\nreappeared in any of the numerous editions of his Essay on Population.\n\nBut Mr Godwin, one of his opponents, had quoted this suppressed\npassage, and the consequence was, that M. de Sismondi (a man who,\nwith the best intentions in the world, has done much [p399]\nmischief) reproduced this unlucky sentence. The Socialists instantly\nlaid hold of it, and on this they proceeded to try, condemn, and\nexecute Malthus. Truly, they were much indebted to Sismondi\u2019s\nlearning, for they had never themselves read either Malthus or Godwin.\n\nThe Socialists have thus represented an unguarded passage, which\nMalthus himself had suppressed, as the basis of his system. They\nrepeat it \u2039ad nauseam\u203a. In a little 18mo volume, M. Pierre Leroux\nreproduced it at least forty times, and it forms the stock-in-trade\nof all our declamatory second-rate reformers.\n\nThe most celebrated and the most vigorous of that school of writers\nhaving written an article against Malthus, I happened one day to\nconverse with him, and cited some opinions expressed in the Essay\non Population. I thought I perceived that he was not acquainted\nwith the work. I remarked to him, \u201cYou who have refuted Malthus,\nhave you not read his book from beginning to end?\u201d \u201cI have not read\nit at all,\u201d he replied. \u201cHis whole system is to be found in one\npage, and is condensed in the famous \u2018arithmetical and geometrical\nprogressions\u2019\u2014that is enough for me.\u201d \u201cIt seems to me,\u201d I said, \u201cthat\nyou are jesting with the public, with Malthus, with truth, with\nconscience, and with yourself.\u201d\n\nThis is the way that opinions obtain currency with us. Fifty ignorant\npeople repeat in chorus something spiteful and absurd, put forward\nby one more ignorant than themselves, and if it happens to have the\nleast connexion with the fashionable opinions or passions of the\nhour, it is at once received as an axiom.\n\nScience, however, it must be allowed, cannot enter on the solution\nof a problem with the settled intention of establishing a foregone\nconclusion, however consolatory. What should we think of a man who\nshould sit down to the study of physiology, resolved beforehand to\ndemonstrate that God has not willed that mankind should be afflicted\nwith diseases? Were one physiologist to found a system on such a\nbasis as this, and another to controvert it by an appeal to facts,\nthe former would most likely fly into a rage, and tax his opponent\nwith \u2039impiety\u203a; but it is difficult to believe that he would go\nthe length of accusing his opponent himself of being the author of\ndiseases.\n\nThis, however, is what has happened to Malthus. In a work founded on\nfacts and figures, he explained a law which has given great offence\nto our optimists; and in their anxiety to ignore the existence of\nthis law, they have attacked Malthus with rancorous virulence and\nflagrant bad faith, as if he had himself deliberately [p400] thrown\nin the way of mankind those obstacles which flowed, as he thought,\nfrom the principle of population. It would surely have been more\nphilosophical to have proved simply that Malthus was mistaken, and\nthat his pretended law had in reality no existence.\n\nPopulation, we must allow, is one of a numerous class of subjects\nwhich serve to remind us that man has frequently left him only a\nchoice of evils. Whatever may have been its design, suffering: has\nentered into the plan of Providence. Let us not, then, seek for\nharmony in the absence of evil, but in the tendency of evil to bring\nus back to what is good, and in the gradual contraction of its own\ndomain. God has indued us with free will. It is necessary that we\nshould \u2039learn\u203a,\u2014which is a long and difficult process,\u2014and then it is\nnecessary that we should \u2039act\u203a on the knowledge thus acquired, which\nis not much less difficult. In this way we shall gradually emancipate\nourselves from suffering, but without ever altogether escaping from\nit; for even when we succeed completely in eluding chastisement, we\nhave still to exercise the painful effort of foresight. In freeing\nourselves from the one, we must submit ourselves to the other.\n\nIt is of no use to rebel against this order of things; for it\nenvelopes us; it is the atmosphere in which we live and breathe;\nand it is with this alternative of restriction or prevention before\nus, which we cannot get rid of, and cannot lose sight of, that we\nproceed, with Malthus, to enter upon the problem of population. On\nthis great question I shall first of all assume the function of\na mere reporter, and then give you my own views. If the laws of\npopulation can be comprised in a short aphorism, it will be a happy\nthing for the advancement and diffusion of the science. But if, from\nthe number and the shifting nature of the postulates, we find that\nthese laws refuse to be shut up in a brief and rigorous formula, we\nmust acquiesce. Prolix exactitude is better than delusive brevity.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWe have seen that progress consists in causing natural forces to\nco-operate more and more towards the satisfaction of our wants,\nso that, at each successive epoch, the same amount of utility is\nobtained, whilst to society is left either more leisure, or a greater\namount of disposable labour, to be applied to the acquisition of new\nenjoyments.\n\nOn the other hand, we have demonstrated that every fresh conquest we\nthus gain over nature, after having for a time brought additional\nprofit to the inventor, never fails to become, by the [p401]\noperation of the law of competition, the common and gratuitous\npatrimony of mankind at large.\n\nFrom these premises we should conclude that human happiness must be\nenlarged, and, at the same time, rapidly equalized. That it has not\nbeen so in reality, however, is a point beyond all dispute. There are\nin the world multitudes of unfortunate people, whose wretchedness has\nnot been caused by their own misdeeds.\n\nHow are we to account for this?\n\nI believe it is owing to a multiplicity of causes. One of them is\ncalled \u2039spoliation\u203a, or, if you will, \u2039injustice\u203a. Economists have\nreferred to it only incidentally, as implying some error, some false\nscientific notion. Engaged in the explanation of general laws,\nit is not their business, they think, to concern themselves with\nthose laws, when they are not in operation or violated. Spoliation,\nhowever, has borne, and still bears, too prominent a share in\nhuman affairs to permit even economists to throw it aside as a\nconsideration unworthy of being taken into account. What we have to\ndo with here is not accidental thefts, petty larcenies, or isolated\ncrimes. War, slavery, priestly impostures, privileges, monopolies,\nrestrictions, abuses of taxation,\u2014these are the more salient\nmanifestations of spoliation. It is easy to see what influence\ndisturbing forces of such magnitude must have exercised, and must\nstill exercise by their presence, or the deep traces they have left\nbehind them, on the inequality of conditions; and it will be our\nbusiness hereafter to estimate the vast extent of their effects.\n\nBut another cause which retards progress, and, above all, which\nhinders its extension to all classes, is, as some authors think, the\nprinciple of population.\n\nAnd no doubt, if in proportion as wealth increases, the number of\npeople among whom that wealth is to be divided increases also, and\nmore rapidly, absolute wealth may be greater, and individual wealth\nless.\n\nIf, moreover, there be one species of services which everybody can\nrender, like the services which require only muscular exertion, and\nif it be just the class whose business it is to render such services,\nthe worst paid of all, which multiplies with the greatest rapidity,\nwe must conclude that labour creates for itself a fatal competition.\nThe lowest class will never benefit by progress, if that class\nincreases faster than it can spread and distribute itself.\n\nYou see, then, how important the principle of population is.\n\nMalthus has reduced the principle to this formula: [p402]\n\n\u2039Population has a tendency to keep on a level with the means of\nsubsistence.\u203a\n\nI cannot help remarking in passing that it is surprising that the\nhonour and responsibility of enunciating this principle, be it true\nor false, should have been ascribed to Malthus. No writer on such\nsubjects since the days of Aristotle but has proclaimed it, and\nfrequently in the very same words.[86]\n\nIt is impossible to look around us on the aggregate of animated\nbeings without being convinced beyond doubt that nature has been more\nengrossed with the care of species than of individuals.\n\nThe precautions which nature has taken to ensure the perpetuity of\nraces are remarkable; and among these precautions, a very noticeable\none is the profusion of germs or seeds. This superabundance\nappears to be calculated in an inverse ratio to the sensibility,\nintelligence, and power with which each species is endowed, to enable\nit to resist destruction.\n\nThus, in the vegetable kingdom, the means of reproduction, by seeds,\ncuttings, etc., which a single plant can furnish, are countless. One\nelm (were all its seeds to take root) might give birth in a single\nyear to a million of trees. Why should this not actually happen?\nBecause all the seeds have not the benefit of the conditions which\nvegetable life exacts, namely, space and nourishment. They are\ndestroyed; and as plants are destitute of sensibility, nature has\nspared neither the means of reproduction nor those of destruction.\n\nAnimals, too, whose life is of a type akin to vegetable life,\nreproduce themselves in immense numbers. Who has not wondered that\noysters, for instance, could multiply sufficiently to supply the\nenormous consumption of them?\n\nAs we advance in the scale of animal life, we find that the means of\nreproduction has been bestowed by nature with greater parsimony.\n\nVertebrated animals, especially the larger species, do not multiply\nso quickly as others. The cow goes nine months, produces only\n[p403] one calf, and must suckle it for some time. Yet even among\ncattle the reproductive power surpasses what might be thought\nabsolutely necessary. In rich countries, such as England, France,\nand Switzerland, the number of animals of this description increases\nnotwithstanding the enormous destruction of them; and had we\nboundless pastures and prairies, there can be no doubt that we might\nhave both a still greater destruction and more rapid reproduction of\nthem. I should say that if nourishment and space were not limited, we\nmight have in a few years ten times more oxen and cows, even if we\nconsumed ten times more meat. The reproductive power of cattle, then,\neven laying aside the extraneous consideration of the limitation of\nspace and nourishment, is far from being fully developed.\n\nIt is certain that the reproductive faculty in the human species\nis less powerful than in any other, and it ought to be so. Man, in\nthe superior situation in which nature has placed him, as regards\nintelligence and sympathy, ought not to be exposed to destruction in\nthe same degree as the inferior animals. But we are not to suppose\nthat \u2039physically\u203a he escapes from that law in virtue of which all\nspecies have the faculty of multiplying to a greater extent than\nspace and nourishment permit.\n\nI say \u2039physically\u203a, because I am speaking here only of the\nphysiological law.\n\nThere is a wide difference between the \u2039physiological power\u203a of\nmultiplying and \u2039actual\u203a multiplication.\n\nThe one is an absolute organic power when freed from all obstacle and\nall limitation \u2039ab extra\u203a\u2014the other is the effective resulting force\nof this power combined with the aggregate of all the resistance which\nlimits and restrains it. Thus the power of multiplication of the\npoppy may be a million a year, perhaps; but in a field of poppies the\nactual reproduction may be stationary or even decrease.\n\nIt is this physiological law that Malthus essayed to reduce to a\nformula. He inquired in what period of time a given number of men\nwould double, \u2039if their space and food were unlimited\u203a.\n\nWe can see beforehand that as this hypothesis of the \u2039complete\nsatisfaction of all wants\u203a is never realized in practice, the\n\u2039theoretic\u203a period must necessarily be shorter than any period of\n\u2039actual\u203a doubling which has ever been observed.\n\nObservation, in fact, gives very different results for different\ncountries. According to the results obtained by M. Moreau de Jonn\u00e8s,\ntaking for basis the actual increase of population, the period of\ndoubling would require\u2014in Turkey, 555 years; in [p404] Switzerland,\n227; in France, 138; in Spain, 106; in Holland, 100; in Germany, 76;\nin Russia and in England, 43; and in the United States of America, 25\nyears, deducting the contingent furnished by immigration.\n\nNow, what is the reason of such enormous differences? We have no\nreason to think that they are the result of physiological causes.\nSwiss women are as well formed and as prolific as American women.\n\nWe must conclude, then, that the absolute generative power is\nrestrained by external obstacles. And what proves this beyond doubt\nis, that it is manifested as soon as circumstances occur to remove\nthese obstacles. Thus an improved agriculture, new manufactures,\nsome new source of local wealth, leads invariably in that locality\nto an increase of population. In the same way, when a scourge like a\nplague, or a famine, or war, destroys a great part of the population,\nwe immediately find that multiplication is more rapidly developed.\n\nWhen an increase of population, then, is retarded, or stops, we find\nthat space and nourishment are awanting, or likely to be so; that it\nhas encountered an obstacle, or is scared by one.\n\nThis phenomenon, the announcement of which has brought down so much\nabuse on Malthus, appears in truth beyond the reach of doubt.\n\nIf you put a thousand mice into a cage, with only as much provision\nas is necessary for their daily sustenance, their number, in spite\nof the acknowledged fecundity of the species, can never exceed a\nthousand, or if it do, there will be privation and there will be\nsuffering,\u2014both tending to reduce the number. In this case it would\nbe correct to say that an external cause limits, not the power of\nfecundity, but the result of fecundity. There would assuredly be an\nantagonism between the physiological tendency and the restraining\nforce, and the result would be that the number would be stationary.\nTo prove this, increase gradually the provision until you double it,\nand you will very soon find two thousand mice in the cage.\n\nAnd what is the answer which is made to Malthus? He is met with the\nvery \u2039fact\u203a upon which his theory is founded. The proof, it is said,\nthat the power of reproduction in man is not indefinite, is that\nin certain countries the population is stationary. If the law of\nprogression were true, if population doubled every twenty-five years,\nFrance, which had thirty millions of inhabitants in 1820, would now\nhave more than sixty millions.\n\nIs this logical? [p405]\n\nI begin by proving that the population of France has increased\nonly a fifth in twenty-five years, whilst in other countries it\nhas doubled. I seek for the cause of this; and I find it in the\ndeficiency of space and sustenance. I find that in the existing state\nof cultivation, population, and national manners and habits, there\nis a difficulty in creating with sufficient rapidity subsistence\nfor generations that might be born, or for maintaining those that\nare actually born. I assert that the means of subsistence cannot\nbe doubled\u2014at least that they are not doubled\u2014in France every\ntwenty-five years. This is exactly the aggregate of those negative\nforces which restrain, as I think, the physiological power\u2014and you\nbring forward this slowness of multiplication in order to prove that\nthis physiological power has no existence. Such a mode of discussing\nthe question is mere trifling.\n\nIs the argument against the geometrical progression of Malthus more\nconclusive? Malthus has nowhere asserted that, \u2039in point of fact\u203a,\npopulation increases according to a geometrical progression. He\nalleges, on the contrary, that \u2039the fact\u203a is not so, and the subject\nof his inquiry has reference to the obstacles which hinder it. The\nprogression is brought forward merely as a formula of the \u2039organic\u203a\npower of multiplication.\n\nSeeking to discover in what time a given population can double\nitself, \u2039on the assumption that all its wants are supplied\u203a, he\nfixed this period at twenty-five years. He so fixed it, because\ndirect observation had shown him that this state of things actually\nexisted among a people, who, although very far from fulfilling all\nthe conditions of his hypothesis, came nearer the conditions he had\nassumed than any other\u2014namely, the people of America. This period\nonce found, and the question having always reference to the \u2039virtual\u203a\npower of propagation, he lays it down that population \u2039has a tendency\nto increase\u203a in a geometrical progression.\n\nThis is denied; but the denial is in the teeth of evidence. It may\nbe said, indeed, that the period of doubling may not be everywhere\ntwenty-five years; that it may be thirty, forty, or fifty years; that\nit varies in different countries and races. All this is fair subject\nof discussion; but granting this, it certainly cannot be said that,\non the hypothesis assumed, the progression is not geometrical. If, in\nfact, a hundred couples produce two hundred in a given time, why may\nnot two hundred produce four hundred in an equal time?\n\nBecause, say the opponents of the theory, multiplication will be\nrestrained.\n\nThis is just what Malthus has said. [p406]\n\nBut by what means will multiplication be restrained?\n\nMalthus points out two general obstacles to indefinite\nmultiplication, which he has denominated the \u2039preventive\u203a and\n\u2039repressive checks\u203a.\n\nAs population can be kept down below the level of its physiological\ntendency only by a diminution of the number of births, or an increase\nof the number of deaths, the nomenclature of Malthus is undoubtedly\ncorrect.\n\nMoreover, when the conditions as regards space and nourishment\nare such that population cannot go beyond a certain figure, it is\nevident that the destructive check has more power, in proportion as\nthe preventive check has less. To allege that the number of births\nmay increase without an increase in the number of deaths, while the\nmeans of subsistence are stationary, would be to fall into a manifest\ncontradiction.\n\nNor is it less evident, \u2039\u00e0 priori\u203a, and independently of other\ngrave economic considerations, that in such a situation voluntary\nself-restraint is preferable to forced repression.\n\nAs far as we have yet gone, then, the theory of Malthus is in all\nrespects incontestable.\n\nHe was wrong, perhaps, in adopting this period of twenty-five years\nas the limit of human fecundity, although it holds good in the\nUnited States. I am convinced that in assuming this period he wished\nto avoid the imputation of exaggeration, or of dealing in pure\nabstractions. \u201cHow can they pretend,\u201d he may have thought, \u201cthat I\ngive too much latitude to \u2039the possible\u203a if I found my principle on\nwhat \u2039actually\u203a takes place?\u201d He did not consider that by mixing up\nin this way the \u2039virtual\u203a and the \u2039real\u203a, and representing as the\nmeasure of \u2039the law of multiplication\u203a, without reference to \u2039the\nlaw of limitation\u203a, a period which is the result of \u2039facts governed\nby both laws\u203a, he should expose himself to be misunderstood. This\nis what has actually happened. His geometrical and arithmetical\nprogressions have been laughed at; he has been reproached for taking\nthe United States as a type of the rest of the world; in a word, the\nconfusion he has given rise to by mixing up these two distinct laws,\nhas been seized upon to confute the one by the other.\n\nWhen we seek to discover the abstract power of propagation, we must\nput aside for the moment all consideration of the physical and\nmoral checks arising from deficiency of space, food, or comfortable\ncircumstances. But the question once proposed in these terms, it is\nquite superfluous to attempt an exact solution. This power, in the\nhuman race, as in all organized existences, surpasses, [p407] in an\nenormous proportion, all the phenomena of rapid multiplication that\nwe have observed in the past, or can ever observe in the future. Take\nwheat, for example: allowing five stalks for every seed, and five\ngrains for every stalk, one grain has the virtual power of producing\nfour hundred millions of grains in five years. Or take the canine\nrace, and suppose four puppies to each litter, and six years of\nfecundity, we shall find that one couple may in twelve years produce\neight millions of cubs.\n\nAs regards the human race, assuming sixteen as the age of puberty,\nand fecundity to cease at thirty, each couple might give birth to\neight children. It is making a large deduction to reduce this number\nto one-half on account of premature deaths, since we are reasoning\non the supposition of absolute comfort and all wants satisfied,\nwhich greatly limits the amount of mortality. However, let us state\nthe premises in this way, and they give us in twenty-five years\n2\u20144\u20148\u201416\u201432\u201464\u2014128\u2014256\u2014512, etc.; in short, two millions in two\ncenturies.\n\nIf we make the calculation on the basis adopted by Euler, the period\nof doubling will be twelve years and a half. Eight such periods will\nmake exactly a century, and the increase in that space of time will\nbe as 512:2.\n\nAt no era, and in no country, have we ever observed the numbers of\nthe human race increase with this frightful rapidity. According\nto the book of Genesis, the Hebrews who entered Egypt amounted to\nseventy couples;[87] and we find from the book of Numbers that when\nMoses numbered the people, two centuries afterwards, they amounted\nto six hundred thousand men above twenty-one years of age,[88] which\nsupposes a population of two millions at least. From this we may\ninfer that the period of doubling was fourteen years. Statistical\ntables can scarcely be admitted to control biblical facts. Shall we\nsay that six hundred thousand men \u201cable to go to war\u201d supposes a\npopulation larger than two millions, and infer from that a period of\ndoubling less than Euler has calculated? In that case, we should cast\ndoubt either on the census of Moses or on the calculations of Euler.\nAll that we contend for is, that it should not be pretended that\nthe Hebrews multiplied with greater rapidity than it is possible to\nmultiply.\n\nAfter this example, which is probably that in which \u2039actual\u203a\nfecundity approximates most nearly to \u2039virtual\u203a fecundity, we have\n[p408] the case of the United States of America, where we know that\nthe population doubles in less than twenty-five years.\n\nIt is unnecessary to pursue such researches further. It is sufficient\nto know that in our species, as in all, the organic power of\nmultiplication is superior to the actual multiplication. Moreover, it\nwould involve a contradiction to assert that the actual surpasses the\nvirtual.\n\nAlongside of this absolute power, which it is unnecessary to\ndetermine more exactly, and which we may safely regard as uniform,\nthere exists, as we have said, another force, which limits,\ncompresses, suspends, to a certain extent, the action of the first,\nand opposes to it obstacles of different kinds, varying with times\nand places, with the occupations, the manners, the laws, or the\nreligion of different nations.\n\nI denominate this second force \u2039the law of limitation\u203a; and it is\nevident that the progress of population in each country, and in each\nclass, is the result of the combined action of these two laws.\n\nBut in what does this law of limitation consist? We may say in a very\ngeneral way that the propagation of life is restrained or prevented\nby the difficulty of sustaining life. This idea, which we have\nalready expressed in the terms of the formula of Malthus, it is of\nimportance to develop farther, for it is the essential part of our\nsubject.[89]\n\nOrganized existences, which are indued with life, but without\nfeeling, are entirely passive in this struggle between the two\nprinciples. As regards vegetables, it is strictly true that the\nnumber of each species is limited by the means of subsistence. The\nprofusion of germs is infinite, but the resources of space and\nterritorial fertility are not so. These germs injure or destroy one\nanother; they fail to grow, or they take root and come to maturity\nonly to the extent that the soil allows of. Animals are endued\nwith feeling, but they would seem in general to be destitute of\nforesight. They breed, increase, and multiply without regard to the\nfate of their offspring. Death, premature death, alone limits their\nmultiplication, and maintains the equilibrium between their numbers\nand their means of subsistence.\n\nM. de Lamennais, in his inimitable language, thus addresses the\npeople:\u2014\n\n\u201cThere is room enough in the world for all, and God has made it\nfertile enough to supply the wants of all.\u201d And, further on, he\nsays,\u2014\u201cThe Author of the universe has not assigned a worse [p409]\ncondition to man than to the inferior animals. Are not all invited to\nthe rich banquet of nature? Is one alone excluded?\u201d And, again, he\nadds,\u2014\u201cPlants extend their roots from one field to another, in a soil\nwhich nourishes them all, and all grow there in peace; none of them\nabsorbs the sap of another.\u201d\n\nIn all this we see only fallacious declamation, which serves as the\nbasis of dangerous conclusions; and we cannot help regretting that an\neloquence so admirable should be devoted to giving popular currency\nto the most fatal of errors.\n\nIt is not true that no plant robs another of its sap, and that all\nextend their roots in the soil without injury. Hundreds of millions\nof vegetable germs fall every year upon the ground, derive from it\na beginning of vitality, and then die stifled by plants stronger,\nranker, hardier than themselves. It is not true that all animals\nwhich are born are invited to the banquet of nature, and that none\nof them is excluded. Wild beasts devour one another; and of domestic\nanimals man destroys a countless number. Nothing, in fact, is better\ncalculated than this to show the existence and relations of these two\nprinciples\u2014that of multiplication and that of limitation. Why have we\nin this country so many oxen and sheep, notwithstanding the havoc we\nmake? Why are there so few bears and wolves, although we slaughter\nfar fewer of them, and they are so organized as to be capable of\nmultiplying much faster? The reason is, that man prepares subsistence\nfor the one class of animals, and takes it away from the other class.\nAs regards each, he so arranges the law of limitation as to leave\nmore or less latitude to the law of increase.\n\nThus, as regards both vegetables and animals, the limiting force\nappears only in one form, that of \u2039destruction\u203a. But man is indued\nwith reason and foresight, and this new element modifies, and even\nchanges, the mode of action of this force, so far as he is concerned.\n\nUndoubtedly, in as far as he is a being provided with material\norgans, or, to speak plainly, in as far as he is an animal, the\nlaw of limitation, in the form of destruction, applies to him. It\nis impossible that the numbers of men can exceed their means of\nsubsistence; for to assert that more men existed than had the means\nof existing, would imply a contradiction. If, then, his reason and\nforesight are lulled asleep, he becomes a vegetable, he becomes a\nbrute. In that case, he will inevitably multiply in virtue of the\ngreat physiological law which governs all organized nature; and, in\nthat case, it is equally inevitable that he should perish in virtue\nof that law of limitation the action of which he has ignored. [p410]\n\nBut if he exercise foresight, this second law comes within the sphere\nof his will. He modifies and directs it. It is, in fact, no longer\nthe same law. It is no longer a blind, but an intelligent force; it\nis no longer a mere natural, it has become a social law. Man is the\ncentre in which these two principles, matter and intelligence, meet,\nunite, and are blended; he belongs exclusively neither to the one\nnor to the other. As regards the human race, the \u2039law of limitation\u203a\nis manifested in both its aspects, and maintains population at the\nnecessary level by the double action of foresight and destruction.\n\nThese two actions are not of uniform intensity. On the contrary,\nthe one is enlarged in proportion as the other is restrained. The\nthing to be accomplished, the point to be reached is limitation;\nand it is so more or less by means of \u2039repression\u203a, or by means of\n\u2039prevention\u203a, according as man is brutish or spiritual, according as\nhe is more allied to matter or to mind, according as he has in him\nmore of vegetative or of moral life. The law may be external to him,\nor internal, but it must exist somewhere.\n\nWe do not form a just idea of the vast domain of foresight, which the\ntranslator of Malthus has much circumscribed, by giving currency to\nthat vague and inadequate expression, \u2039moral restraint\u203a [\u2039contrainte\nmorale\u203a], which he has still farther limited by the definition he has\ngiven of it, namely, \u201cThe virtue which consists in not marrying, when\none has not the means of \u2039maintaining\u203a a family, and yet living in\nchastity.\u201d The obstacles which intelligent human society opposes to\npossible multiplication take many other forms besides that of moral\nrestraint thus defined. What means, for example, the pure and holy\nignorance of early life, the only ignorance which it is criminal\nto dissipate, which every one respects, and over which the timid\nmother watches as over hidden treasure? What means the modesty which\nsucceeds that ignorance, that mysterious defence of the young female,\nwhich intimidates whilst it enchants her lover, and prolongs, while\nit embellishes, the innocent season of courtship? The veil which\nis thus interposed at first between ignorance and truth, and then\nbetween truth and happiness, is a marvellous thing, and in aught save\nthis would be absurd. What means that power of opinion which imposes\nsuch severe laws on the relations of the sexes, stigmatizes the\nslightest transgression of those laws, and visits it not only on the\nerring feebleness which succumbs, but, from generation to generation,\non the unhappy offspring? What mean that sensitive honour, that rigid\nreserve, so generally admired even by those who have cast it off,\nthose institutions, those [p411] restraints of etiquette, those\nprecautions of all sorts\u2014if they are not the action of that \u2039law of\nlimitation\u203a manifested in an intelligent, moral, and \u2039preventive\u203a\nshape\u2014in a shape, consequently, which is peculiar to man?\n\nLet these barriers be once overturned\u2014let mankind, in what regards\nthe sexes, be no longer concerned either with etiquette or with\nfortune, or with the future, or with opinion, or with manners\u2014let men\nlower themselves to the rank of vegetables or animals,\u2014can we doubt\nthat for the former, as for the latter, the power of multiplication\nwould act with a force to necessitate the instant intervention of\nthe \u2039law of limitation\u203a, manifested under such circumstances in a\nphysical, brutal, and \u2039repressive\u203a shape; that is to say, by the\naction of indigence, disease, and death?\n\nIt is impossible to deny that, but for foresight and moral\nconsiderations, marriage would, in most cases, be contracted at\nan early age, or immediately after puberty. If we fix this age at\nsixteen, and if the registers of a given country show that marriages\non an average, do not take place before four-and-twenty, we have then\neight years deducted by \u2039the law of limitation\u203a, in its moral and\npreventive form, from the action of the law of multiplication; and\nif we add to this figure the necessary allowance for those who never\nmarry, we shall be convinced that the Creator has not degraded man to\nthe level of the beasts that perish, but, on the contrary, has given\nhim the power to transform the \u2039repressive\u203a into the \u2039preventive\u203a\nlimitation.\n\nIt is singular enough that the spiritualist school and the\nmaterialist school should have, as it were, changed sides on this\ngreat question: the former fulminating against foresight, and\nendeavouring to set up the principle of animal nature; the latter\nexalting the moral part of man, and enforcing the dominion of reason\nover passion and appetite.\n\nThe truth is, the subject is not rightly understood. Let a father\nconsult the most orthodox clergyman he can find as to the management\nof his family, the counsels he will receive are just those which\nscience has exalted into \u2039principles\u203a, and which, as such, the\nclergyman might probably repudiate. \u201cKeep your daughter in strict\nseclusion,\u201d the old minister will say; \u201cconceal from her as much\nas you can the seductions of the world; cultivate, as you would a\nprecious flower, that holy ignorance, that heavenly modesty, which\nare at once her charm and her defence. Wait until an eligible match\npresents itself; and labour in the meantime to secure her an adequate\nfortune. Consider that a poor and improvident marriage brings along\nwith it much suffering and many dangers. Recall [p412] those old\nproverbs which embody the wisdom of nations, and which assure us that\ncomfortable circumstances constitute the surest guarantee of union\nand domestic peace. Why be in a hurry? Would you have your daughter\nat five-and-twenty burdened with a family which she cannot maintain\nand educate suitably to your rank in life? Would you have her\nhusband, feeling the inadequacy of his income to support his family,\nfall into affliction and despair, and finally, perhaps, betake\nhimself to riot and debauchery? The subject which now occupies you is\nthe most important which can come under your consideration. Weigh it\nwell and maturely; and avoid precipitation,\u201d etc.\n\nSuppose that the father, borrowing the language of M. de Lamennais,\nshould reply: \u201cIn the beginning God addressed to all men the command\nto increase and multiply, and replenish the earth and subdue it. And\nyet you would persuade a young woman to live single, renounce family\nties, and give up and abandon the chaste happiness of married life,\nand the holy joys of maternity; and all this for no better reason\nthan a sordid fear of poverty.\u201d Think you the old clergyman would\nhave no reply to this?\n\nGod, he might say, has not commanded man to increase and multiply\nwithout discretion and without prudence; to act with as little regard\nto the future as the inferior animals. He has not indued man with\nreason, in order that he may cease to use it in the most solemn and\nimportant circumstances. He has commanded man, no doubt, to increase,\nbut in order to increase he must live, and in order to live he must\nhave the means of living. In the command to increase, therefore,\nthere is implied another command, namely, to prepare for his\noffspring the means of subsistence. Religion has not placed celibacy\nin the catalogue of crimes. So far from that, she has ranked it as\na virtue, which she honours and sanctifies. We must not think that\nwe violate the commandment of God when we are preparing to fulfil it\nwith prudence, and with a view to the future good, happiness, and\ndignity of our family.\n\nNow this reasoning, or reasoning of a similar kind, which we hear\nrepeated every day, and which regulates the conduct of every moral\nand enlightened family, what is it but the application of a general\ndoctrine to particular cases? Or rather, what is that doctrine, but\nthe generalization of reasoning which applies to every particular\ncase? The spiritualist who repudiates, on principle, the intervention\nof preventive limitation, is like the natural philosopher who should\nsay to us, \u201cAct in every case as if gravity existed, but don\u2019t admit\ngravitation in theory.\u201d [p413]\n\nIn our observations hitherto we have followed the theory of Malthus;\nbut there is one attribute of humanity to which it seems to me\nthat most of our authors have not assigned that importance which\nit merits, and which plays an important part in the phenomena\nrelative to population, resolves many of the problems to which this\ngreat question has given rise, and gives birth in the mind of the\nphilanthropist to a confidence and serenity which false science\nhad banished; this attribute, which is comprised, indeed, in the\nnotions of reason and foresight, is man\u2019s \u2039perfectibility\u203a. Man is\nperfectible; he is susceptible of amelioration and of deterioration;\nand if, in a strict sense, he can remain stationary, he can also\nmount and descend without limit the endless ladder of civilisation.\nThis holds true not only of individuals, but of families, nations,\nand races.\n\nIt is from not having taken into account all the power of this\nprogressive principle, that Malthus has landed us in those\ndiscouraging consequences which have rendered his theory generally\nrepulsive.\n\nFor, regarding the \u2039preventive check\u203a, in a somewhat ascetic and not\nvery attractive light, he could hardly attribute much force to it.\nHence he concludes that it is the \u2039repressive\u203a check which generally\noperates; in other words, vice, poverty, war, crime, etc.\n\nThis, as I think, is an error; and we are about to see that the\n\u2039limitative\u203a force presents itself not only in the shape of an effort\nof chastity, an act of self-control, but also, and above all, as a\ncondition of happiness, an instructive movement which prevents men\nfrom degrading themselves and their families.\n\nPopulation, it has been said, tends to keep on a level with the means\nof subsistence. I should say that, for this expression \u2039means of\nsubsistence\u203a, formerly in universal use, J. B. Say has substituted\nanother which is much more correct, namely, \u2039means of existence\u203a.\nAt first sight it would seem that subsistence alone enters into the\nquestion, but it is not so. \u2039Man does not live by bread alone\u203a, and a\nreference to facts shows us clearly that population is arrested, or\nretarded, when the aggregate of all the means of existence, including\nclothing, lodging, and other things which climate or even habit\nrenders necessary, come to be awanting.\n\nWe should say, then, that population tends to keep on a level with\nthe \u2039means of existence\u203a.\n\nBut do these means constitute something which is fixed, absolute,\nand uniform? Certainly not. In proportion as civilisation advances,\nthe range of man\u2019s wants is enlarged, having regard even to simple\n\u2039subsistence\u203a. Regarded as a perfectible being the \u2039means of [p414]\nexistence\u203a, among which we comprehend the satisfaction of moral and\nintellectual, as well as physical wants, admit of as many degrees\nas there are degrees in civilisation itself, in other words, of\ninfinite degrees. Undoubtedly, there is an inferior limit\u2014to appease\nhunger, to shelter oneself from cold to some extent, is one condition\nof life, and this limit we may perceive among American savages or\nEuropean paupers. But a superior limit I know not\u2014in fact, there is\nnone. Natural wants satisfied, others spring up, which are factitious\nat first, if you will, but which habit renders natural in their turn,\nand, after these, others still, and so on without assignable limit.\n\nAt each step, then, which man takes on the road of civilisation,\nhis wants embrace a wider and more extended circle, and the \u2039means\nof existence\u203a, the point where the laws of \u2039multiplication\u203a and\n\u2039limitation\u203a meet, is removed and elevated. For although man is\nsusceptible of deterioration as well as of improvement, he aspires\nafter the one and shuns the other. His efforts all tend to maintain\nthe rank he has gained, and to rise still higher; and \u2039habit\u203a, which\nhas been so well called a second nature, performs the part of the\nvalves of our arterial system, by checking every retrograde tendency.\nIt is very natural, then, that the intelligent and moral control\nwhich man exercises over his own multiplication should partake of the\nnature of these efforts to rise, and be combined and mixed up with\nhis progressive tendencies.\n\nThe consequences which result from this organization are numerous.\nWe shall confine ourselves to pointing out a few of them. First of\nall, we admit with the Economists that population and the means of\nexistence come to an equilibrium; but the last of these terms being\ninfinitely flexible, and varying with civilisation and habits, we\ncannot admit that in comparing nations and classes, population\nis proportionate to \u2039production\u203a, as J. B. Say[90] affirms, or\nto \u2039income\u203a, as is represented by M. de Sismondi. And then every\nadvancing step of culture implies greater foresight, and the moral\nand preventive check comes to neutralize the repressive one more and\nmore as civilisation is realized in society at large, or in one or\nother of its sections. Hence it follows that each step of progress\ntends to a new step in the same direction, \u2039vires acquirit eundo\u203a;\nseeing that better circumstances and greater foresight engender one\nanother in indefinite succession. For the same reason, when men, from\nwhatever cause, follow a retrograde course, narrower circumstances\nand want of foresight become reciprocally cause and effect, [p415]\nand retrogression and decay would have no limit had society not\nbeen indued with that curative force, that \u2039vis medicatrix\u203a, which\nProvidence has vouchsafed to all organized bodies. Observe, too,\nthat at each step of this retrograde movement, the action of the law\nof limitation in its destructive form becomes at once more painful\nand more apparent. At first, it is only deterioration and sinking\nin the social scale; then it is poverty, famine, disorder, war,\ndeath;\u2014painful but infallible teachers.\n\nI should like to pause here to show how well this theory explains\nfacts, and how well facts in their turn justify the theory. When,\nin the case of a nation or a class, the means of existence have\ndescended to that inferior limit at which they come to be confounded\nwith the means of pure subsistence, as in China, in Ireland, and\namong the lowest and poorest class of every country, the smallest\noscillations of population, or of the supply of food, are tantamount\nto death. In this respect facts confirm the scientific induction.\nFamine has not for a long period visited Europe, and we attribute the\nabsence of this scourge to a multitude of causes. The most general\nof these causes undoubtedly is, that the \u2039means of existence\u203a, by\nreason of social progress, have risen far above the \u2039means of mere\nsubsistence\u203a. When years of scarcity come, we are thus enabled to\ngive up many enjoyments before encroaching on the first necessaries\nof life. Not so in such countries as China or Ireland, where men\nhave nothing in the world but a little rice or a few potatoes. When\nthe rice or potato crops fail, they have absolutely no means of\npurchasing other food.\n\nA third consequence of human perfectibility we must notice here,\nbecause it tends to modify the doctrine of Malthus in its most\nafflicting phase. The formula which we have attributed to that\neconomist is, that \u201cPopulation tends to keep on a level with the\nmeans of subsistence.\u201d We should say that he has gone much farther,\nand that his true formula, that from which he has drawn his most\ndistressing conclusions, is this: \u201cPopulation tends \u2039to go beyond\u203a\nthe means of subsistence.\u201d Had Malthus by this simply meant to say\nthat in the human race the power of propagating life is superior to\nthe power of sustaining life, there could have been no controversy.\nBut this is not what he means. He affirms that, taking into account\nabsolute fecundity on the one hand, and, on the other, limitation,\nas manifested in the two forms, repressive and preventive, the\nresult is still the tendency of population to go beyond the means of\nsubsistence.[91] This holds true of every species [p416] of living\ncreatures, except the human race. Man is an intelligent being, and\ncan make an unlimited use of the preventive check. He is perfectible,\nseeks after improvement, and shuns deterioration. Progress is his\nnormal state, and progress presupposes a more and more enlightened\nexercise of the preventive check; and then \u2039the means of existence\nincrease more rapidly than population\u203a. This effect not only flows\nfrom the principle of perfectibility, but is confirmed by \u2039fact\u203a,\nsince on all sides the range of satisfactions is extended. Were it\ntrue, as Malthus asserts, that along with every addition to the means\nof subsistence there is a still greater addition to the population,\nthe misery of our race would be fatally\u2014inevitably\u2014progressive;\nsociety would begin with civilisation and end with barbarism. The\ncontrary is the fact; and we must conclude that the law of limitation\nhas had sufficient force to restrain the multiplication of men, and\nkeep it below the multiplication of products.\n\nIt may be seen from what has been said how vast and how difficult the\nquestion of population is. We may regret, no doubt, that a precise\nformula has not been given to it, and we regret still more that we\nfind ourselves unable to propose one. But we may see how repugnant\nthe narrow limits of a dogmatic axiom are to such a subject. It is\na vain endeavour to try to express, in the form of an inflexible\nequation, the relations of data so essentially variable. Allow me to\nrecapitulate these data.\n\n(1.) \u2039The law of increase or multiplication.\u203a\u2014The absolute, virtual,\nphysiological power which resides in the human race to propagate\nlife, apart from the consideration of the difficulty of sustaining\nlife. This first datum, the only one susceptible of anything like\nprecision, is the only one in which precision is superfluous; for\nwhat matters it where the superior limit of multiplication is\nplaced in the hypothesis, if it can never be attained in the actual\ncondition of man, which is to sustain life with the sweat of his brow.\n\n(2.) There is a \u2039limit\u203a, then, to the law of multiplication. What is\nthat limit? The means of existence, it is replied. But what are the\nmeans of existence? The aggregate of satisfactions or enjoyments,\nwhich cannot be exactly defined. They vary with times, places, races,\nranks, manners, opinions, habits, and consequently the limit we are\nin search of is shifted or displaced.\n\n(3.) Last of all, it may be asked, in what consists the force which\n[p417] restrains population within this limit, which is itself\nmovable? As far as man is concerned, it is twofold: a force which\n\u2039represses\u203a, and a force which \u2039prevents\u203a. Now, the action of the\nfirst, incapable as it is in itself of being accurately measured, is,\nmoreover, entirely subordinated to the action of the second, which\ndepends on the degree of civilisation, on the power and prevalence of\nhabits, on the tendency of political and religious institutions, on\nthe organization of property, of labour, of family relations, etc.\nBetween the law of multiplication and the law of limitation, then, it\nis impossible to establish an equation from which could be deduced\nthe actual population. In algebra \u2039a\u203a and \u2039b\u203a represent determinate\nquantities which are numbered and measured, and of which we can fix\nthe proportions; but \u2039means of existence\u203a, \u2039moral government of the\nwill\u203a, \u2039inevitable action of mortality\u203a, these are the three data of\nthe problem of population, data which are flexible in themselves,\nand which partake somewhat, moreover, of the astonishing flexibility\nof the subject to which they have reference\u2014man\u2014that being whom\nMontaigne describes as so fluctuating and so variable. It is not\nsurprising, then, that in desiring to give to this equation a\nprecision of which it is incapable, economists have rather divided\nmen\u2019s minds than brought them into unison, and this because there\nis not one of the terms of their formulas which is not open to a\nmultitude of objections, both in reasoning and in fact.\n\nWe shall now proceed to say something on the practical application\nof the doctrine of population, for application not only elucidates\ndoctrine, but is the true fruit of the tree of science.\n\nLabour, as we have said, is the only subject of exchange. In\norder to obtain utility (unless the utility which nature gives us\ngratuitously), we must be at the pains to produce it, or remunerate\nanother who takes the pains for us. Man creates, and can create,\nnothing; he arranges, disposes, or transports things for a useful\npurpose; he cannot do this without exertion, and the result of this\nexertion becomes his property. If he gives away his property, he\nhas right to recompense, in the shape of a service which is judged\nequivalent after free discussion. Such is the principle of value,\nof remuneration, of exchange\u2014a principle which is not the less true\nbecause it is simple. Into what we denominate \u2039products\u203a, there\nenter divers degrees of \u2039natural utility\u203a, and divers degrees of\n\u2039artificial utility\u203a; the latter, which alone implies labour, is\nalone the subject of human bargains and transactions; and without\nquestioning in the least the celebrated and suggestive formula of J.\nB. Say, that \u201cproducts are exchanged for products,\u201d I esteem it more\n[p418] rigorously scientific to say that \u2039labour is exchanged for\nlabour\u203a, or, better still, that \u2039services are exchanged for services\u203a.\n\nIt must not be inferred from this, however, that quantities of labour\nare exchanged for each other in the ratio of their duration or of\ntheir intensity; or that the man who transfers to another an hour\u2019s\nlabour, or even the man who labours with the greatest intensity, who,\nas it were, pushes the needle of the dynamometer up to 100 degrees,\ncan always stipulate for an equal effort in return. \u2039Duration\u203a and\n\u2039intensity\u203a are, no doubt, two of the elements taken into account in\nthe appreciation of labour; but they are not the only ones; for we\nmust consider, besides, that labour may be more or less repugnant,\ndangerous, difficult, intelligent, that it may imply more or less\nforesight, and may even be more or less successful. When transactions\nare free, and property completely secured, each has entire control\nover his own labour, and, consequently, need only dispose of it at\nhis own price. The limit to his compliance is the point at which it\nis more advantageous to reserve his labour than to exchange it; the\nlimit to his exactions is the point at which the other party to the\nbargain finds it his interest not to make the exchange.\n\nThere are in Society as many \u2039strata\u203a, if I may use the expression,\nas there are degrees in the scale of remuneration. The worst\nremunerated of all labour is that which approximates most nearly to\nbrute force. This is an arrangement of Providence which is just,\nuseful, and inevitable. The mere manual labourer soon reaches that\n\u2039limit to his exactions\u203a of which I have just spoken, for everybody\ncan perform this kind of muscular automatic labour; and the \u2039limit\nto his compliance\u203a is also soon reached, for he is incapable of\nthe intelligent labour which his own wants require. \u2039Duration\u203a and\n\u2039intensity\u203a, which are attributes of matter, are the sole elements\nof the remuneration of this species of unskilled material labour;\nand that is the reason why it is usually paid \u2039by the day\u203a. All\nindustrial progress consists in this, namely, in replacing in\neach product a certain amount of \u2039artificial\u203a, and, consequently,\n\u2039onerous utility\u203a, by the same amount of \u2039natural\u203a, and, therefore,\n\u2039gratuitous utility\u203a. Hence it follows that if there be one class\nof society more interested than another in free competition, it\nis the labouring class. What would be the fate of these men if\nnatural agents, and new processes and instruments of production,\nwere not brought continually, by means of competition, to confer\n\u2039gratuitously\u203a, on all, the results of their co-operation? The mere\nday-labourer knows not how to make available in the production of the\ncommodities he has occasion for, heat, gravitation, or elasticity;\n[p419] nor can he discover the processes, nor does he possess the\ninstruments, by which these forces are rendered useful. When such\ndiscoveries are new, the labour of inventors, who are men of the\nhighest intelligence, is well remunerated; in other words, that\nlabour is the equivalent of a large amount of rude unskilled labour;\nor, again, to change the expression, his product is \u2039dear\u203a. But\ncompetition interposes, the product falls in price, the co-operation\nof natural agents is no longer profitable to the producer, but to the\nconsumer, and the labour which has made them available approximates,\nas regards remuneration, to that labour which is estimated by\nmere duration. Thus, the common fund of gratuitous wealth goes on\nconstantly increasing. Products of every kind tend, day after day, to\nbecome again invested,\u2014and they are in reality invested,\u2014with that\ncondition of \u2039gratuitousness\u203a which characterizes our supply of air,\nand light, and water. The general level of humanity thus continues\nto rise, and to equalize itself; and, apart from the operation of\nthe law of population, the lowest class of society is that whose\namelioration is virtually the most rapid. We have said, apart from\nthe operation of the law of population; and this brings us back to\nthe subject we are now examining.\n\nFigure to yourself a basin into which an orifice which is constantly\nenlarging admits a constantly increasing supply of water. If we look\nonly to this circumstance, we conclude that the level of the water in\nthe basin is continually rising. But if the sides of the basin are\nflexible, and capable of contracting and expanding, it is evident\nthat the height of the water will depend on the manner in which this\nnew circumstance is combined with the other. The level of the water\nwill sink, however great may be the supply running into the basin,\nif the capacity of the basin itself is enlarged still more rapidly.\nIt will rise, if the circle of the reservoir is enlarged only\nproportionally and very slowly, higher still if it remain fixed, and\nhighest of all if it is narrowed or contracted.\n\nThis is a picture of the social class whose destinies we are now\nconsidering, and which constitutes, it must be allowed, the great\nmass of mankind. The water which comes into the basin through the\nelastic orifice represents their remuneration, or the objects fitted\nto supply their wants and to sustain life. The flexibility of the\nsides of the basin represents the movement of population. It is\ncertain[92] that the means of existence overtake our population in\na constantly increasing progression, but then it is equally certain\nthat their numbers may increase in a still superior progression.\nThe life of this class, then, will be more or less happy, more or\nless [p420] comfortable, according as the law of limitation, in its\nmoral, intelligent, and preventive form, shall circumscribe, to a\ngreater or less extent, the absolute law of multiplication. There is\na limit to the increase of the numbers of the working class. That\nlimit is the point at which the progressive fund of remuneration\nbecomes insufficient for their maintenance. But there is no limit\nto their possible amelioration, because of the two elements which\nconstitute it, the one, wealth, is constantly increasing, and the\nother, population, is under their own control.\n\nWhat we have just said with reference to the lowest social grade,\nthe class of mere manual labourers, is applicable also to each of\nthe superior grades, when classified in relation to one another, in\nan inverse proportion, so to speak, to the rudeness and materiality\nof their occupations. Taking each class simply by itself, all are\nsubjected to the same general laws. In all there is a struggle\nbetween the physiological power of multiplication, and the moral\npower of limitation. The only respect in which one class differs from\nanother is with reference to the point where these two forces meet,\nthe height to which the limit between the two laws may be raised by\nremuneration or be fixed by the habits of the labourers\u2014this limit we\nhave denominated the \u2039means of existence\u203a.\n\nBut if we consider the various classes, no longer each by itself, but\nin their reciprocal relations, I think we can discern the influence\nof two principles acting in an inverse sense, and this without doubt\nis the explanation of the actual condition of mankind. We have\nshown how all the economic phenomena, and especially the law of\ncompetition, tend to an equality of conditions. Theoretically this\nappears to us incontestable. Seeing that no natural advantage, no\ningenious process, none of the instruments by which such processes\nare made available, can remain permanently with producers, as\nsuch; and seeing that the results of such natural advantages or\ndiscoveries, by an irresistible law of Providence, tend to become\nthe common, gratuitous, and, consequently, equal, patrimony of all\nmen, it is evident that the poorest class is the one which derives\nthe greatest \u2039relative\u203a profit from this admirable arrangement of\nthe laws of the social economy. Just as the poor man is as liberally\ntreated as the rich man with reference to the air he breathes, in\nthe same way he becomes equal to the rich man, as regards all that\nportion of the value of commodities which progress is constantly\nannihilating. Essentially, then, the human race has a very marked\ntendency towards \u2039equality\u203a. I do not speak of a tendency of\naspiration, but a tendency of realization. And yet equality is not\nrealized, or is realized so slowly, that in comparing two distant\n[p421] epochs we are scarcely sensible of the progress. Indeed we\nare so little sensible of it, that many able men deny it altogether,\nalthough in this they are certainly mistaken. Now, what is the cause\nwhich retards this fusion of classes on a common and progressive\nlevel?\n\nIn searching for the cause we need not, I think, look farther than\nthe various degrees of \u2039foresight\u203a which each class exercises as\nregards the increase of population. The law of limitation, as has\nbeen already said, in as far as it is \u2039moral\u203a and \u2039preventive\u203a,\nwe have under our own control. Man, as we have also said, is\nperfectible, and in proportion to his progress in improvement, he\npays a more intelligent regard to this law. The superior classes,\nthen, in proportion as they are more enlightened, are led to make\ngreater exertions, and submit to greater sacrifices, in order to\nmaintain their respective numbers on a level with the means of\nexistence which their position in society demands.\n\nWere we sufficiently far advanced in statistics, we should probably\nhave this theoretical deduction converted into certainty, and have\nit proved by fact that marriages are less hasty and precocious among\nthe higher than among the lower classes of society. If it be so, it\nis easy to see that in the general market, to which all classes bring\ntheir respective services, and in which labour of every kind is the\nsubject of exchange, unskilled labour will be supplied in greater\nabundance than skilled labour; and this explains the continuance of\nthat inequality of conditions, which so many, and such powerful,\ncauses of another kind tend constantly to efface.\n\nThe theory which we have now briefly explained leads us to the\npractical conclusion that the best forms of philanthropy, the best\nsocial institutions, are those which, while acting in accordance with\nthe Providential plan, as revealed to us by the social harmonies\u2014I\nmean the plan of progressive equality\u2014shall cause to descend among\nall ranks of society, and especially the lowest ranks, knowledge,\ndiscretion, morality, and foresight.\n\nI say institutions, because, in fact, foresight results as much from\nthe necessities of position as from resolutions purely intellectual.\nThere are certain organizations of property, or, I should rather\nsay, of industry, which are more favourable than others to what\neconomists call a knowledge of the market, and, consequently, to\n\u2039foresight\u203a. It seems certain, for example, that \u2039m\u00e9tayage\u203a is much\nmore efficacious than \u2039fermage\u203a[93] (the latter necessitating [p422]\nthe employment of day labourers) in interposing a preventive obstacle\nto the exuberance of population among the lower classes. A family\nof \u2039m\u00e9tayers\u203a is in a much more likely situation than a family of\nday-labourers to experience the inconveniences of hasty marriages and\nimprovident multiplication.\n\nI have also used the expression, \u201cforms of philanthropy.\u201d In fact,\nalmsgiving may effect a local and present good, but its influence\nmust be limited even where it is not prejudicial to the happiness of\nthe labouring classes; for it does not develop, but, on the contrary,\nmay paralyze, that virtue which is most fitted to elevate the\ncondition of the labourer, namely, \u2039foresight\u203a. To disseminate sound\nideas, and, above all, to induce those habits which mark a certain\ndegree of self-respect, is the greatest and most permanent good which\nwe can confer upon the lower orders.\n\nThe \u2039means of existence\u203a, we cannot too often repeat, do not\nconstitute a fixed quantity; they depend upon the state of manners,\nof opinion, and of habits. Whatever rank a man holds in the social\nscale, he has as much repugnance to descend from the position to\nwhich he has been accustomed as can be felt by men of an inferior\ngrade. Perhaps there is even greater suffering in the mind of the\naristocrat, the noble scions of whose house are lost among the\n\u2039bourgeoisie\u203a, than in that of the citizen whose sons become manual\nlabourers, or in that of manual labourers whose children are reduced\nto pauperism. The \u2039habit\u203a, then, of enjoying a certain amount of\nmaterial prosperity and a certain rank in life, is the strongest\nstimulant to the exercise of foresight; and if the working classes\nshall once raise themselves to the possession of a higher amount\nof enjoyment, and be unwilling again to descend in the social\nscale, then, in order to maintain themselves in that position, and\npreserve wages in keeping with their new habits, they must employ the\ninfallible means of preventive limitation.\n\nIt is for this reason that I regard as one of the finest\nmanifestations of philanthropy the resolution which appears to have\nbeen taken in England by many of the proprietors and manufacturers,\nto pull down cottages of mud and thatch, and substitute for them\nbrick houses, neat, spacious, well lighted, well aired, and\nconveniently furnished. Were such a measure to become general,\nit [p423] would elevate the tone of the working classes. It would\nconvert into real wants what are nowadays regarded as comparative\nluxuries; it would raise that limit which we have denominated\nthe \u2039means of existence\u203a, and, by consequence, the \u2039standard of\nremuneration\u203a, from its present low rate. And why not? The lower\norders in civilized countries are much above the lower orders among\nsavages. They have raised themselves so far; and why should they not\nraise themselves still more?\n\nWe must not, however, deceive ourselves on this subject; progress\ncan be but very slow, since to some extent it must be \u2039general\u203a.\nIn certain parts of the world it might perhaps be realized rapidly\nif the people exercised no influence over each other; but this is\nnot so. There is a great law of solidarity for the human race, in\nprogress as well as in deterioration. If in England, for example,\nthe condition of the working classes were sensibly improved, in\nconsequence of a general rise of wages, French industry would have\nmore chances of surpassing its rival, and by its advance would\nmoderate the progressive movement manifested on the other side of the\nChannel. It would seem that, beyond certain limits, Providence has\nnot designed that one people should rise above another. And thus, in\nthe great aggregate of human society, as in its most minute details,\nwe always find that admirable and inflexible forces tend to confer,\nin the long-run, on the masses, individual or collective advantages,\nand to bring back all temporary manifestations of superiority to a\ncommon level, which, like that of the ocean when the tide flows, is\nalways equalizing itself and always advancing.\n\nTo conclude, perfectibility, which is the distinctive characteristic\nof man, being given, and the action of competition and the law of\nlimitation being known, the fate of the human race, as regards\nits worldly destinies, may be thus summed up:\u2014\u20391st\u203a, Simultaneous\nelevation of all the social ranks, or of the general level of\nhumanity; \u20392d\u203a, Indefinite approximation of conditions, and\nsuccessive annihilation of the distances which separate classes, as\nfar as consistent with absolute justice; \u20393d\u203a, Relative diminution\nof the numbers of the lowest and highest orders, and extension of\nintermediate classes. It may be said that these laws must lead\nto absolute equality. No more than the constant approximation of\nasymptotical lines can finally load to their junction.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n This chapter, the greater part of which was written in 1846,\n does not perhaps express with sufficient clearness the author\u2019s\n opposition to the ideas of Malthus. [p424]\n\n Bastiat explains here very clearly the unperceived and naturally\n preventive action of individual motive,\u2014the progressive desire for\n happiness, the ambition of men to better their condition; and the\n habit which causes each to regard the competence he has gained as\n a necessity,\u2014\u2039an inferior limit of the means of existence\u203a, below\n which no one would willingly see his family reduced. But this is in\n some measure the negative view of the law. It only shows that in\n every society founded upon the institutions of property and family,\n population ceases to be a \u2039danger\u203a.\n\n It remains to be shown that \u2039population is in itself a force\u203a, and\n to prove the necessary increase of productive power which results\n from the density of population. This, as the author has himself said\n (p. 113), is the important element neglected by Malthus, and which\n discloses harmony, where Malthus discovered discordance.\n\n From the premises indicated in the chapter \u2039on Exchange\u203a, premises\n which he proposed to himself to develop in treating of population,\n the conclusion which Bastiat wished to draw was decidedly\n anti-Malthusian. We find it stated in one of the last notes which he\n wrote, and he recommends its being insisted on:\u2014\n\n \u201cIn the chapter on Exchange it has been demonstrated that, in a\n state of isolation, man\u2019s wants surpass his faculties, and that, in\n the social state, his faculties surpass his wants.\n\n \u201cThis excess of faculties over wants proceeds from exchange, which\n is\u2014association of efforts\u2014separation of occupations.\n\n \u201cThence an action and a reaction of causes and effects, in a circle\n of progress which is infinite.\n\n \u201cThe superiority of faculties over wants, creating for each\n generation an excess of wealth, permits it to rear a more numerous\n offspring. A generation more numerous implies a better and more\n marked separation of occupations, and a new degree of superiority\n given to faculties over wants.\n\n \u201cThis exhibits an admirable harmony.\n\n \u201cThus, at a given epoch, the general aggregate of wants being\n represented by 100, and that of faculties by 110, the excess of 10\n is thus divided,\u20145, for example, goes to the amelioration of men\u2019s\n condition, to the provoking of wants of a more elevated character,\n to the development of self-respect, etc.,\u2014and 5 to the augmentation\n of their numbers.\n\n \u201cThe wants of the second generation are 110,\u2014namely, 5 more in\n quantity, and 5 more in quality.\n\n \u201cBut for that very reason (for the double reason of the more\n complete physical, intellectual, and moral development, and of\n the greater density of population, which renders production more\n easy), the faculties have also increased in power. They will be\n represented, for example, by the figures 120 or 130.\n\n \u201cNew excess, new division, etc.\n\n \u201cAnd let us not fear the \u2039trop plein\u203a. The elevation of wants,\n which is nothing else than the sentiment of dignity, is a natural\n limit.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u201d\n\n \u00abEditor.\u00bb [p425]\n\n\n\n\n XVII.\n PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SERVICES.\n\n\n\u2039Services\u203a are exchanged for \u2039services\u203a.\n\nThe \u2039equivalence\u203a of \u2039services\u203a results from voluntary exchange, and\nthe free bargaining and discussion which precede it.\n\nIn other words, each \u2039service\u203a rendered to society is \u2039worth\u203a as much\nas any other service of which it constitutes the equivalent, provided\n\u2039supply\u203a and \u2039demand\u203a are in all respects perfectly \u2039free\u203a.\n\nIt is in vain to carp and refine upon it; it is impossible to\nconceive the idea of value without associating with it the idea of\nliberty.\n\nWhen the equivalence of services is not impaired by violence,\nrestriction, or fraud, we may pronounce that \u2039justice\u203a prevails.\n\nI do not mean to say that the human race will then have reached\nthe extreme limit of improvement, for liberty does not exclude the\nerrors of individual appreciations\u2014man is frequently the dupe of his\njudgments and passions, nor are his desires always arranged in the\nmost rational order. We have seen that the value of a service may be\nappreciated without there being any reasonable proportion between\nits value and its utility; and this arises from our giving certain\ndesires precedence over others It is the progress of intelligence,\nof good sense, and of manners, which establishes this fair and just\nproportion by putting each service, if I may so express myself, in\nits right moral place. A frivolous object, a puerile show, an immoral\npleasure, may have much value in one country, and may be despised\nor repudiated in another. The equivalence of services, then, is a\ndifferent thing from a just appreciation of their utility. But still,\nas regards this, it is liberty and the sense of responsibility which\ncorrect and improve our tastes, our desires, our satisfactions, and\nour appreciations.\n\nIn all countries of the world, there exists one class of services,\nwhich, as regards the manner in which they are distributed and\n[p426] remunerated, accomplishes an evolution quite different from\nthat of private or free services. I allude to \u2039public services\u203a.\n\nWhen a want assumes a character so universal and so uniform that one\ncan describe it as a \u2039public want\u203a, it may be convenient for those\npeople who form part of the same agglomeration (be it district,\nprovince, or country) to provide for the satisfaction of that want by\ncollective action, or a collective delegation of power. In that case,\nthey name functionaries whose duty it is to render to the community,\nand distribute among them, the service in question, and whose\nremuneration they provide for by a contribution which is, at least in\nprinciple, proportionate to the means of each member of the society.\n\nIn reality, the primordial elements of the social economy are\nnot necessarily impaired or set aside by this peculiar form of\nexchange,\u2014above all, when the consent of all parties is assumed. It\nstill resolves itself into a transmission of efforts, a transmission\nof services. These functionaries labour to satisfy the wants of the\ntaxpayers, and the taxpayers labour to satisfy the wants of the\nfunctionaries. The relative value of their reciprocal services is\ndetermined by a method which we shall have afterwards to examine; but\nthe essential principles of the exchange, speaking in the abstract at\nleast, remain intact.\n\nThose authors, then, are wrong, who, influenced by their dislike of\nunjust and oppressive taxes, regard as \u2039lost\u203a all values devoted to\nthe public service.[94] This unqualified condemnation will not bear\nexamination. In so far as \u2039loss\u203a or \u2039gain\u203a is concerned, the public\nservice, scientifically considered, differs in nothing from \u2039private\nservice\u203a. Whether I protect my field myself, or pay a man for\nprotecting it or pay the State for causing it to be protected, there\nis always a sacrifice with a corresponding benefit. In both ways, no\ndoubt, I lose this amount of labour, but I gain security. It is not a\nloss, but an exchange.\n\nWill it be said that I give a material object, and receive in return\na thing without body or form? This is just to fall back upon the\nerroneous theory of value. As long as we attribute value to matter,\nnot to services, we must regard every public service as being\nwithout value, or lost. Afterwards, when we begin to shift [p427]\nabout between what is true and what is false, on the subject of\nvalue, we shift about between what is true and what is false on the\nsubject of taxation.\n\nIf taxation is not necessarily a loss, still less is it necessarily\nspoliation.[95] No doubt, in modern societies, spoliation by means\nof taxation is perpetrated on a great scale. We shall afterwards see\nthat it is one of the most active of those causes which disturb the\nequivalence of services and the harmony of interests. But the best\nway of combating and eradicating the abuses of taxation, is to steer\nclear of that exaggeration which would represent all taxation as\nbeing \u2039essentially\u203a, and \u2039in itself\u203a, spoliation.\n\nThus, considered in themselves, in their own nature, in their normal\nstate, and apart from abuses, \u2039public services\u203a, like \u2039private\nservices\u203a, resolve themselves into pure exchanges.\n\nBut the modes in which, in these two forms of exchange, services are\ncompared, bargained for, and transmitted, the modes in which they are\nbrought to an equilibrium or equivalence, and in which their relative\nvalue is manifested, are so different in themselves, and in their\neffects, that the reader will bear with me if I dwell at some length\non this difficult subject, one of the most interesting which can be\npresented to the consideration of the economist and the statesman. It\nis here, in truth, that we have the connecting link between politics\nand social economy. It is here that we discover the origin and\ntendency of the most fatal error which has ever infected the science,\nthe error of confounding society with Government; society being the\ngrand \u2039whole\u203a, which includes both private and public services, and\nGovernment, the fraction which includes public services alone.\n\nUnfortunately, when, by following the teaching of Rousseau, and his\napt scholars the French republicans, we employ indifferently the\nwords Government and Society, we pronounce, implicitly, beforehand,\nand without examination, that the State can and ought to absorb\nprivate exertion altogether, along with individual liberty and\nresponsibility. We conclude that all private services ought to be\nconverted into public services. We conclude that the social order\nis a conventional and contingent fact which owes its existence to\nthe law. We pronounce the lawgiver [p428] omnipotent, and mankind\npowerless, as having forfeited their rights.\n\nIn fact, we see public services, or governmental action, extended\nor restrained according to circumstances of time and place, from\nthe Communism of Sparta, or the Missions of Paraguay, to the\nindividualism of the United States, and the centralization of France.\n\nThe question which presents itself on the threshold of Politics, as a\nscience, then, is this:\u2014\n\nWhat are the services which should remain in the domain of private\nactivity? And what are the services which should fall within that of\npublic or collective activity?\n\nThe problem, then, is this:\u2014\n\nIn the great circle called \u2039society\u203a, to trace accurately the\ninscribed circle called \u2039government\u203a.\n\nIt is evident that this problem belongs to Political Economy, since\nit implies the comparative examination of two very different forms of\nexchange.\n\nThis problem once solved, there remains another, namely, what is\nthe best organization of public services? This last belongs to pure\nPolitics, and we shall not enter upon it.\n\nLet us examine, then, first of all, the essential differences by\nwhich public and private services are characterized, which is a\npreliminary inquiry necessary to enable us to fix accurately the line\nwhich should divide them.\n\nThe whole of the preceding portion of this work has been devoted to\nexhibit the evolution of \u2039private services\u203a. We have had a glimpse\nof it in this formal or tacit proposition: \u2039Do this for me, and I\nshall do that for you\u203a; which implies, whether as regards what we\ngive away or what we receive, a double and reciprocal consent. We\ncan form no correct notion, then, of barter, exchange, appreciation,\nvalue, apart from the consideration of \u2039liberty\u203a, nor of liberty\napart from \u2039responsibility\u203a. In having recourse to exchange, each\nparty consults, on his own responsibility, his wants, his tastes,\nhis desires, his faculties, his affections, his convenience, his\nentire situation; and we have nowhere denied that to the exercise\nof free will is attached the possibility of error, the possibility\nof a foolish and irrational choice. The error belongs not to\nexchange, but to human imperfection; and the remedy can only reside\nin responsibility itself (that is to say, in liberty), seeing that\nliberty is the source of all experience. To establish restraint in\nthe business of exchange, to destroy free will under the pretext\nthat man may err, would be no improvement, unless it were [p429]\nfirst proved to us that the agent who organizes the restraint does\nnot himself participate in the imperfection of our nature, and is\nsubject neither to the passions nor to the errors of other men. On\nthe contrary, is it not evident that this would be, not only to\ndisplace responsibility, but to annihilate it, at least as regards\nall that is valuable in its remunerative, retributive, experimental,\ncorrective, and, consequently, progressive character? Again, we\nhave seen that free exchanges, or services voluntarily rendered and\nreceived, are, under the action of competition, continually extending\nthe co-operation of gratuitous forces, as compared with that of\nonerous forces, the domain of community as compared with the domain\nof property, and thus we have come to recognise in liberty that power\nwhich promotes progressive equality, or social harmony.\n\nWe have no need to describe the form which exchanges assume when thus\nleft free. Restraint takes a thousand shapes; liberty has but one. I\nrepeat once more, that the free and voluntary transmission of private\nservices is defined by the simple words: \u201cGive me this, and I will\ngive you that; do this for me, and I shall do that for you\u201d\u2014\u2039Do ut\ndes; facio ut facias\u203a.[96]\n\nThe same thing does not hold with reference to the exchange of\n\u2039public services\u203a. Here \u2039constraint\u203a is to a certain extent\ninevitable, and we encounter an infinite number of different\nforms, from absolute despotism, down to the universal and direct\nintervention of all the citizens.\n\nAlthough this ideal order of things has never been anywhere actually\nrealized, and perhaps may never be so, except in a very elusory\nshape, we may nevertheless assume its existence. What is the object\nof our inquiry? We are seeking to discover the modifications which\n\u2039services\u203a undergo when they enter the public domain; and for the\npurposes of science we must discard the consideration of individual\nand local acts of violence, and regard the public service simply as\nsuch, and as existing under the most legitimate circumstances. In a\nword, we must investigate the transformation which it undergoes from\nthe single circumstance of its having become public, apart from the\ncauses which have made it so, and of the abuses which may mingle with\nthe means of execution.\n\nThe process is this:\u2014\n\nThe citizens name mandatories. These mandatories meet, and decide,\nby a majority, that a certain class of wants\u2014the want of education,\nfor example\u2014can no longer be supplied by free exertions [p430] and\nfree exchanges made by the citizens themselves, and they decree that\neducation shall be provided by functionaries specially delegated\nand intrusted with the work of instruction. So much for the service\n\u2039rendered\u203a. As regards the services \u2039received\u203a, as the State has\nsecured the time and abilities of these new functionaries for the\nbenefit of the citizens, it must also take from the citizens a part\nof their means for the benefit of the functionaries. This is effected\nby an assessment or general contribution.\n\nIn all civilized communities such contributions are paid in money. It\nis scarcely necessary to say that behind this money there is labour.\nIn reality, it is a payment in kind. In reality, the citizens work\nfor the functionaries, and the functionaries work for the citizens,\njust as, in free and private transactions, the citizens work for one\nanother.\n\nWe set down this observation here, in order to elude a very\nwidely-spread sophism which springs from the consideration of\nmoney. We hear it frequently said that money received by public\nfunctionaries falls back like refreshing rain on the citizens. And\nwe are led to infer that this rain is a second benefit added to that\nwhich results from the service. Reasoning in this way, people have\ncome to justify the existence of functions the most parasitical.\nThey do not consider that if this service had remained in the domain\nof private activity, the money (which, in place of going to the\ntreasury, and from the treasury to the functionaries) would have gone\ndirectly to men who voluntarily undertook the duty, and in the same\nway would have fallen back like rain upon the masses. This sophism\nwill not stand examination, when we extend our regards beyond the\nmere circulation of money, and see that at the bottom it is labour\nexchanged for labour, services for services. In public life, it may\nhappen that functionaries receive services without rendering any in\nreturn; and then there is a loss entailed on the taxpayer, however we\nmay delude ourselves with reference to this circulation of specie.\n\nBe this as it may, let us resume our analysis:\u2014\n\nWe have here, then, an exchange under a new form. Exchange includes\ntwo terms\u2014\u2039to give\u203a, and \u2039to receive\u203a. Let us inquire then how this\ntransaction, which from being private has become public, is affected\nin the double point of view of services \u2039rendered\u203a and services\n\u2039received\u203a.\n\nIn the first place, it is proved beyond doubt that public services\nalways, or nearly always, extinguish, in law or in fact, private\nservices of the same nature. The State, when it undertakes a service,\ngenerally takes care to decree that no other body shall render it,\n[p431] more especially if one of its objects be to derive a revenue\nfrom it. Witness the cases of postage, tobacco, gunpowder, etc. Did\nthe State not take this precaution, the result would be the same.\nWhat manufacturer would engage to render to the public a service\nwhich the State renders for nothing? We scarcely meet with any one\nwho seeks a livelihood by teaching law or medicine privately, by\nthe formation of high-roads, by rearing thoroughbred horses, by\nfounding schools of arts and design, by clearing lands in Algeria, by\nestablishing museums, etc. And the reason is this, that the public\nwill not go to purchase what the State gives it for nothing. As M. de\nCormenin has said, the trade of the shoemakers would soon be put an\nend to, even were it declared inviolable by the first article of the\nconstitution, if Government took it into its head to furnish shoes to\neverybody gratuitously.\n\nIn truth, in the word \u2039gratuitous\u203a, as applied to public services,\nthere lurks the grossest and most puerile of sophisms.\n\nFor my own part, I wonder at the extreme gullibility of the public in\nallowing itself to be taken in with this word. What! it is said, do\nyou not wish gratuitous education? gratuitous studs?\n\nCertainly I wish them, and I should also wish to have gratuitous food\nand gratuitous lodging\u2014if it were possible.\n\nBut there is nothing really gratuitous but what costs nothing to any\none. Now public services cost something to everybody; and it is just\nbecause everybody has paid for them beforehand that they no longer\ncost anything to the man who receives the benefit. The man who has\npaid his share of the general contribution will take good care not to\npay for the service a second time by calling in the aid of private\nindustry.\n\nPublic service is thus substituted for private service. It adds\nnothing either to the general labour of the nation or to its wealth.\nIt accomplishes by means of functionaries, what would have been\neffected by private industry. The question, then, is, Which of these\narrangements entails the greatest amount of inconvenience? and the\nsolution of that question is the object of the present chapter.\n\nThe moment the satisfaction of a want becomes the subject of a public\nservice, it is withdrawn, to a great extent, from the domain of\nindividual liberty and responsibility. The individual is no longer\nfree to procure that satisfaction in his own way, to purchase what\nhe chooses and when he chooses, consulting only his own situation\nand resources, his means, and his moral appreciations; nor can he\nany longer exercise his discretion in regard to the order in which\nhe may judge it reasonable to provide for [p432] his various wants.\nWhether he will or not, his wants are now supplied by the public,\nand he obtains from society, not that measure of service which he\njudges useful, as he did in the case of private services, but the\namount of service which the Government thinks it proper to furnish,\nwhatever be its quantity and quality. Perhaps he is in want of\nbread to satisfy his hunger, and part of the bread of which he has\nsuch urgent need is withheld from him, in order to furnish him with\neducation, or with theatrical entertainments, which he does not want.\nHe ceases to exercise free control over the satisfaction of his own\nwants, and having no longer any feeling of responsibility, he no\nlonger exerts his intelligence. Foresight has become as useless to\nhim as experience. He is less his own master; he is deprived, to some\nextent, of free will, he is less progressive, he is less a man. Not\nonly does he no longer judge for himself in a particular case; he has\ngot out of the habit of judging for himself in any case. The moral\ntorpor which thus gains upon him, gains, for the same reason, on\nall his fellow-citizens, and in this way we have seen whole nations\nabandon themselves to a fatal inaction.[97]\n\nAs long as a certain class of wants and of corresponding\nsatisfactions remains in the domain of liberty, each, in so far\nas this class is concerned, lays down a rule for himself, which\nhe can modify at pleasure. This would seem to be both natural and\nfair, seeing that no two men find themselves in exactly the same\nsituation; nor is there any one man whose circumstances do not vary\nfrom day to day. In this way, all the human faculties remain in\nexercise, comparison, judgment, foresight. In this way, too, every\ngood and judicious resolution brings its recompense and every error\nits chastisement; and experience, that rude [p433] substitute for\nforesight, so far at least fulfils its mission that society goes on\nimproving.\n\nBut when the service becomes public, all individual rules of conduct\nand action disappear, and are mixed up and generalized in a written,\ncoercive, and inflexible law, which is the same for all, which makes\nno allowance for particular situations, and strikes the noblest\nfaculties of human nature with numbness and torpor.\n\nIf State intervention deprive us of all self-government with\nreference to the services we receive from the public, it deprives\nus in a still more marked degree of all control with reference to\nthe services which we render in return. This counterpart, this\nsupplementary element in the exchange, is likewise a deduction from\nour liberty, and is regulated by uniform inflexible rules, by a law\npassed beforehand, made operative by force, and of which we cannot\nget rid. In a word, as the services which the State renders us are\nimposed upon us, those which it demands in return are also imposed\nupon us, and in all languages take the name of \u2039imposts\u203a.\n\nAnd here a multitude of theoretical difficulties and inconveniences\npresent themselves; for practically the State surmounts all obstacles\nby means of an armed force, which is the necessary sequence of every\nlaw. But, to confine ourselves to the theory, the transformation of a\nprivate into a public service gives rise to these grave questions:\u2014\n\nWill the State under all circumstances demand from each citizen\nan amount of taxation \u2039equivalent\u203a to the services rendered? This\nwere but fair; and this \u2039equivalence\u203a is exactly the result which\nwe almost infallibly obtain from free and voluntary transactions,\nand the bargaining which precedes them. If the design of the State,\nthen, is to realize this \u2039equivalence\u203a (which is only justice),\nit is not worth while taking this class of services out of the\ndomain of private activity. But equivalence is never thought of,\nnor can it be. We do not stand higgling and chaffering with public\nfunctionaries. The law proceeds on general rules, and cannot make\nconditions applicable to each individual case. At the utmost, and\nwhen it is conceived in a spirit of justice, it aims at a sort of\naverage equivalence, an approximate equivalence, between the two\nservices exchanged. Two principles\u2014namely, the proportionality and\nthe progression of taxation\u2014have appeared in many respects to carry\nthis approximation to its utmost limit. But the slightest reflection\nwill convince us that proportional taxation cannot, any more than\nprogressive taxation, realize the exact equivalence of services\nexchanged. Public services, after having forcibly deprived the\ncitizens of their liberty, as regards services [p434] both rendered\nand received, have, then, this farther fault of unsettling the value\nof these services.\n\nAnother, and not less grave, inconvenience is, that they destroy,\nor at least displace, responsibility. To man responsibility is\nall-important. It is his mover and teacher, his rewarder and\navenger. Without it man is no longer a free agent, he is no longer\nperfectible, no longer a moral being, he learns nothing, he is\nnothing. He abandons himself to inaction, and becomes a mere unit of\nthe herd.\n\nIf it be a misfortune that the sense of responsibility should be\nextinguished in the individual, it is no less a misfortune that it\nshould be developed in the State in an exaggerated form. Man, however\ndegraded, has always as much light left him as to see the quarter\nfrom whence good or evil comes to him; and when the State assumes the\ncharge of all, it becomes responsible for all. Under the dominion of\nsuch artificial arrangements, a people which suffers can only lay\nthe blame on its Government, and its only remedy, its only policy,\nis to overturn it. Hence an inevitable succession of revolutions. I\nsay inevitable, for under such a \u2039r\u00e9gime\u203a the people must necessarily\nsuffer; and the reason of it is that public services, besides\ndisturbing and unsettling values, which is injustice, lead also\nto the destruction of wealth, which is ruin; ruin and injustice,\nsuffering and discontent\u2014four fatal causes of effervescence in\nsociety, which, combined with the displacement of responsibility,\ncannot fail to bring about political convulsions like those from\nwhich we have been suffering for more than half a century.\n\nWithout desiring to indulge in digressions, I cannot help remarking,\nthat when things are organized in this fashion, when Government has\nassumed gigantic proportions by the successive transformation of free\nand voluntary transactions into public services, it is to be feared\nthat revolutions, which constitute in themselves so great an evil,\nhave not even the advantage of being a remedy, unless the remedy is\nforced upon us by experience. The displacement of responsibility has\nperverted public opinion. The people, accustomed to expect everything\nfrom the State, never accuse Government of doing too much, but of not\ndoing enough. They overturn it, and replace it by another, to which\nthey do not say, \u201cDo less,\u201d but \u201cDo more;\u201d so that, having fallen\ninto one ditch, they set to work to dig another.\n\nAt length the moment comes when their eyes are opened, and it is felt\nto be necessary to curtail the prerogatives and responsibilities of\nGovernment. Here we are stopped by difficulties of another kind.\nFunctionaries alleging \u2039vested rights\u203a rise up and [p435] coalesce,\nand we are averse to bear hard on numerous interests to which we\nhave given an artificial existence. On the other hand, the people\nhave forgotten how to act for themselves. At the moment they have\nsucceeded in reconquering the liberty of which they were in quest,\nthey are afraid of it, and repudiate it. Offer them a free and\nvoluntary system of education:[98] they believe that all science is\nabout to be extinguished. Offer them religious liberty: they believe\nthat atheism is about to invade us,\u2014so often has it been dinned into\ntheir ears that all religion, all wisdom, all science, all learning,\nall morality, resides in the State or flows from it.\n\nBut we shall find a place for such reflections elsewhere, and must\nnow return to the argument.\n\nWe set ourselves to discover the true part which competition plays in\nthe development of wealth, and we found that it consisted in giving\nan advantage in the first instance to the producer; then turning this\nadvantage to the profit of the community; and constantly enlarging\nthe domain of the gratuitous, and consequently the domain of equality.\n\nBut when private services become public services, they escape\ncompetition, and this fine harmony is suspended. In fact, the\nfunctionary is divested of that stimulant which urges on to\nprogress, and how can progress turn to the public advantage when\nit no longer exists? A public functionary does not act under the\nspur of self-interest, but under the influence of the law. The\nlaw says to him, \u201cYou will render to the public such or such a\ndeterminate service, and you will receive from it in return a\ndeterminate recompense.\u201d A little more or a little less zeal has no\neffect in changing these two fixed terms. On the contrary, private\ninterest whispers in the ear of the free labourer, \u201cThe more you\ndo for others, the more others will do for you.\u201d In this case, the\nrecompense depends entirely on the efforts of the workman being\nmore or less intense, and more or less skilful. No doubt \u2039esprit\nde corps\u203a, the desire for advancement, devotion to duty, may prove\nactive stimulants with the functionary; but they never can supply\nthe place of the irresistible incitement of personal interest.\nAll experience confirms this reasoning. Everything which has\nfallen within the domain of Government routine has remained almost\nstationary. It is doubtful whether our system of education now is\nbetter than it was in the reign of Francis the First; and no one\nwould think of comparing the activity of a government office with the\nactivity of a manufactory. [p436]\n\nIn proportion, then, as private services enter into the class of\npublic services, they become, at least to a certain extent, sterile\nand motionless, not to the injury of those who render these services\n(their salaries are fixed), but to the detriment of the public at\nlarge.\n\nAlong with these inconveniences, which are immense, not only\nin a moral and political, but in an economical point of\nview\u2014inconveniences which, trusting to the sagacity of the reader, I\nhave only sketched\u2014there is sometimes an advantage in substituting\ncollective for individual action. In some kinds of services, the\nchief merit is regularity and uniformity. It may happen that, under\ncertain circumstances, such a substitution gives rise to economy,\nand saves, in relation to a given satisfaction, a certain amount of\nexertion to the community. The question to be resolved, then, is\nthis: What services should remain in the domain of private exertion?\nWhat services should pertain to collective or public exertion? The\ninquiry, which we have just finished, into the essential differences\nwhich characterize these two kinds of services, will facilitate the\nsolution of this important problem.\n\nAnd, first of all, it may be asked, is there any principle to\nenable us to distinguish what may legitimately enter the circle of\ncollective action, and what should remain in the circle of private\naction?\n\nI begin by intimating that what I denominate here \u2039public action\u203a\nis that great organization which has for rule the \u2039law\u203a, and for\nmeans of execution, \u2039force\u203a; in other words, \u2039the Government\u203a. Let\nit not be said that free and voluntary associations display likewise\n\u2039collective exertion\u203a. Let it not be supposed that I use the term\nprivate action as synonymous with \u2039isolated action\u203a. What I say is,\nthat free and voluntary association belongs still to the domain of\nprivate action, for it is one of the forms of exchange, and the most\npowerful form of all. It does not impair the equivalence of services,\nit does not affect the appreciation of values, it does not displace\nresponsibilities, it does not exclude free will, it does not destroy\ncompetition nor its effects; in a word, it has not \u2039constraint\u203a for\nits principle.\n\nBut the action of Government is made general by \u2039constraint\u203a. It\nnecessarily proceeds on the \u2039compelle intrare\u203a. It acts in form\nof \u2039law\u203a, and every one must submit to it, because a law implies\na \u2039sanction\u203a. No one, I think, will dispute these premises; which\nare supported by the best of all authorities, the testimony of\nuniversal fact. On all sides we have laws, and force to restrain the\nrefractory. [p437]\n\nHence, no doubt, has come the saying that \u201cmen, in uniting in\nsociety, have sacrificed part of their liberty in order to preserve\nthe remainder,\u201d\u2014a saying in great vogue with those who, confounding\n\u2039government\u203a with \u2039society\u203a, conclude that the latter is artificial\nand conventional like the former.\n\nIt is evident that this saying does not hold true in the region of\nfree and voluntary transactions. Let two men, determined by the\nprospect of greater profit and advantage, exchange their services,\nor unite their efforts, in place of continuing their isolated\nexertions\u2014is there in this any sacrifice of liberty? Is it to\nsacrifice liberty to make a better use of it?\n\nThe most that can be said is this, that men sacrifice part of their\nliberty to preserve the remainder, not when they unite in society,\nbut when they subject themselves to a Government, since the necessary\nmode of action of every Government is force.\n\nNow, even with this modification, the pretended principle is\nerroneous, as long as Government confines itself to its legitimate\nfunctions.\n\nBut what are these functions?\n\nIt is precisely this special character of having force for their\nnecessary auxiliary which marks out to us their extent and their\nlimits. I affirm that as \u2039Government acts only by the intervention of\nforce, its action is legitimate only where the intervention of force\nis itself legitimate\u203a.\n\nNow, where force interposes legitimately, it is not to sacrifice\nliberty, but to make it more respected. So that this pretended axiom,\nwhich has been represented as the basis of political science, and\nwhich has been shown to be false as far as society is concerned, is\nequally false as regards Government. It is always gratifying to me\nto see these melancholy theoretical discordances disappear before a\ncloser and more searching examination.\n\nIn what cases is the employment of force legitimate? In one case,\nand, I believe, in only one\u2014\u2039the case of legitimate defence\u203a. If this\nbe so, the foundation of Government is fully established, as well as\nits legitimate limits.[99]\n\nWhat is individual right?\n\nThe right which an individual possesses to enter freely and\nvoluntarily into bargains and transactions with his fellow-citizens,\nwhich give rise, as far as they are concerned, to a reciprocal right.\nWhen is this right violated? When one of the parties encroaches\n[p438] on the liberty of the other. In that case, it is incorrect\nto say, as is frequently done, \u201cThere is an excess, an abuse of\nliberty.\u201d We should say, \u201cThere is a want, a destruction of liberty.\u201d\nAn excess of liberty, no doubt, if we regard only the aggressor, but\na destruction of liberty, if we regard the victim, or even if we\nregard the phenomenon as a whole, as we ought to do.\n\nThe right of the man whose liberty is attacked, or, which comes to\nthe same thing, whose property, faculties, or labour is attacked,\nis to defend them \u2039even by force\u203a; and this is in fact what men do\neverywhere, and always, when they can.\n\nHence may be deduced the right of a number of men of any sort to take\ncounsel together, and associate, in order to defend, \u2039even by their\njoint force\u203a, individual liberty and property.\n\nBut an individual has no right to employ force for any other purpose.\nI cannot legitimately \u2039force\u203a my neighbours to be industrious, sober,\neconomical, generous, learned, devout; but I can legitimately force\nthem to be just.\n\nFor the same reason the collective force cannot be legitimately\napplied to develop the love of industry, of sobriety, of economy,\nof generosity, of science, of religious belief; but it may be\nlegitimately applied to ensure the predominance of justice, and\nvindicate each man\u2019s right.\n\nFor where can we seek for the origin of collective right but in\nindividual right?\n\nThe deplorable mania of our times is the desire to give an\nindependent existence to pure abstractions, to imagine a city without\ncitizens, a human nature without human beings, a whole without\nparts, an aggregate without the individuals who compose it. They\nmight as well say, \u201cHere is a man, suppose him without members,\nviscera, organs, body, soul, or any of the elements of which he is\ncomposed\u2014still here is a man.\u201d\n\nIf a right does not exist in any of the individuals of what for\nbrevity\u2019s sake we call a nation, how should it exist in the nation\nitself? How, above all, should it exist in that fraction of a nation\nwhich exercises delegated rights of government? How could individuals\ndelegate rights which they do not themselves possess?\n\nWe must, then, regard as a fundamental principle in politics, this\nincontestable truth, that between individuals the intervention of\nforce is legitimate only in the case of legitimate defence; and that\na collective body of men cannot have recourse to force legally, but\nwithin the same limit.\n\nNow, it is of the very essence of Government to act upon [p439]\nindividuals by way of constraint. Then it can have no other rational\nfunctions than the legitimate defence of individual rights, it can\nhave no delegated authority except to secure respect to the lives and\nproperty of all.\n\nObserve that when a Government goes beyond these bounds, it enters\non an illimited career, and cannot escape this consequence, not\nonly that it goes beyond its mission, but annihilates it, which\nconstitutes the most monstrous of contradictions.\n\nIn truth, when the State has caused to be respected this fixed and\ninvariable line which separates the rights of the citizens, when it\nhas maintained among them justice, what could it do more without\nitself breaking through that barrier, the guardianship of which has\nbeen intrusted to it\u2014in other words, without destroying with its own\nhands, and by force, that very liberty and property which had been\nplaced under its safeguard? Beyond the administration and enforcement\nof justice, I defy you to imagine an intervention of Government which\nis not an injustice. Allege, as long as you choose, acts inspired\nby the purest philanthropy, encouragements held out to virtue and\nto industry, premiums, favour, and direct protection, gifts said to\nbe gratuitous, initiatives styled generous; behind all these fair\nappearances, or, if you will, these fair realities, I will show you\nother realities less gratifying; the rights of some persons violated\nfor the benefit of others, liberties sacrificed, rights of property\nusurped, faculties limited, spoliations consummated. And can the\npeople possibly behold a spectacle more melancholy, more painful,\nthan that of the collective force employed in perpetrating crimes\nwhich it is its special duty to repress?\n\nIn principle, it is enough that the Government has at its disposal,\nas a necessary instrument, \u2039force\u203a, in order to enable us to discover\nwhat the private services are which can legitimately be converted\ninto \u2039public services\u203a. They are those which have for their object\nthe maintenance of liberty, property, and individual right, the\nprevention of crime\u2014in a word, everything which involves the \u2039public\nsecurity\u203a.\n\nGovernments have yet another mission.\n\nThere are in all countries a certain amount of common property,\nenjoyed by the citizens jointly\u2014rivers, forests, roads. On the\nother hand, unfortunately, there are also debts. It is the duty of\nGovernment to administer this active and passive portion of the\npublic domain.\n\nIn fine, from these two functions there flows another,\u2014that of\nlevying the contributions which are necessary for the \u2039public\nservice\u203a. [p440]\n\nThus:\n\nTo watch over the public security.\n\nTo administer common property.\n\nTo levy taxes.\n\nSuch I believe to be the legitimate circle within which Government\nfunctions ought to be circumscribed, and to which they should be\nbrought back if they have gone beyond it.\n\nThis opinion, I know, runs counter to received opinions. \u201cWhat!\u201d\nit will be said, \u201cyou wish to reduce Government to play the part\nof a judge and a police-officer! You would take away from it all\ninitiative! You would restrain it from giving a lively impulse to\nlearning, to arts, to commerce, to navigation, to agriculture, to\nmoral and religious ideas; you would despoil it of its fairest\nattribute, that of opening to the people the road of progress!\u201d\n\nTo people who talk in this way, I should like to put a few questions.\n\nWhere has God placed the motive spring of human conduct, and the\naspiration after progress? Is it in all men? or is it exclusively\nin those among them who have received, or usurped, the delegated\nauthority of a legislator, or the patent of a placeman? Does every\none of us not carry in his organization, in his whole being, that\nboundless, restless principle of action called \u2039desire\u203a? When our\nfirst and most urgent wants are supplied, are there not formed within\nus concentric and expansive circles of desires of an order more and\nmore elevated? Does the love of arts, of letters, of science, of\nmoral and religious truth, does a thirst for the solution of those\nproblems which concern our present and future existence, descend\nfrom collective bodies of men to individuals, from abstractions to\nrealities, from mere words to living and sentient beings?\n\nIf you set out with this assumption\u2014absurd upon the face of it\u2014that\nmoral energy resides in the State, and that the nation is passive,\ndo you not place morals, doctrines, opinions, wealth, all which\nconstitutes individual life, at the mercy of men in power?\n\nThen, in order to enable it to discharge the formidable duty which\nyou would intrust to it, has the State any resources of its own?\nIs it not obliged to take everything of which it disposes, down\nto the last penny, from the citizens themselves? If it be from\nindividuals that it demands the means of execution, individuals have\nrealized these means. It is a contradiction, then, to pretend that\nindividuality is passive and inert. And why have individuals created\nthese resources? To minister to their own [p441] satisfactions. What\ndoes the State do when it seizes on these resources? It does not\nbring satisfactions into existence, it \u2039displaces\u203a them. It deprives\nthe man who earned them in order to endow a man who has no right to\nthem. Charged to chastise injustice, it perpetrates it.\n\nWill it be said that in displacing satisfactions it purifies them,\nand renders them more moral?\u2014that the wealth which individuals\nhad devoted to gross and sensual wants the State has devoted to\nmoral purposes? Who dare affirm that it is advantageous to invert\nviolently, \u2039by force\u203a, by means of spoliation, the natural order\naccording to which the wants and desires of men are developed?\u2014that\nit is moral to take a morsel of bread from the hungry peasant, in\norder to bring within the reach of the inhabitants of our large towns\nthe doubtful morality of theatrical entertainments?\n\nAnd then it must be remembered, that you cannot displace wealth\nwithout displacing labour and population. Any arrangement you can\nmake must be artificial and precarious when it is thus substituted\nfor a solid and regular order of things reposing on the immutable\nlaws of nature.\n\nThere are people who believe that by circumscribing the province of\nGovernment you enfeeble it. Numerous functions and numerous agents,\nthey think, give the State the solidity of a broader basis. But\nthis is pure illusion. If the State cannot overstep the limits of\nits proper and determinate functions without becoming an instrument\nof injustice, of ruin, and of spoliation\u2014without unsettling the\nnatural distribution of labour, of enjoyments, of capital, and\nof population\u2014without creating commercial stoppages, industrial\ncrises, and pauperism\u2014without enlarging the proportion of crimes\nand offences\u2014without recurring to more and more energetic means of\nrepression\u2014without exciting discontent and disaffection,\u2014how is it\npossible to discover a guarantee for stability in these accumulated\nelements of disorder?\n\nYou complain of the revolutionary tendencies of men, but without\nsufficient reflection. When in a great country we see private\nservices invaded and converted into public services, the Government\nlaying hold of one-third of the wealth produced by the citizens,\nthe law converted into an engine of spoliation by the citizens\nthemselves, thus impairing, under pretence of establishing, the\nequivalence of services\u2014when we see population and labour displaced\nby legislation, a deeper and deeper gulf interposed between wealth\nand poverty, capital, which should give employment to an increasing\npopulation, prevented from accumulating, [p442] entire classes\nground down by the hardest privations\u2014when we see Governments taking\nto themselves credit for any prosperity which may be observable,\nproclaiming themselves the movers and originators of everything,\nand thus accepting responsibility for all the evils which afflict\nsociety,\u2014we are only astonished that revolutions do not occur more\nfrequently, and we admire the sacrifices which are made by the people\nto the cause of public order and tranquillity.\n\nBut if laws and the Governments which enact laws confined themselves\nwithin the limits I have indicated, how could revolutions occur?\nIf each citizen were free, he would doubtless be less exposed to\nsuffering; and if, at the same time, the feeling of responsibility\nwere brought to bear on him from all sides, how should he ever\ntake it into his head to attribute his sufferings to a law, to a\nGovernment which concerned itself no farther with him than to repress\nhis acts of injustice and protect him from the injustice of others?\nDo we ever find a village rising against the authority of the local\nmagistrate?\n\nThe influence of liberty on the cause of order is sensibly felt in\nthe United States. There, all, save the administration of justice and\nof public property, is left to the free and voluntary transactions of\nthe citizens; and there, accordingly, we find fewer of the elements\nand chances of revolution than in any other country of the world.\nWhat semblance of interest, could the citizens of such a country have\nin changing the established order of things by violence, when, on the\none hand, this order of things clashes with no man\u2019s interests, and,\non the other, may be legally and readily modified if necessary?\n\nBut I am wrong. There are two active causes of revolution at work\nin the United States\u2014slavery and commercial restriction. It is\nnotorious that these two questions are constantly placing in jeopardy\nthe public peace and the federal union. Now, is it possible to\nconceive a more decisive argument in support of the thesis I am\nnow maintaining? Have we not here an instance of the law acting\nin direct antagonism to what ought to be the design and aim of\nall laws? Is not this a case of law and public force sanctioning,\nstrengthening, perpetuating, systematizing, and protecting oppression\nand spoliation, in place of fulfilling its legitimate mission of\nprotecting liberty and property? As regards slavery, the law says,\n\u201cI shall create a force, at the expense of the citizens, not to\nmaintain each in his rights, but to annihilate altogether the rights\nof a portion of the inhabitants.\u201d As regards tariffs, the law says,\n\u201cI shall create a force, at the expense of the citizens, not to\nensure the freedom of their bargains and transactions, but to [p443]\ndestroy that freedom, to impair the equivalence of services, to give\nto one citizen the liberty of two, and to deprive another of liberty\naltogether. My function is to commit injustice, which I nevertheless\nvisit with the severest punishment when committed by the citizens\nthemselves without my interposition.\u201d\n\nIt is not, then, because we have few laws and few functionaries, or,\nin other words, because we have few public services, that revolutions\nare to be feared; but, on the contrary, because we have many laws,\nmany functionaries, and many public services. Public services, the\nlaw which regulates them, the force which establishes them, are from\ntheir nature never neutral. They may be enlarged without danger, on\nthe contrary with advantage, when they are necessary to the vigorous\nenforcement of justice; but carried beyond this point they are so\nmany instruments of legal oppression and spoliation, so many causes\nof disorder and revolutionary ferment.\n\nShall I venture to describe the poisonous immorality which is infused\ninto all the veins of the body politic, when the law thus sets\nitself, upon principle, to indulge the plundering propensities of\nthe citizens? Attend a meeting of the national representatives when\nthe question happens to turn on bounties, encouragements, favours,\nor restrictions. See with what shameless rapacity all endeavour to\nsecure a share of the spoil,\u2014spoil which, as individuals, they would\nblush to touch. The very man who would regard himself as a highway\nrobber, if, meeting me on the frontier and clapping a pistol to my\nhead, he prevented me from concluding a bargain which was for my\nadvantage, makes no scruple whatever in proposing and voting a law\nwhich substitutes the public force for his own, and subjects me to\nthe very same restriction at my own expense. In this respect, what a\nmelancholy spectacle France presents at this very moment! All classes\nare suffering, and in place of demanding the abolition for ever of\nall legal spoliation, each turns to the law, and says, \u201cYou who can\ndo everything, you who have the public force at your disposal, you\nwho can bring good out of evil, be pleased to rob and plunder all\nother classes, to put money in my pocket. Force them to come to my\nshop, or pay me bounties and premiums, give my family gratuitous\neducation, lend me money without interest,\u201d etc.\n\nIt is in this way that the law becomes a source of demoralization,\nand if anything ought to surprise us, it is that the propensity to\nindividual plunder does not make more progress, when the moral sense\nof the nation is thus perverted by legislation itself.\n\nThe deplorable thing is, that spoliation, when thus sanctioned by\n[p444] law, and opposed by no individual scruple, ends by becoming\nquite a learned theory with an attendant train of professors,\njournals, doctors, legislators, sophisms, and subtleties. Among the\ntraditional quibbles which are brought forward in its support we may\nremark this one, namely, that, \u2039c\u00e6teris paribus\u203a, an enlargement of\n\u2039demand\u203a is of advantage to those by whom labour is supplied, seeing\nthat the new relation between a more active demand and a supply which\nis stationary is what increases the \u2039value\u203a of the service. From\nthese premises the conclusion follows that spoliation is of advantage\nto everybody: to the plundering class, which it enriches directly;\nto the plundered class, by its reflex influence. The plundering\nclass having become richer finds itself in a situation to enlarge\nthe circle of its enjoyments, and this it cannot do without creating\na larger \u2039demand\u203a for the \u2039services\u203a of the class which has been\nrobbed. Now, as regards each service, an enlargement of demand is an\nincrease of value. The classes, then, who are legally plundered are\ntoo happy to be robbed, since the profit arising from the theft thus\nredounds to them, and helps to find them employment.\n\nAs long as the law confined itself to robbing the many for the\nbenefit of the few, this quibble appeared specious, and was never\ninvoked but with success. \u201cLet us hand over to the rich,\u201d it was\nsaid, \u201cthe taxes levied from the poor, and we shall thus augment the\ncapital of the wealthy classes. The rich will indulge in luxury, and\nluxury will give employment to the poor.\u201d And all, poor included,\nregarded this recipe as infallible; and for having exposed its\nhollowness, I have been long regarded, and am still regarded, as an\nenemy of the working classes.\n\nBut since the revolution of February the poor have had a voice in\nthe making of our laws. Have they required that the law should cease\nto sanction spoliation? Not at all. The sophism of the rebound, of\nthe reflex influence, has got too firmly into their heads. What is\nit they have asked for? That the law should become impartial, and\nconsent to rob all classes in their turn. They have asked for gratis\neducation, gratis advances of capital, friendly societies founded\nby the State, progressive taxation, etc. And then the rich have set\nthemselves to cry out, \u201cHow scandalous! All is over with us! New\nbarbarians threaten society with an irruption!\u201d To the pretensions\nof the poor they have opposed a desperate resistance, first with the\nbayonet and then with the ballot-box. But for all this, have the\nrich given up spoliation? They have not even dreamt of that; and the\nargument of the rebound still serves as the pretext. [p445]\n\nWere this system of spoliation carried on by them directly, and\nwithout the intervention of the law, the sophism would become\ntransparent. Were you to take from the pocket of the workman a franc\nto pay your ticket to the theatre, would you have the face to say to\nhim, \u201cMy good friend, this franc will circulate and give employment\nto you and others of your class?\u201d Or if you did, would he not be\njustified in answering, \u201cThe franc will circulate just as well if\nyou do not steal it from me. It will go to the baker instead of the\nscene-painter. It will procure me bread in place of procuring you\namusement.\u201d\n\nWe may remark, also, that the sophism of the rebound may be invoked\nby the poor in their turn. They may say in their turn to the rich,\n\u201cLet the law assist us in robbing you. We shall consume more cloth,\nand that will benefit your manufactures; more meat, and that will\nbenefit your land estates; more sugar, and that will benefit your\nshipping.\u201d\n\nUnhappy, thrice unhappy, nation in which such questions are raised,\nin which no one thinks of making the law the rule of equity, but\nan instrument of plunder to fill his own pockets, and applies the\nwhole power of his intellect to try to find excuses among the more\nremote and complicated effects of spoliation. In support of these\nreflections it may not be out of place to add here an extract from\nthe debate which took place at a meeting of the \u2039Conseil g\u00e9n\u00e9ral des\nManufactures, de l\u2019Agriculture, et du Commerce\u203a, on Saturday the 27th\nApril 1850.[100] [p446]\n\n\n\n\n XVIII.\n DISTURBING CAUSES.\n\n\nIn what state would human society have been, had the transactions\nof mankind never been in any shape infected with force or fraud,\noppression or deceit?\n\nWould Justice and Liberty have given rise inevitably to Inequality\nand Monopoly?\n\nTo find an answer to these questions it would seem to me to be\nnecessary to study the nature of human transactions in their essence,\nin their origin, in their consequences, and in the consequences of\nthese consequences, down to the final result; and this apart from\nthe consideration of contingent disturbances which might engender\ninjustice; for it will be readily granted that injustice is not of\nthe essence of free and voluntary transactions.\n\nThat the entry of Injustice into the world was inevitable, and that\nsociety cannot get rid of it, may be argued plausibly, and I think\neven conclusively, if we take man as he exists, with his passions,\nhis egotism, his ignorance, and his original improvidence. We must\nalso, therefore, direct our attention to the origin and effects of\nInjustice.\n\nBut it is not the less true that economical science must set out by\nexplaining the theory of human transactions, assuming them to be free\nand voluntary, just as physiology explains the nature and relations\nof our organs, apart from the consideration of the disturbing causes\nwhich modify these relations.\n\nServices, as we have seen, are exchanged for services, and the great\n\u2039desideratum\u203a is the equivalence of the services thus exchanged.\n\nThe best chance, it would seem, of arriving at this equivalence, is\nthat it should be produced under the influence of Liberty, and that\nevery man should be allowed to judge for himself. [p447]\n\nWe know that men may be mistaken; but we know also that they have the\npower given them of rectifying their mistakes; and the longer, as it\nappears to us, that error is persisted in, the nearer we approximate\nto its rectification.\n\nEverything which restrains liberty would seem to disturb the\nequivalence of services, and everything which disturbs the\nequivalence of services engenders inequality in an exaggerated\ndegree, endowing some with unmerited opulence, entailing on others\npoverty equally unmerited, together with the destruction of national\nwealth, and an attendant train of evils, heartburnings, disturbances,\nconvulsions, and revolutions.\n\nWe shall not go the length of saying that Liberty\u2014or the equivalence\nof services\u2014produces absolute equality; for we believe in nothing\nabsolute in what concerns man. But we think that Liberty tends to\nmake men approximate towards a common level, which is movable and\nalways rising.\n\nWe think also that the inequality which may still remain under a\nfree \u2039r\u00e9gime\u203a is either the result of accidental circumstances, or\nthe chastisement of faults and vices, or the compensation of other\nadvantages set opposite to those of wealth; and, consequently, that\nthis inequality ought not to introduce among men any feeling of\nirritation.\n\nIn a word, we believe that \u2039Liberty is Harmony\u203a.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\nBut in order to discover whether this harmony exists in reality, or\nonly in our own imagination, whether it be in us a perception or\nonly an aspiration, we must subject free transactions to the test of\nscientific inquiry; we must study facts, with their relations and\nconsequences.\n\nThis is what we have endeavoured to do.\n\nWe have seen that although countless obstacles are interposed\nbetween the wants of man and his satisfactions, so that in a state\nof isolation he could not exist\u2014yet by the union of forces, the\nseparation of occupations, in a word, by exchange, his faculties are\ndeveloped to such an extent as to enable him gradually to overcome\nthe first obstacles, to encounter the second and overcome them also,\nand so on in a progression as much more rapid as exchange is rendered\nmore easy by the increasing density of population.\n\nWe have seen that his intelligence places at his disposal means\nof action more and more numerous, energetic, and perfect, that in\nproportion as capital increases, his absolute share in the produce\nincreases, and his relative share diminishes, while both the absolute\nand relative share falling to the labourer goes on [p448] constantly\nincreasing. This is the primary and most powerful cause of equality.\n\nWe have seen that that admirable instrument of production called\nland, that marvellous laboratory in which are prepared all things\nnecessary for the food, clothing, and shelter of man, has been given\nhim gratuitously by the Creator; that although the land is nominally\nappropriated, its productive action cannot be so, but remains\ngratuitous throughout the whole range of human transactions.\n\nWe have seen that Property has not only this negative effect of not\nencroaching on community; but that it works directly and constantly\nin enlarging its domain; and this is a second cause of equality,\nseeing that the more abundant the common fund becomes, the more is\nthe inequality of property effaced.\n\nWe have seen that under the influence of liberty services tend to\nacquire their normal value, that is to say, a value proportionate to\nthe labour. This is a third cause of equality.\n\nFor these reasons we conclude that there is a tendency to the\nestablishment among men of a natural level, not by bringing them back\nto a retrograde position, or allowing them to remain stationary, but\nurging them on to a state which is constantly progressive.\n\nIn fine, we have seen that it is not the tendency of the laws of\nValue, of Interest, of Rent, of Population, or any other great\nnatural law, to introduce dissonance into the beautiful order of\nsociety, as crude science has endeavoured to persuade us, but, on the\ncontrary, that all these laws lead to harmony.\n\nHaving reached this point, I think I hear the reader cry out, \u201cThe\nEconomists are optimists with a vengeance! It is in vain that\nsuffering, poverty, inadequate wages, pauperism, the desertion of\nchildren, starvation, crime, rebellion, inequality, are before their\neyes; they chant complacently the harmony of the social laws, and\nturn away from a hideous spectacle which mars their enjoyment of the\ntheory in which they are wrapt up. They shun the region of realities,\nin order to take refuge, like the Utopian dreamers whom they blame,\nin a region of chimeras. More illogical than the Socialists or the\nCommunists themselves\u2014who confess the existence of suffering, feel\nit, describe it, abhor it, and only commit the error of prescribing\nineffectual, impracticable, and empirical remedies\u2014the Economists\neither deny the existence of suffering, or are insensible to it,\nif, indeed, they do not engender it, calling out to diseased and\ndistempered society, \u2018\u2039Laissez faire, laissez passer\u203a; all is for the\nbest in this best of all possible worlds.\u2019\u201d [p449]\n\nIn the name of science, I repel, I repudiate with all my might,\nsuch reproaches and such interpretations of our words. We see the\nexistence of suffering as clearly as our opponents. Like them, we\ndeplore it, like them we endeavour to discover its causes, like them\nwe are ready to combat them. But we state the question differently.\n\u201cSociety,\u201d say they, \u201csuch as liberty of labour and commercial\ntransactions (that is to say, the free play of natural laws) has\nmade it, is detestable. Break, then, the wheels of this ill-going\nmachine, liberty (which they take care to nickname competition, or\noftener anarchical competition), and substitute for them, by force,\nnew wheels of our invention.\u201d No sooner said than done. Millions of\ninventions are paraded; and this we might naturally expect, for to\nimaginary space there are no limits.\n\nAs for us, after having studied the natural and providential laws of\nsociety, we affirm that these laws are harmonious. These laws admit\nthe existence of evil, for they are brought into play by men,\u2014by\nbeings subject to error and to suffering. But in this mechanism evil\nhas itself a function to perform, which is to circumscribe more and\nmore its own limits, and ultimately to check its own action, by\npreparing for man warnings, corrections, experience, knowledge; all\nthings which are comprehended and summed up in the word, Improvement.\n\nWe add that it is not true that liberty prevails among men, nor is it\ntrue that the providential laws exert all their action. If they do\nact, at least, it is to repair slowly and painfully the disturbing\naction of ignorance and error. Don\u2019t arraign us, then, for using the\nwords \u2039laissez faire\u203a, \u2039let alone\u203a; for we do not mean by that, let\nman alone when he is doing wrong. What we mean is this: Study the\nprovidential laws, admire them, and \u2039allow them to operate\u203a. Remove\nthe obstacles which they encounter from abuses arising from force and\nfraud, and you will see accomplished in human society this double\nmanifestation of progress\u2014equalization in amelioration.\n\nFor, in short, of two things one: either the interests of men are, in\ntheir own nature, concordant, or they are in their nature discordant.\nWhen we talk of one\u2019s Interest, we talk of a thing towards which a\nman gravitates necessarily, unavoidably; otherwise it would cease to\nbe called interest. If men gravitated towards something else, that\nother thing would be termed their interest. If men\u2019s interests, then,\nare concordant, all that is necessary in order to the realization of\nharmony and happiness is that these interests should be understood,\nsince men naturally [p450] pursue their interest. This is all we\ncontend for; and this is the reason why we say, \u2039Eclairez et laissez\nfaire\u203a, Enlighten men, and let them alone. If men\u2019s interests are in\ntheir nature and essence discordant, then you are right, and there\nis no other way of producing harmony, but by forcing, thwarting, and\nrunning counter to these interests. A whimsical harmony, truly, which\ncan result only from an external and despotic action directed against\nthe interests of all! For you can easily understand that men will\nnot tamely allow themselves to be thwarted; and in order to obtain\ntheir acquiescence in your inventions, you must either begin by being\nstronger than the whole human family, or else you must be able to\nsucceed in deceiving them with reference to their true interests.\nIn short, on the hypothesis that men\u2019s interests are naturally\ndiscordant, the best thing which could happen would be their being\nall deceived in this respect.\n\nForce and imposture, these are your sole resources. I defy you\nto find another, unless you admit that men\u2019s interests are\nharmonious,\u2014and if you grant that, you are with us, and will say, as\nwe say, Allow the providential laws to act.\n\nNow, this you will not do; and therefore. I must repeat that your\nstarting-point is the antagonism of interests. This is the reason why\nyou will not allow these interests to come to a mutual arrangement\nand understanding freely and voluntarily; this is the reason why\nyou advocate arbitrary measures, and repudiate liberty; and you are\nconsistent.\n\nBut take care. The struggle which is approaching will not be\nexclusively between you and society. Such a struggle you lay your\naccount with, the thwarting of men\u2019s interests being the very object\nyou have in view. The battle will also rage among you, the inventors\nand organizers of artificial societies, yourselves; for there are\nthousands of you, and there will soon be tens of thousands, all\nentertaining and advocating different views. What will you do? I see\nvery clearly what you will do,\u2014you will endeavour to get possession\nof the Government. That is the only force capable of overcoming all\nresistance. Will some one among you succeed? While he is engaged\nin thwarting and opposing the Government, he will find himself set\nupon by all the other inventors, equally desirous to seize upon the\nGovernment; and their chances of success will be so much the greater,\nseeing that they will be aided by that public disaffection which has\nbeen stirred up by the previous opposition to their interests. Here,\nthen, we are launched into a stormy sea of eternal revolutions, and\nwith no other object than the solution of this question: [p451]\nHow, and by whom, can the interests of mankind be most effectually\nthwarted?\n\nLet me not be accused of exaggeration. All this is forced upon us if\nmen\u2019s interests are naturally discordant, for on this hypothesis you\nnever can get out of the dilemma, that either these interests will be\nleft to themselves, and then disorder will follow, or some one must\nbe strong enough to run counter to them, and in that case we shall\nstill have disorder.\n\nIt is true that there is a third course, as I have already indicated.\nIt consists in deceiving men with reference to their true interests;\nand this course being above the power of a mere mortal, the shortest\nway is for the \u2039organisateur\u203a to erect himself into an oracle. This\nis a part which these Utopian dreamers, when they dare, never fail to\nplay, until they become Ministers of State. They fill their writings\nwith mystical cant; and it is with these paper kites that they find\nout how the wind sits, and make their first experiments on public\ncredulity. But, unfortunately for them, success in such experiments\nis not very easily achieved in the nineteenth century.\n\nWe confess, then, frankly that, in order to get rid of these\ninextricable difficulties, it is much to be desired that, having\nstudied human interests, we should find them harmonious. The duty of\nwriters and that of governments become in that case rational and easy.\n\nAs mankind frequently mistake their true interests, our duty as\nwriters ought to be to explain these interests, to describe them, to\nmake them understood, for we may be quite certain that if men once\nsee their interest, they will follow it. As a man who is mistaken\nwith reference to his own interests injures those of the public\n(this results from their harmony), the duty of Government will be\nto bring back the small body of dissentients and violators of the\nprovidential laws into the path of justice, which is identical with\nthat of utility. In other words, the single mission of Government\nwill be to establish the dominion of justice; and it will no longer\nhave to embarrass itself with the painful endeavour to produce, at\ngreat cost, and by encroaching on individual liberty, a Harmony which\nis self-created, and which Government action never fails to destroy.\n\nAfter what has been said, we shall not be regarded as such fanatical\nadvocates of social harmony as to deny that it may be, and frequently\nis, disturbed. I will even add that, in my opinion, the disturbances\nof the social order, which are caused by blind passions, ignorance,\nand error, are infinitely greater and more pro [p452] longed than\nare generally supposed; and it is these disturbing causes which we\nare about to make the subject of our inquiry.\n\n        *       *       *       *       *\n\nMan comes into the world having implanted in him ineradicably the\ndesire of happiness and aversion from pain. Seeing that he acts in\nobedience to this impulse, we cannot deny that personal interest\nis the moving spring of the individual, of all individuals, and,\nconsequently, of society. And seeing that personal interest, in the\neconomic sphere, is the motive of human actions and the mainspring of\nsociety, Evil must proceed from it as well as Good; and it is in this\nmotive power that we must seek to discover harmony and the causes by\nwhich that harmony is disturbed.\n\nThe constant aspiration of self-interest is to silence want, or, to\nspeak more generally, desire, by satisfaction.\n\nBetween these two terms, which are essentially personal and\nintransmissible, want and satisfaction, there is interposed a mean\nterm which is transmissible and exchangeable,\u2014effort.\n\nOver all this mechanism we have placed the faculty of comparing,\nof judging\u2014mind, intelligence. But human intelligence is fallible.\nWe may be mistaken. That is beyond dispute; for were any one to\nassert that man cannot err, we should at once conclude that it was\nunnecessary to hold any farther argument with him.\n\nWe may be mistaken in many ways. We may, for instance, form a wrong\nappreciation of the relative importance of our wants. In this case,\nwere we living in a state of isolation, we should give to our efforts\na direction not in accordance with our true interests. In a state of\nsociety, and under the operation of the law of exchange, the effect\nwould be the same; for then we should direct demand and remuneration\nto services of a kind either frivolous or hurtful, and so give a\nwrong direction to labour.\n\nWe may also err, from being ignorant that a satisfaction which we\nardently seek for can only remove a suffering by becoming the source\nof still greater sufferings. There is scarcely any effect which\nmay not in its turn become a cause. Foresight has been given us to\nenable us to observe the concatenation of effects, so that we may not\nsacrifice the future to the present; but we are frequently deficient\nin foresight.\n\nHere, then, is the first source of evil, error arising from the\nfeebleness of our judgment or the force of our passions; and it\nbelongs principally to the domain of morals. In this case, as the\nerror and the passion are individual, the resulting evil must,\nto a [p453] certain extent, be individual also; and reflection,\nexperience, and the feeling of responsibility are its proper\ncorrectives.\n\nErrors of this class, however, may assume a social character, and,\nwhen erected into a system, may give rise to widespread suffering.\nThere are countries, for example, in which the governing power is\nstrongly convinced that the prosperity of nations is measured,\nnot by the amount of wants which are satisfied, but by the amount\nof efforts, whatever may be their results. The division of labour\nassists powerfully this illusion. When we observe that each\nprofession sets itself to overcome a certain species of obstacle,\nwe imagine that the existence of that obstacle is the source of\nwealth. In such countries, when vanity, frivolity, or a false love of\nglory are predominant passions, and provoke corresponding desires,\nand determine a portion of the national industry in that direction,\nGovernments believe that all will be over with them if their subjects\ncome to be reformed and rendered more moral. What will become now,\nthey say, of milliners, cooks, grooms, embroiderers, dancers,\nlace-manufactures, etc.? They do not reflect that the human heart\nis always large enough to contain enough of honest, reasonable, and\nlegitimate desires to afford employment and support to labour; that\nthe business is not to suppress desires, but to rectify and purify\nthem; and that labour, consequently, following the same evolution,\nmay have its direction changed and still be carried on to the same\nextent as before. In countries where these melancholy doctrines\nprevail, we hear it frequently said, \u201cIt is unfortunate that morals\nand industry cannot march side by side. We should desire, indeed,\nthat the citizens should be moral, but we cannot allow them to become\nidle and poor. This is the reason why we must continue to make\nlaws which are favourable to luxury. If necessary, we impose taxes\non the people; and for the sake of the people, and to ensure them\nemployment, we charge Kings, Presidents, Ambassadors, Ministers,\nwith the duty of \u2039representing\u203a them.\u201d All this is said and done in\nthe best possible faith; and the people themselves acquiesce in it\nwith a good grace. It is very clear that when luxury and frivolity\nthus become a legislative affair, regulated, decreed, imposed,\nsystematized, by public force, the law of Responsibility loses all\nits moral power.[101]\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. [p454]\n\n\n\n\n XIX.\n WAR.\n\n\nOf all the circumstances which contribute to impart to nations their\ndistinctive character and aspect, and to form and modify their\ngenius, their moral condition, their customs, and their laws, the one\nwhich exerts a far more powerful influence than all the rest, because\nit includes all the rest, is the manner in which they provide for\ntheir subsistence. For this observation we are indebted to Charles\nComte, and we have reason to be surprised that it has not had a more\nprominent place given to it in the moral and political sciences.\n\nThis circumstance, in fact, acts upon the human race in two ways, and\nwith equal power in both,\u2014by its continuity, and by its universality.\nTo subsist, to better one\u2019s condition, to bring up a family, are not\naffairs of time, or place, or taste, or opinion, or choice; they\nare the daily, constant, and unavoidable concern of all men, at all\ntimes, and in all countries.\n\nEverywhere, the greater part of their moral, intellectual, and\nphysical force is devoted directly or indirectly to create and\nreplace the means of subsistence. The hunter, the fisher, the\nshepherd, the agriculturist, the manufacturer, the merchant, the\nlabourer, the artisan, the capitalist,\u2014all think first of all how\nthey are to live (prosaic as the avowal may seem), and then how to\nlive better and better, if they can. The proof of it is that it is\nonly for this end that they are hunters, fishers, manufacturers,\nagriculturists, etc. In the same way, the public functionary, the\nsoldier, the magistrate, enter upon their careers in order to ensure\nthe supply of their wants. We do not necessarily charge a man with\nwant of devotion or disinterestedness when we quote the proverb, \u2039The\npriest lives by the altar\u203a, for before he belonged to the priesthood\nhe belonged to humanity; and if at this moment he sits down to write\na book against this vulgar view of human nature, the sale of his book\nwill demolish his argument. [p455]\n\nGod forbid that I should seek to deny the existence of self-denial\nand disinterestedness. But it must be granted that they are\nexceptional, and it is because they are so that they merit and\ncall forth our admiration. If we consider human nature in its\nentirety, without having made a previous covenant with the demon of\nsentimentalism, we must allow that disinterested efforts bear no\ncomparison, as respects their number, with those which are called\nforth by the hard necessities of our condition. And it is because\nthose efforts, which constitute the aggregate of our employments,\nengross so large a portion of each man\u2019s life, that they cannot fail\nto exert a powerful influence on national character.\n\nM. Saint-Marc Girardin says somewhere or other that he has been led\nto acknowledge the relative insignificance of political forms in\ncomparison with those great general laws which their employments and\ntheir wants impose upon nations. \u201cDo you desire to know the condition\nof a people?\u201d says he, \u201cask not how they are governed, but how they\nare employed.\u201d\n\nAs a general view, this is just; but the author hastens to falsify\nit by converting it into a system. The importance of political\nforms has been exaggerated; and what does he do? He denies their\nimportance altogether, or acknowledges it only to laugh at it.\nForms of government, he says, do not interest us but on the day\nof an election, or when we are reading the newspapers. Monarchy\nor Republic, Aristocracy or Democracy, what matters it? And what\nconclusion does he arrive at? In maintaining that \u2039infant\u203a nations\nresemble each other, whatever their political constitution happens\nto be, he assimilates the United States to ancient Egypt, because in\nboth countries gigantic works have been executed. Americans clear\nlands, dig canals, construct railways, and they do all this for\nthemselves, because they are a democracy, and their own masters.\nThe Egyptians raised temples, pyramids, obelisks, and palaces for\ntheir kings and their priests, because they were slaves. And yet we\nare told that the difference is a mere affair of form, not worth\nregarding, or which we should regard merely to laugh at. Alas!\nhow the contagion of classical lore corrupts and misleads its\nsuperstitious votaries!\n\nM. Saint-Marc Girardin, still proceeding on his general proposition\nthat the prevailing occupations of a nation determine its genius,\nsoon after remarks that formerly we were occupied with war and\nreligion, but nowadays with commerce and manufactures. This is the\nreason why former generations bore a warlike and religious impress.\n[p456]\n\nRousseau had long before remarked that the care for subsistence was\nthe prevailing occupation only of some nations, and those the most\nprosaic; and that other nations, more worthy of the name, had devoted\nthemselves to nobler exertions.\n\nNow, in this have not both M. Saint-Marc Girardin and Rousseau\nbeen the dupes of an historical illusion? Have they not mistaken\nthe amusements, the diversions, or the pretexts and instruments of\ndespotism, which give employment to some of the people, for the\noccupations of all? And has the illusion not arisen from this, that\nhistorians are always telling us about the class which does not work,\nnever about the class which does; and in this way we come to regard\nthe first of these classes as the entire nation.\n\nI cannot help thinking that among the Greeks, among the Romans, among\nthe people of the Middle Ages, men just did what they do now, and\nwere subject to wants so pressing and so constantly recurring, that\nthey were obliged to provide for them under pain of death. Hence I\ncannot help concluding that such employments then, as at present,\nformed the principal and absorbing occupation of the great bulk of\nthe human race.\n\nThis much is certain, that very few people succeeded in living\nwithout work, on the labour of the subject masses. The small number\nof idlers who did so caused their slaves to construct for them\nsumptuous palaces, magnificent castles, and sombre fortresses.\nThey loved to surround themselves with all the sensual enjoyments\nof life, and with all the monuments of art. They amused themselves\nby descanting on philosophy and cosmogony; and, above all, they\ncultivated assiduously the two sciences to which they owed their\nsupremacy and their enjoyments,\u2014the science of force, and the science\nof fraud.\n\nAlthough below this aristocracy there existed countless multitudes\nengaged in creating for themselves the means of sustaining life,\nand for their oppressors the means of revelling in pleasures, yet\nas historians have never made the slightest allusion to those\nmultitudes, we have come to forget their existence, and never\ntaken them into account. Our regards are exclusively fixed on the\naristocracy. To it we give the name of \u2039Old or Feudal Families\u203a; and\nwe imagine that the men of those times maintained themselves without\nhaving recourse to commerce, to manufactures, to labour, to vulgar\noccupations. We admire their disinterestedness, their generosity,\ntheir taste for the arts, their spirituality, their disdain of\nservile employments, their [p457] elevation of mind and sentiment,\nand, in high-sounding language, we assert that at one epoch nations\ncared only for military glory, at another for the arts, at another\nfor philosophy, at another for religion, at another for virtue. We\nsincerely lament our own condition, and give utterance to all sorts\nof sarcastic observations, to the effect that, in spite of these\nsublime models, we are unable to attain the same elevation, but are\nreduced to assign to labour and its vulgar merits a prominent place\nin the system of modern life.\n\nLet us console ourselves with the reflection that it occupied a\nno less important place among the ancients. Only, the drudgery of\nlabour, from which a limited number of people had succeeded in\nfreeing themselves, fell with redoubled weight upon the enslaved\nmasses, to the great detriment of justice, of liberty, of property,\nof wealth, of equality, and of progress. This is the first of those\ndisturbing causes to which I propose to solicit the attention of the\nreader.\n\nThe means, then, to which men have recourse in order to obtain the\nmeans of subsistence cannot fail to exert a powerful influence on\ntheir condition, physical, moral, intellectual, economical, and\npolitical. Who can doubt that if we were in a situation to observe\ndifferent tribes of men, one of which had devoted itself exclusively\nto the chase, another to fishing, a third to agriculture, a fourth\nto navigation, we should discover very considerable differences in\ntheir ideas, in their opinions, in their habits, their manners, their\ncustoms, their laws, and their religion? No doubt we should find\nhuman nature everywhere essentially the same; these various laws,\ncustoms, and religions would have many points in common; and such\npoints we designate as the general laws of human society.\n\nBe this as it may, there can be no doubt that in our great modern\nsocieties we find at work all, or nearly all, the various means\nof providing subsistence,\u2014fisheries, agriculture, manufactures,\ncommerce, arts, and sciences, although in different proportions\nin different countries. This is the reason why we do not discover\namong nations so situated such marked and striking differences as\nwould be apparent if each devoted itself to one of these occupations\nexclusively.\n\nBut if the nature of the occupations in which a people is engaged\nexercises a powerful influence on its morality, its desires, and its\ntastes,\u2014its morality in its turn exercises a great influence upon\nits occupations, at least upon the proportion which obtains between\nthese occupations. But I shall not dwell on this observation, [p458]\nwhich I have presented in another part of this work,[102] but hasten\nto the principal subject of the present chapter.\n\n        *       *       *       *       *\n\nA man (and the same thing may be said of a people) may procure the\nmeans of existence in two ways,\u2014by creating them, or by stealing them.\n\nEach of these two great sources of acquisition presents a variety of\nmethods.\n\nWe may \u2039create\u203a the means of existence by the chase, by fishing, by\nagriculture, etc.\n\nWe may \u2039steal\u203a them by breach of trust, by violence, by force, fraud,\nwar, etc.\n\nIf, confining ourselves to the circle of one or other of these two\ncategories, we find that the predominance of one of these methods\nestablishes so marked a difference in the character of nations, how\nmuch greater must the difference be between a nation which lives by\nproduction, and a nation which lives by spoliation?\n\nFor it is not one of our faculties only, but all of them, which the\nnecessity of providing for our subsistence brings into exercise; and\nwhat can be more fitted to modify the social condition of nations\nthan what thus modifies all the human faculties?\n\nThis consideration, important as it is, has been so little regarded,\nthat I must dwell upon it for an instant.\n\nThe realization of an enjoyment or satisfaction presupposes labour;\nwhence it follows that spoliation, far from excluding production,\npresupposes it and takes it for granted.\n\nThis consideration, it seems to me, ought to modify the partiality\nwhich historians, poets, and novel-writers have displayed for those\nheroic epochs which were not distinguished by what they sneer at\nunder the epithet of \u2039industrialism\u203a. In these days, as in our own,\nmen lived, subsisted; and labour must have done its office then as\nnow. Only there was this difference, that nations, classes, and\nindividuals succeeded in laying their share of the labour and toil on\nthe shoulders of other nations, other classes, and other individuals.\n\nThe characteristic of production is to bring out of nothing, if\nI may so speak, the satisfactions and enjoyments which sustain\nand embellish life; so that a man, or a nation, may multiply \u2039ad\ninfinitum\u203a these enjoyments, without inflicting privation on any\nother man, or any other nation. So much is this the case, that a\nprofound study of the economic mechanism shows us that the success\n[p459] of one man\u2019s labour opens up a field for the success of\nanother\u2019s exertions.\n\nThe characteristic of spoliation, on the contrary, is this, that\nit cannot confer a satisfaction on one without inflicting a\ncorresponding privation on another; for spoliation creates nothing,\nbut displaces what labour has created. It entails an absolute loss\nof the exertions of both parties. So far, then, from adding to the\nenjoyments of mankind, it diminishes these enjoyments, and confers\nthem, moreover, on those who have not merited them.\n\nIn order to produce, man must direct all his powers and faculties to\nobtain the mastery over natural laws; for it is by this means that he\naccomplishes his object. Hence, iron converted into a ploughshare is\nthe emblem of production.\n\nTo steal, on the other hand, man must direct all his powers and\nfaculties to obtain the mastery over his fellow-man; for it is by\nthis means that he attains his end. Hence, iron converted into a\nsword is the emblem of spoliation.\n\nBetween the ploughshare, which brings plenty, and the sword, which\nbrings destruction and death, there is no greater difference than\nbetween a nation of industrious workmen and a nation of spoliators.\nThey have, and can have, nothing whatever in common. They have\nneither the same ideas, nor the same rules of appreciation, nor the\nsame tastes, manners, character, laws, morals, or religion.\n\nNo more melancholy spectacle can present itself to the eye of\nphilanthropy than to see an industrial age putting forth all its\nefforts, in the way of education, to get inoculated with the ideas,\nthe sentiments, the errors, the prejudices, the vices, of an era of\nspoliation. Our own era is frequently accused of wanting consistency,\nof displaying little accordance between the judgments that are formed\nand the conduct that is pursued; and I believe that this arises\nprincipally from the cause which I have just pointed out.\n\nSpoliation, in the shape of War\u2014that is to say, pure, simple,\nbarefaced spoliation\u2014has its root deep in the human heart, in the\norganization of man, in the universal motives which actuate the\nsocial world, namely, desire of happiness and repugnance to pain,\u2014in\nshort, in that principle of our nature called self-interest.\n\nI am not sorry to find myself arraigning that principle, for I have\nbeen accused of devoting to it an idolatrous worship, of representing\nits effects as productive only of happiness to mankind, and even of\nelevating it above the principle of sympathy, of disinterestedness,\nand of self-sacrifice. In truth, I have not so esteemed it; I have\nonly proved beyond the possibility of doubt [p460] its existence\nand its omnipotence. I should ill appreciate that omnipotence, and I\nshould do violence to my own convictions, in representing personal\ninterest as the universal actuating motive of the human race, did I\nfail now to point out the disturbing causes to which it gives rise,\njust as I formerly pointed out the harmonious laws of the social\norder which spring from it.\n\nMan, as we have already said, has an invincible desire to support\nhimself, to improve his condition, and to attain happiness, or what\nhe conceives to be happiness, at least to approximate towards it. For\nthe same reason he shuns pain and toil.\n\nNow labour, or the exertion we make in order to cause nature to\nco-operate in production, is in itself toil or fatigue. For this\nreason, it is repugnant to man, and he does not submit to it, except\nfor the sake of avoiding a still greater evil.\n\nSome have maintained philosophically that labour is not an evil but\na good, and they are right, if we take into account its results. It\nis a comparative good; or if it be an evil, it is an evil which saves\nus from greater evils. This is precisely the reason why men have so\ngreat a tendency to shun labour when they think that, without having\nrecourse to it, they may be able to reap its results.\n\nOthers maintain that labour is \u2039in itself\u203a a good; and that,\nindependently of its productive results, it elevates, strengthens,\nand purifies man\u2019s character, and is to him a source of health\nand enjoyment. All this is strictly true; and it is an additional\nevidence to us of the marvellous fertility of those final intentions\nwhich the Creator has displayed in all parts of His works. Apart\naltogether from the productions which are its direct results, labour\npromises to man, as a supplementary recompense, a sound mind in a\nsound body; and it is not more true that idleness is the parent of\nevery vice than that labour is the parent of many virtues.\n\nBut this does not at all interfere with the natural and unconquerable\ninclinations of the human heart, or with that feeling which\nprompts us not to desire labour for its own sake, but to compare\nit constantly with its results; not to desire to expend a great\neffort on what can be accomplished with a smaller effort; not of two\nefforts to choose the more severe. Nor is our endeavour to diminish\nthe relation which the effort bears to the result inconsistent with\nour desire, when we have once acquired some leisure, to devote that\nleisure to new labours suited to our tastes, with the prospect of\nthus securing a new and additional recompense.\n\nWith reference to all this, universal facts are decisive. At all\ntimes, and everywhere, we find man regarding labour as [p461]\nundesirable, and satisfaction as the thing in his condition which\nmakes him compensation for his labour. At all times, and everywhere,\nwe find him endeavouring to lighten his toil by calling in the aid,\nwhenever he can obtain it, of animals, of the wind, of water-power,\nof steam, of natural forces, or, alas! of his fellow-creature, when\nhe succeeds in enslaving him. In this last case,\u2014I repeat, for it is\ntoo apt to be forgotten,\u2014labour is not diminished, but displaced.[103]\n\nMan, being thus placed between two evils, want or labour, and urged\non by self-interest, seeks to discover whether, by some means or\nother, he cannot get rid of both. It is then that spoliation presents\nitself to him as a solution of the problem.\n\nHe says to himself: \u201cI have not, it is true, any means of procuring\nthe things necessary for my subsistence and enjoyments\u2014food,\nclothing, and lodging\u2014unless these things are previously produced by\nlabour. But it is by no means indispensable that this should be \u2039my\nown\u203a labour. It is enough that they should be produced by the labour\nof \u2039some one\u203a, provided I can get the mastery.\u201d\n\nSuch is the origin of war.\n\nI shall not dwell upon its consequences.\n\nWhen things come to this, that one man, or one nation, devotes itself\nto labour, and another man, or another nation, waits on till that\nlabour is accomplished, in order to devote itself to rapine, we can\nsee at a glance how much human power is thrown away.\n\nOn the one hand, the spoliator has not succeeded as he desired in\ngetting quit of every kind of labour. Armed robbery exacts efforts,\nand sometimes very severe efforts. While the producer devotes his\ntime to the creation of products fitted to yield satisfactions, the\nspoliator employs his time in devising the means of robbing him. But\nwhen the work of violence has been accomplished, or attempted, the\nobjects calculated to yield satisfaction are neither more nor less\nabundant than before. They may minister to the wants of a different\nset of people, but not of more wants. Thus all the exertions which\nthe spoliator has made with a view to spoliation, and the exertions\nalso which he has failed to make with a view to production, are\nentirely lost, if not for him, at least for society.\n\nNor is this all. In most cases an analogous loss takes place on\nthe side of the producer. It is not likely that he will wait for\nthe violence with which he is menaced without taking some [p462]\nprecaution for his own protection; and all precautions of this\nkind\u2014arms, fortifications, munitions, drill\u2014are labour, and labour\nlost for ever, not to him who expects security from this labour, but\nto mankind at large.\n\nBut should the producer, after undergoing this double labour, not\nesteem himself able to resist the threatened violence, it is still\nworse for society, and power is thrown away on a much greater scale;\nfor, in that case labour will be given up altogether, no one being\ndisposed to produce in order to be plundered.\n\nIf we regard the manner in which the human faculties are affected on\nboth sides, the moral consequences of spoliation will be seen to be\nno less disastrous.\n\nProvidence has designed that man should devote himself to pacific\ncombats with natural agents, and should reap directly from nature\nthe fruits of his victory. When he obtains this mastery over natural\nagents only by obtaining a mastery over his fellow-creatures, his\nmission is changed, and quite another direction is given to his\nfaculties. It is seen how great the difference is between the\nproducer and the spoliator, as regards \u2039foresight\u203a\u2014foresight which\nbecomes assimilated in some degree to \u2039providence\u203a, for to \u2039foresee\u203a\nis also to \u2039provide against\u203a [\u2039pr\u00e9voir\u203a c\u2019est aussi \u2039pourvoir\u203a].\n\nThe producer sets himself to learn the relation between cause and\neffect. For this purpose, he studies the laws of the physical world,\nand seeks to make them more and more useful auxiliaries. If he turns\nhis regards on his fellow-men, it is to foresee their wants, and to\nprovide for them, on condition of reciprocity.\n\nThe spoliator does not study nature. If he turns his regards on his\nfellow-men, it is to watch them as the eagle watches his prey, for\nthe purpose of enfeebling and surprising them.\n\nThe same differences are observable in the other faculties, and\nextend to men\u2019s ideas.[104]\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\nSpoliation by means of war is not an accidental, isolated, and\ntransient fact; it is a fact so general and so constant as not to\ngive place, as regards permanence, to labour itself.\n\nPoint me out any country of the world where of two races, conquerors\nand conquered, the one does not domineer over the other. Show me\nin Europe, in Asia, or among the islands of the sea, a favoured\nspot still occupied by the primitive inhabitants. If migrations of\npopulation have spared no country, war has been equally widespread.\n\nIts traces are universal. Apart from rapine and bloodshed, [p463]\npublic opinion outraged, and faculties and talents perverted, war has\neverywhere left other traces behind it, among which we must reckon\nslavery and aristocracy.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\nNot only has the march of spoliation kept pace with the creation of\nwealth, but the spoliators have seized upon accumulated riches, upon\ncapital in all its forms; and, in particular, they have fixed their\nregards upon capital in the shape of landed property. The last step\nwas taking possession of man himself. For human powers and faculties\nbeing the instruments of labour, they found it a shorter method to\nlay hold of these powers and faculties, than to seize upon their\nproducts.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\nIt is impossible to calculate to what extent these great events\nhave acted as disturbing causes, and as trammels on the natural\nprogress of the human race. If we take into account the sacrifice\nof industrial power which war occasions, and the extent to which\nthe diminished results of that power are concentrated in the hands\nof a limited number of conquerors, we may form to ourselves an\nidea of the causes of the destitution of the masses,\u2014a destitution\nwhich in our days it is impossible to explain on the hypothesis of\nliberty.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\n\u2039How the warlike spirit is propagated.\u203a\n\nAggressive nations are subject to reprisals. They often attack\nothers; sometimes they defend themselves. When they act on the\ndefensive, they have on their side the feeling of justice, and the\nsacredness of the cause in which they are engaged. They may then\nexult in their courage, devotion, and patriotism. But, alas! they\ncarry these same sentiments into their offensive wars\u2014and where is\ntheir patriotism then?\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\nWhen two races, the one victorious and idle, the other vanquished\nand humiliated, occupy the same territory, everything calculated\nto awaken desire or arouse popular sympathies falls to the lot of\nthe conquerors. Theirs are leisure, f\u00eates, taste for the arts,\nwealth, military parade, tournaments, grace, elegance, literature,\npoetry. For the conquered race, nothing remains but ruined huts,\nsqualid garments, the hard hand of labour, or the cold hand of\ncharity.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\nThe consequence is that the ideas and prejudices of the dominant\nrace, always associated with military force, come to constitute\npublic opinion. Men, women, and children, all unite in extolling the\nsoldier\u2019s life in preference to that of the labourer, in preferring\nwar to industry, and spoliation to production. The vanquished race\nshares the same sentiments, and when, at periods of transition,\nit succeeds in getting the better of its oppressors, it shows\n[p464] itself disposed to imitate them. What is this imitation but\nmadness?\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\n\u2039How war ends.\u203a\n\nSpoliation, like Production, having its source in the human heart,\nthe laws of the social world would not be harmonious, even to the\nlimited extent for which I contend, if the latter did not succeed in\nthe long-run in overcoming the former.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. [p465]\n\n\n\n\n XX.\n RESPONSIBILITY.\n\n\nThere is a leading idea which runs through the whole of this work,\nwhich pervades and animates every page and every line of it; and that\nidea is embodied in the opening words of the Christian Creed,\u2014\u00abI\nbelieve in God\u00bb.\n\nYes, if this work differs from those of some other Economists, it is\nin this, that the latter appear to say, \u201cWe have but little faith\nin Providence, for we see that the natural laws lead to an abyss.\nAnd yet we say \u2039laissez faire!\u203a merely because we have still less\nfaith in ourselves, and because we see clearly that all human efforts\ndesigned to arrest the action of these natural laws tend only to\nhasten the catastrophe.\u201d\n\nAgain, if this work differs from the writings of the Socialists, it\nis in this, that the latter say, \u201cWe pretend to believe in God, but\nin reality we believe only in ourselves; seeing that we have no faith\nin the maxim, \u2039laissez faire\u203a, and that we all give forth our social\nnostrums as infinitely superior to the plans of Providence.\u201d\n\nFor my part, I say, \u2039laissez faire\u203a; in other words, respect liberty,\nand the human initiative,[105]\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. [p466]\n\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. \u2039Responsibility\u203a, \u2039solidarity\u203a; mysterious laws, of which,\napart from Revelation, it is impossible to appreciate the cause,\nbut the effects and infallible action of which, on the progress of\nsociety, it is given us to appreciate\u2014laws which, for the very reason\nthat man is sociable, are linked together and act together, although\nthey appear sometimes to run counter to each other; and which would\nrequire to be viewed in their \u2039ensemble\u203a, and in their common action,\nif science, with its feeble optics and uncertain steps, were not\nreduced to method\u2014that melancholy crutch which constitutes its\nstrength whilst it reveals its weakness.\n\n        *       *       *       *       *\n\n\u2039Nosce te ipsum\u203a\u2014know thyself: this, according to the oracle, is\n[p467] the beginning, the middle, and the end of the moral and\npolitical sciences.\n\nAs we have elsewhere remarked, in what concerns man or human society,\nHarmony can never mean Perfection, but only Improvement. Now\nimprovement or perfectibility implies always, to a certain extent,\nimperfection in the future as well as in the past. If man could ever\nfind his way into the promised land of \u2039absolute Good\u203a, he would no\nlonger have occasion to use his understanding and his senses\u2014he would\nbe no longer man.\n\nEvil exists. It is inherent in human infirmity. It manifests itself\nin the moral as in the material world; in the masses, as in the\nindividual; in the whole as in the part. But because the eye may\nsuffer and be lost, does the physiologist overlook the harmonious\nmechanism of that admirable organ? Does he deny the ingenious\nstructure of the human body, because that body is subject to\npain, to disease, and to death\u2014to such extremity of suffering as\ncaused Job, in the depth of his despair, \u201cto say to corruption,\nThou art my father; and to the worm, Thou art my mother and my\nsister\u201d? In the same way, because the social order will never bring\nmankind to the fancied haven of absolute good, is the economist\nto refuse to recognise all that is marvellous in the organization\nof the social order\u2014an organization prepared with a view to the\nconstantly-increasing diffusion of knowledge, of morality, and of\nhappiness?\n\n        *       *       *       *       *\n\nStrange! that we should deny to economic science the same right to\nadmire the natural order of things which we concede to physiology.\nFor, after all, what difference is there between the individual and\nthe collective being, as regards the harmony displayed by final\ncauses? The individual, no doubt, comes into existence, grows and\nis developed, educates and improves himself as life advances, until\nthe time comes when his light and life are to be communicated to\nothers. At that moment everything about him is clothed in the hues\nof beauty; all breathes grace and joy; all is expansion, affection,\nbenevolence, love, and harmony. For a while, his intelligence\ncontinues to be enlarged and confirmed, as if to qualify him to be\nthe guide of those whom he has just called to tread the crooked paths\nof human existence. But soon his beauty fades, his grace disappears,\nhis senses are blunted, his body becomes feeble, his memory clouded,\nhis thoughts less bright; his affections even (except in the case\nof some choice spirits) get clogged with egotism, and lose that\ncharm, that freshness, that sincerity and simplicity, that depth and\ndisinterestedness, which distinguished his [p468] earlier days;\u2014the\npoetry of life has fled. In spite of all the ingenious precautions\nwhich nature has taken to retard his dissolution\u2014precautions which\nphysiology sums up in the phrase \u2039vis medicatrix\u203a\u2014he treads back\nthe path of improvement, and loses, one after another, all his\nacquisitions by the way; he goes on from privation to privation,\nuntil he reaches that which is the greatest of all, because it\nincludes all. The genius of optimism itself can discover nothing\nconsolatory, nothing harmonious in this slow but unavoidable\ndecadence\u2014in seeing that being once so proud and so beautiful\ndescending sadly into the tomb.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. The tomb!\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. But\nis not that the door of another habitation?\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. It is thus,\nwhen science stops short, that religion[106] renews, even for the\nindividual, in another region, the concordant harmonies which have\nbeen interrupted here.[107]\n\nDespite this fatal \u2039d\u00e9no\u00fbment\u203a, does physiology cease to see in the\nhuman body the most perfect masterpiece which ever proceeded from its\nCreator\u2019s hands?\n\nBut if the social body is liable to suffering, if it may suffer\neven to death, it is not for that reason finally condemned. Let men\nsay what they will, it has not, in perspective, after having been\nelevated to its apogee, an inevitable decline. The crash of empires\neven is not the retrogradation of humanity, and the ancient models\nof civilisation have only been dissolved in order to make room for a\ncivilisation still more advanced. Dynasties may be extinguished; the\nforms of government may be changed; yet the progress of the human\nrace may not the less be continued. The fall of States is like the\nfall of leaves in autumn. It fertilizes the soil; contributes to\nthe return of spring; and promises to future generations a richer\nvegetation, and more abundant harvests. Nay, even in a purely\nnational point of view, this theory of necessary decadence is as\nfalse as it is antiquated. In the life of no people can we possibly\nperceive any cause of inevitable decline. The analogy which has\nso frequently given rise to a comparison between a nation and an\nindividual, and led men to attribute to the one as to the other an\ninfancy and an old age, is nothing better than a false metaphor.\nA community is being incessantly renewed. Let its institutions be\nelastic and flexible, so that in place of coming in collision with\n[p469] those new powers to which the human mind gives birth, they\nshall be so organized as to admit of this expansion of intellectual\nenergy and accommodate themselves to it; and we see no reason why\nsuch institutions should not flourish in eternal youth. But whatever\nmay be thought of the fragility and fall of empires, it must never be\nforgotten that society, which in its aggregate represents the human\nrace, is constituted upon more solid bases. The more we study it,\nthe more we shall be convinced that it too, like the human body, is\nprovided with a \u2039curative force\u203a, a \u2039vis medicatrix\u203a, which delivers\nit from the evils which afflict it; and that it carries in its bosom,\nmoreover, a \u2039progressive force\u203a; and is by the latter urged on to\nimprovements to which we can assign no limits.\n\nIf individual evil, then, does not weaken or invalidate physiological\nharmony, still less does collective evil weaken or invalidate social\nharmony.\n\nBut how are we to reconcile the existence of evil with the infinite\ngoodness of God? I cannot explain what I do not understand.\n\nAll I shall say is, that this solution can no more be exacted from\nPolitical Economy than from Anatomy. These sciences, which are alike\nsciences of observation, study man as he is, without asking the\nCreator to reveal His impenetrable secrets.\n\nThus, I again repeat, harmony does not correspond with the idea of\nabsolute perfection, but with that of indefinite improvement. It has\npleased God to attach suffering to our nature, seeing that He has\ndesigned that in us feebleness should be anterior to force, ignorance\nto science, want to satisfaction, effort to result, acquisition to\npossession, destitution to wealth, error to truth, experience to\nforesight. I submit without murmuring to this ordinance, being able,\nmoreover, to imagine no other combination. But if, by a mechanism\nas simple as it is ingenious, He has provided \u2039that all men should\napproximate to a common level, which is continually rising\u203a, if He\nassures them\u2014by the very action of what we denominate evil\u2014both\nof the duration and the diffusion of progress, then am I not only\ncontent to bow myself under His bountiful and almighty hand,\u2014I bless\nthat hand, I worship it, I adore it.\n\n        *       *       *       *       *\n\nWe have seen certain schools arise which have taken advantage of\nthe insolubility (humanly speaking) of this question to embroil all\nothers, as if it were given to our finite intelligence to [p470]\ncomprehend and reconcile things which are infinite. Placing over the\nportal of social science this sentence, \u2039God cannot desire evil\u203a,\nthey arrive at the following series of conclusions: \u201cEvil exists in\nsociety; then society is not organized according to the designs of\nGod. Let us change, and change again, and change continually this\norganization. Let us try about, and make experiments, until we have\neffaced all trace of suffering from the world. By that sign we shall\nknow that the kingdom of God has come.\u201d\n\nNor is this all. These schools have been led to exclude from their\nsocial plans liberty as well as suffering, for liberty implies\nthe possibility of error, and consequently the possibility of\nevil. Addressing their fellow-men, they say, \u201cAllow us to organize\nyou\u2014don\u2019t you interfere\u2014cease to compare, to judge, to decide\nanything by yourselves and for yourselves. We abhor the \u2039laissez\nfaire\u203a; but we ask you to let things alone, and to let us alone.\nIf we succeed in conducting you to perfect happiness, the infinite\ngoodness of God will be vindicated.\u201d\n\nContradiction, inconsistency, presumption,\u2014we ask which is most\napparent in such language?\n\nOne sect among others, not very philosophical, but very noisy,\npromises to mankind unmixed felicity. Only deliver over to that sect\nthe government of the human race, and in virtue of certain formulas,\nit makes bold to rid men of every painful sensation.\n\nBut if you do not accord a blind faith to the promises of that sect,\nthen, bringing forward that formidable and insoluble problem which\nhas vexed philosophy since the beginning of the world, they summon\nyou to reconcile the existence of evil with the infinite goodness of\nGod. Do you hesitate? they accuse you of impiety.\n\nFourier rings the changes on this theme till he exhausts all its\ncombinations.\n\n\u201c\u2039Either God has not been able\u203a to give us a social code of\nattraction, of justice, of truth, and of unity; in which case He has\nbeen unjust in giving us wants without the means of satisfying them.\u201d\n\n\u201c\u2039Or He has not desired to give it us\u203a; and in that case He has\ndeliberately persecuted us by creating designedly wants which it is\nimpossible to satisfy:\u201d\n\n\u201c\u2039Or He is able, and has not desired\u203a; in which case the principle of\ngood would rival the principle of evil, having the power to establish\ngood, and preferring to establish evil:\u201d [p471]\n\n\u201c\u2039Or He has desired and has not been able\u203a; in which case He is\nincapable of governing us, acknowledging and desiring good, but not\nhaving the power to establish it:\u201d\n\n\u201c\u2039Or He has been neither able nor willing\u203a; in which case the\nprinciple of good is below the principle of evil, etc.:\u201d\n\n\u201c\u2039Or He has been both able and willing\u203a; in which case the code\nexists, and it is for us to promulgate it, etc.\u201d\n\nAnd Fourier is the prophet of this new revelation. Let us deliver\nourselves up to him and to his disciples: Providence will then be\njustified, sensibility will change its nature, and suffering will\ndisappear from the earth.\n\nBut how, I would ask, do these apostles of absolute good, these\nhardy logicians, who exclaim continually that \u201cGod being perfect,\nHis work must be perfect also;\u201d and who accuse us of impiety because\nwe resign ourselves to human imperfection,\u2014how, I say, do these men\nnot perceive that, on the most favourable hypothesis, they are as\nimpious as we are? I should like, indeed, that, under the reign of\nMessieurs Consid\u00e9rant, Hennequin, etc., no one in the world should\never lose his mother, or suffer from the toothache,\u2014in which case he\nalso might chant the litany, \u2039Either God has not been able or has\nnot been willing\u203a; I should like much that evil were to take flight\nto the infernal regions, retreating before the broad daylight of the\nSocialist revelation\u2014that one of their plans, \u2039phalanst\u00e8re\u203a, \u2039cr\u00e9dit\ngratuit\u203a, \u2039anarchie\u203a, \u2039triade\u203a, \u2039atelier social\u203a,[108] and so forth,\nhad the power to rid us of all future evils. But would it annihilate\nsuffering in the past? The infinite, observe, has no limits; and if\nthere has existed on the earth since the beginning of the world a\nsingle sufferer, that is enough to render the problem of the infinite\ngoodness of God insoluble in their point of view.\n\nLet us beware, then, of linking the science of the finite to the\nmysteries of the infinite. Let us apply to the one reason and\nobservation, and leave the other in the domain of revelation and of\nfaith.\n\nIn all respects, and in every aspect, man is imperfect. In this\nworld, at least, he encounters limits in all directions, and\ntouches the finite at every point. His force, his intelligence, his\naffections, his life, have in them nothing absolute, and belong to\na material mechanism which is subject to fatigue, to decay, and to\ndeath.\n\nNot only is this so, but our imperfection is so great that we cannot\neven imagine perfection as existing either in ourselves or in the\nexternal world. Our minds are so much out of proportion to this idea\nof perfection that all our efforts to seize it are vain. The oftener\nwe try to grasp it, the oftener it escapes us, and is lost in [p472]\ninextricable contradictions. Show me a perfect man, and you will\nshow me a man who is exempt from suffering, and who has consequently\nneither wants, nor desires, nor sensations, nor sensibility, nor\nnerves, nor muscles; who can be ignorant of nothing, and consequently\nhas neither the faculty of attention, nor judgment, nor reasoning,\nnor memory, nor imagination, nor brains; in short, you will show me a\nbeing who does not exist.\n\nThus, in whatever aspect we regard man, we must regard him as being\nsubject to suffering. We must admit that evil has entered as one\nspring of action into the providential plan; and in place of seeking\nby chimerical means to annihilate it, our business is to study the\npart which it has to play, and the mission on which it is sent.\n\nWhen it pleased God to create a being made up of wants, and of\nfaculties to supply these wants, it was at the same time decreed that\nthis being should be subject to suffering; for, apart from suffering,\nwe could form no idea of wants, and, apart from wants, we could form\nno idea of utility, or of the use and object of any of our faculties.\nAll that constitutes our greatness has its root in what constitutes\nour weakness.\n\nUrged on by innumerable impulses, and indued with an intelligence\nwhich enlightens our exertions, and enables us to appreciate their\nresults, we have \u2039free will\u203a to guide and direct us.\n\nBut free will implies error as possible, and error in its turn\nimplies suffering as its inevitable effect. I defy any one to tell me\nwhat it is to \u2039choose freely\u203a, if it be not to run the risk of making\na bad choice, and what it is to make a bad choice if it be not to\nprepare the way for suffering.\n\nAnd this is, no doubt, the reason why those schools who are content\nwith nothing less than absolute good are all materialist and\nfatalist. They are unable to admit free will. They see that liberty\nof acting proceeds from liberty of choosing; that liberty of choosing\nsupposes the possibility of error; and that the possibility of error\nis the possibility of evil. Now, in an artificial society, such as\nour \u2039organisateurs\u203a invent, evil cannot make its appearance. For that\nreason, men must be exempted from the possibility of error; and the\nsurest means to accomplish that is to deprive them of the faculty of\nacting and choosing\u2014in other words, of free will. It has been truly\nsaid that Socialism is despotism incarnate.\n\nIn presence of these fooleries, it may be asked, By what right does\nthe organizer of artificial systems venture to think, act, and\nchoose, not only for himself, but for every one else? for, after\nall [p473] he belongs to the human race, and in that respect is\nfallible; and he is so much the more fallible in proportion as he\npretends to extend the range of his science and his will.\n\nNo doubt the \u2039organisateur\u203a finds this objection radically unfounded,\ninasmuch as it confounds him with the rest of mankind. But he who\nprofesses to discover the defects of the Divine workmanship, and has\nundertaken to recast it, is more than a man; he is an oracle, and\nmore than an oracle.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\nSocialism has two elements: the frenzy of contradiction, and the\nmadness of pride!\n\nBut when free will, which is the foundation of the whole argument, is\ndenied, is not this the proper place to demonstrate its existence?\nI shall take good care not to enter upon any such demonstration.\nEvery one feels that his will is free, and that is enough. I feel\nthis, not vaguely, but a hundred times more intensely than if it\nhad been demonstrated to me by Aristotle or by Euclid. I feel it\nwith conscious joy when I have made a choice which does me honour;\nwith remorse, when I have made a choice which degrades me. I find,\nmoreover, that all men by their conduct affirm their belief in free\nwill, although some deny it in their writings.[109] All men compare\nmotives, deliberate, determine, retract, try to foresee; all give\nadvice, are indignant at injustice, admire acts of devotion. Then\nall acknowledge in themselves and in others the existence of free\nwill, without which, choice, advice, foresight, morality, virtue,\nare impossible. Let us take care how we seek to demonstrate what is\nadmitted by universal practice. Absolute fatalists are no more to be\nfound, even at Constantinople, than absolute sceptics are to be met\nwith at Alexandria. Those who proclaim themselves such may be fools\nenough to try to persuade others, but they are powerless to convince\nthemselves. They prove with much subtlety that they have no will of\ntheir own; but when we see that they act as if they had it, we need\nnot dispute with them.\n\n        *       *       *       *       *\n\nHere, then, we are placed in the midst of nature and of our\nfellow-men\u2014urged on by impulses, wants, appetites, desires\u2014provided\nwith various faculties enabling us to operate on man and on\n[p474] things\u2014determined to action by our free will\u2014indued with\nintelligence, which is perfectible and therefore imperfect, and\nwhich, if it enlightens us, may also deceive us with reference to the\nconsequences of our actions.\n\nEvery human action\u2014giving rise to a series of good or bad\nconsequences, of which some fall back on the agent, and others affect\nhis family, his neighbours, his fellow-citizens, and sometimes\nmankind at large\u2014every such action causes the vibration of two\nchords, the sounds of which are oracular utterances\u2014Responsibility\nand Solidarity.\n\nAs regards the man who acts, Responsibility is the natural link which\nexists between the act and its consequences. It is a complete system\nof \u2039inevitable\u203a Rewards and Punishments which no man has invented,\nwhich acts with all the regularity of the great natural laws, and\nwhich may, consequently, be regarded as of Divine institution. The\nevident object of Responsibility is to restrain the number of hurtful\nactions, and increase the number of such as are useful.\n\nThis mechanism, which is at once corrective and progressive,\nremunerative and retributive, is so simple, so near us, so identified\nwith our whole being, so perpetually in action, that not only can\nwe not ignore it, but we see that, like Evil, it is one of those\nphenomena without which our whole life would be to us unintelligible.\n\nThe book of Genesis tells us that, the first man having been driven\nfrom the terrestrial paradise, because he had learned to distinguish\nbetween good and evil, \u2039sciens bonum et malum\u203a, God pronounced this\nsentence on him: \u2039In laboribus comedes ex terr\u00e2 cunctis diebus\nvit\u00e6 tu\u00e6. Spinas et tribulos germinabit tibi. In sudore vult\u00fbs tui\nvesceris pane, donec revertaris in terram de qu\u00e2 sumptus es: quia\npulvis es, et in pulverem reverteris.\u203a[110]\n\nHere, then, we have good and evil\u2014or human nature. Here we have acts\nand habits producing good or bad consequences\u2014or human nature. Here\nwe have labour, sweat, thorns, tribulation, and death\u2014or human nature.\n\nHuman nature, I say; for to choose, to be mistaken, to suffer, to\nrectify our errors\u2014in a word, all the elements which make up the idea\nof Responsibility\u2014are so inherent in our sensitive, rational, and\nfree nature, they are so much of the essence of that nature [p475]\nitself, that I defy the most fertile imagination to conceive for man\nanother mode of existence.\n\nThat man might have lived in an Eden, \u2039in paradiso voluptatis\u203a,\nignorant of good and evil, we can indeed believe, but we cannot\ncomprehend it, so profoundly has our nature been transformed.\n\nWe find it impossible to separate the idea of \u2039life\u203a from that of\nsensibility; that of sensibility from that of \u2039pleasure\u203a and \u2039pain\u203a;\nthat of pleasure and pain from that of \u2039reward\u203a and \u2039punishment\u203a;\nthat of \u2039intelligence\u203a from that of \u2039liberty\u203a and \u2039choice\u203a, and all\nthese ideas from the idea of Responsibility; for it is the aggregate\nof all these ideas which gives us the idea of Being or Existence, so\nthat when we think upon God, our reason, which tells us that He is\nincapable of suffering, remains confounded\u2014so inseparable are our\nnotions of sensibility and \u2039existence\u203a.\n\nIt is this undoubtedly which renders \u2039Faith\u203a the necessary complement\nof our destinies. It is the only bond which is possible between the\ncreature and the Creator, seeing that God is, and always will be, to\nour reason, incomprehensible, \u2039Deus absconditus\u203a.\n\nIn order to be convinced how hard Responsibility presses us, and\nshuts us in on every side, we have only to attend to the most simple\nfacts.\n\nFire burns us; the collision of bodies bruises us. If we were not\nindued with sensibility, or if our sensibility were not painfully\naffected by the approach of fire, and by rude contact with other\nbodies, we should be exposed to death every moment.\n\nFrom earliest infancy to extreme old age, our life is only a long\napprenticeship. By frequently falling, we learn to walk. By rude and\nreiterated experiments, we are taught to avoid heat, cold, hunger,\nthirst, excess. Do not let us complain of the roughness of this\nexperience. If it were not so, it would teach us nothing.\n\nThe same thing holds in the social order. From the unhappy\nconsequences of cruelty, of injustice, of fear, of violence, of\ndeceit, of idleness, we learn to be gentle, just, brave, moderate,\ntruthful, and industrious. Experience is protracted; it will never\ncome to an end; but it will never cease to be efficacious.\n\nMan being so constituted, it is impossible that we should not\nrecognise in responsibility the mainspring to which social progress\nis specially confided. It is the crucible in which experience is\nelaborated. They, then, who believe in the superiority of times\npast, like those who despair of the future, fall into the most\nmanifest contradiction. Without being aware of it, they extol\nerror, and calumniate knowledge. It is as if they said, \u201cThe more\nI have learnt, the less I know. The more clearly I discern what is\n[p476] hurtful, the more I shall be exposed to it.\u201d Were humanity\nconstituted on such a basis as this, it would in a short time cease\nto exist.\n\nMan\u2019s starting-point is ignorance and inexperience. The farther we\ntrace back the chain of time, the more destitute we find men of\nthat knowledge which is fitted to direct their choice,\u2014of knowledge\nwhich can be acquired only in one of two ways: by reflection or by\nexperience.\n\nNow it so happens that man\u2019s every action includes, not one\nconsequence only, but a series of consequences. Sometimes the first\nis good, and the others bad; sometimes the first is bad, and the\nothers good. From one of our determinations there may proceed good\nand bad consequences, combined in variable proportions. We may\nventure to term \u2039vicious\u203a those actions which produce more bad than\ngood effects, and \u2039virtuous\u203a those which produce a greater amount of\ngood than of evil.\n\nWhen one of our actions produces a first consequence which we\napprove, followed by many other consequences which are hurtful,\nso that the aggregate of bad predominates over the aggregate of\ngood, such an action tends to limit and restrain itself, and to be\nabandoned in proportion as we acquire more foresight.\n\nMen naturally perceive the immediate consequences of their actions\nbefore they perceive those consequences which are more remote. Whence\nit follows that what we have denominated vicious acts are more\nmultiplied in times of ignorance. Now the repetition of the same acts\nconstitutes habit. Ages of ignorance, then, are ages of bad habits.\n\nConsequently, they are ages of bad laws, for acts which are repeated,\nhabits which are general, constitute manners, upon which laws are\nmodelled, and of which, so to speak, they are the official expression.\n\nHow is this ignorance to be put an end to? How can men be taught to\nknow the second, the third, and all the subsequent consequences of\ntheir acts and their habits?\n\nThe first means is the exercise of that faculty of discerning and\nreasoning which Providence has vouchsafed them.\n\nBut there is another still more sure and efficacious,\u2014experience.\nWhen the act is once done, the consequences follow inevitably. The\nfirst effect is good; for it is precisely to obtain that result that\nthe act is done. But the second may inflict suffering, the third\nstill greater suffering, and so on.\n\nThen men\u2019s eyes are opened, and light begins to appear. That action\nis not repeated; we sacrifice the good produced by the first [p477]\nand immediate consequence, for fear of the still greater evil which\nthe subsequent consequences entail. If the act has become a habit,\nand if we have not power to give it up, we at least give way to it\nwith hesitation and repugnance, and after an inward conflict. We do\nnot recommend it; on the contrary, we blame it, and persuade our\nchildren against it; and we are certainly on the road of progress.\n\nIf, on the other hand, the act is one which is useful, but from\nwhich we refrain, because its first, and only known, consequence is\npainful, and we are ignorant of the favourable ulterior consequences,\nexperience teaches us the effects of abstaining from it. A savage,\nfor instance, has had enough to eat. He does not foresee that he will\nbe hungry to-morrow. Why should he labour to-day? To work is present\npain\u2014no need of foresight to know that. He therefore continues idle.\nBut the day passes, another succeeds, and as it brings hunger, he\nmust then work under the spur of necessity. This is a lesson which,\nfrequently repeated, cannot fail to develop foresight. By degrees\nidleness is regarded in its true light. We brand it; we warn the\nyoung against it. Public opinion is now on the side of industry.\n\nBut in order that experience should afford us this lesson, in order\nthat it should fulfil its mission, develop foresight, explain the\nseries of consequences which flow from our actions, pave the way\nto good habits, and restrain bad ones\u2014in a word, in order that\nexperience should become an effective instrument of progress and\nmoral improvement\u2014the law of Responsibility must come into operation.\nThe bad consequences must make themselves felt, and \u2039evil\u203a must for\nthe moment chastise us.\n\nUndoubtedly it would be better that evil had no existence; and it\nmight perhaps be so if man was constituted differently from what\nhe is. But taking man as he is, with his wants, his desires, his\nsensibility, his free will, his power of choosing and erring, his\nfaculty of bringing into play a cause which necessarily entails\nconsequences which it is not in our power to elude as long as the\ncause exists; in such circumstances, the only way of removing the\ncause is to enlighten the will, rectify the choice, abandon the\nvicious act or the vicious habit; and nothing can effect this but the\nlaw of Responsibility.\n\nWe may affirm, then, that man being constituted as he is, evil is\nnot only necessary but useful. It has a mission, and enters into\nthe universal harmony. Its mission is to destroy its own cause, to\nlimit its own operation, to concur in the realization of good, and to\nstimulate progress. [p478]\n\nWe may elucidate this by some examples which the subject which now\nengages us\u2014Political Economy\u2014presents.\n\n  \u2039Frugality.\u203a  \u2039Prodigality.\u203a\n  \u2039Monopolies.\u203a\n  \u2039Population.\u203a[111]\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\nResponsibility guards itself by three sanctions:\u2014\n\n\u20391st\u203a, \u2039The natural sanction\u203a; which is that of which I have just\nbeen speaking\u2014the necessary suffering or recompense which certain\nacts and habits entail.\n\n\u20392d\u203a, \u2039The religious sanction\u203a; or the punishments and rewards of\nanother life, which are annexed to acts and habits, according as they\nare vicious or virtuous.\n\n\u20393d\u203a, \u2039The legal sanction\u203a; or the punishments and rewards decreed\nbeforehand by society.\n\nOf these three sanctions, I confess that the one which appears to me\nfundamental is the first. In saying this I cannot fail to run counter\nto sentiments which I respect; but I must be permitted to declare my\nopinion.\n\nIs an act vicious because a revelation from above has declared it\nto be so? Or has revelation declared it vicious because it produces\nconsequences which are bad? These questions will probably always form\na subject of controversy between the philosophical and the religious\nmind.\n\nI believe that Christianity can range itself on the side of those\nwho answer the last of these two questions in the affirmative.\nChristianity itself tells us that it has not come to oppose the\nnatural law, but to confirm it.[112] We can scarcely admit that God,\nwho is the supreme principle of order, should have made an arbitrary\nclassification of human actions, that He should have denounced\npunishment on some, and promised reward to others, and this without\nany regard to the effects of these actions, that is to say, to their\ndiscordance, or concordance, in the universal harmony. [p479]\n\nWhen He said, \u201cThou shalt not kill\u2014thou shalt not steal,\u201d no doubt\nHe had in view to prohibit certain acts because they were hurtful to\nman and to society, which are His work.\n\nRegard to consequences is so powerful a consideration with man that\nif he belonged to a religion that forbade acts which universal\nexperience proved to be useful, or that sanctioned the observance of\nhabits palpably hurtful, I believe that such a religion could not be\nmaintained, but that it would at length give way before the progress\nof knowledge. Men could not long suppose that the deliberate design\nof God was to cause evil and to interdict good.\n\nThe question which I broach here has perhaps no very important\nbearing on Christianity, since it ordains only what is good in\nitself, and forbids only what is bad.\n\nBut the question I am now examining is this, whether in principle the\nreligious sanction goes to confirm the natural sanction, or whether\nthe natural sanction goes for nothing in presence of the religious\nsanction, and should give way to the latter when they come into\ncollision.\n\nNow, if I am not mistaken, the tendency of ministers of religion is\nto pay little attention to the natural sanction. For this they have\nan unanswerable reason: \u201cGod has ordained this; God has forbidden\nthat.\u201d There is no longer any room left for reasoning, for God is\ninfallible and omnipotent. Although the act should lead to the\ndestruction of the world, we must march on like blind men, just as\nwe would do if God addressed us personally, and showed us heaven and\nhell.\n\nIt may happen, even in the true religion, that actions in themselves\ninnocent are forbidden by Divine authority. To exact interest for\nmoney, for example, has been pronounced sinful. Had mankind given\nobedience to that prohibition, the race would long since have\ndisappeared from the face of the earth. For without interest the\naccumulation of capital is impossible; without capital there can\nbe no co-operation of anterior and present labour; without this\nco-operation there can be no society; and without society man cannot\nexist.\n\nOn the other hand, on examining the subject of interest more\nnearly, we are convinced that not only is it useful in its general\neffects, but that there is in it nothing contrary to charity and\ntruth\u2014certainly not more than there is in the stipend of a minister\nof religion, and less than in certain perquisites belonging to his\noffice.\n\nThus, all the power of the Church has not been able for an [p480]\ninstant to supersede, in this respect, the nature of things. The\nmost which has been accomplished is to cause to be disguised one of\nthe forms, and that the least usual form, of exacting interest, in a\nnumber of very trifling transactions.\n\nIn the same way, as regards precepts; when the Gospel says, \u201cUnto\nhim who smiteth thee on the one cheek, offer also the other,\u201d\nit gives a precept which, if taken literally, would destroy the\nright of legitimate defence in the individual, and consequently in\nsociety. Now, without this right, the existence of the human race is\nimpossible.\n\nAnd what has happened? For eighteen hundred years this saying has\nbeen repeated as a mere conventionalism.\n\nBut there is a still graver consideration. There are false religions\nin the world. These necessarily admit precepts and prohibitions\nwhich are in antagonism with the natural sanctions attached to\ncertain acts. Now, of all the means which have been given us to\ndistinguish, in a matter so important, the true from the false, that\nwhich emanates from God from that which proceeds from imposture,\nnone is more certain, more decisive, than an examination of the good\nor bad consequences which a doctrine is calculated to have on the\nadvancement and progress of mankind\u2014\u2039a fructibus eorum cognoscetis\neos\u203a.\n\n\u2039Legal sanction.\u203a\u2014Nature having prepared a system of punishments and\nrewards, in the shape of the effects which necessarily proceed from\neach act and from each habit, what is the province of human law?\nThere are only three courses it can take\u2014to allow Responsibility to\nact, to chime in with it, or to oppose it.\n\nIt seems to me beyond doubt that when a legal sanction is brought\ninto play, it ought only to be to give more force, regularity,\ncertainty, and efficacy to the natural sanction. These two powers\nshould co-operate, and not run counter to each other.\n\nFor example, if fraud is in the first instance profitable to him who\nhas recourse to it, in the long-run it is more frequently fatal to\nhim; for it injures his credit, his honour, and his reputation. It\ncreates around him distrust and suspicion. It is, besides, always\nhurtful to the man who is the victim of it. Finally, it alarms\nsociety, and obliges it to employ part of its force in expensive\nprecautions. The sum of evil, then, far exceeds the sum of good. This\nis what constitutes natural Responsibility, which acts constantly\nas a preventive and repressive check. We can understand, however,\nthat the community does not choose to depend altogether on the slow\naction of necessary responsibility, and judges it fit to add a legal\nsanction to the natural sanction. In [p481] that case, we may say\nthat the legal sanction is only the natural sanction organized and\nreduced to rule. It renders punishment more immediate and more\ncertain; it gives more publicity and authenticity to facts; it\nsurrounds the suspected party with guarantees, and affords him a\nregular opportunity to exculpate himself if there be room for it; it\nrectifies the errors of public opinion, and calms down individual\nvengeance by substituting for it public retribution. In fine\u2014and this\nperhaps is the essential thing\u2014it does not destroy the lessons of\nexperience.\n\nWe cannot, then, say that the legal sanction is illogical in\nprinciple, when it advances alongside the natural sanction and\nconcurs in the same result. It does not follow, however, that the\nlegal sanction ought in every case to be substituted for the natural\nsanction, and that human law is justified by the consideration alone\nthat it acts in the sense of Responsibility.\n\n        *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe artificial distribution of punishments and rewards includes\nin itself, and at the expense of the community, an amount of\ninconvenience which it is necessary to take into account. The\nmachinery of the legal sanction comes from men, is worked by men, and\nis costly.\n\nBefore submitting an action or a habit to organized repression, there\nis always this question to be asked:\u2014\n\nDoes the excess of good which is obtained by the addition of legal\nrepression to natural repression compensate the evil which is\ninherent in the repressive machinery?\n\nIn other words, is the evil of artificial repression greater or less\nthan the evil of impunity?\n\nIn the case of theft, of murder, of the greater part of crimes and\ndelicts, the question admits of no doubt. Every nation of the earth\nrepresses these crimes by public force.\n\nBut when we have to do with a habit which it is difficult to account\nfor, and which may spring from moral causes of delicate appreciation,\nthe question is different, and it may very well be that, although\nthis habit is universally esteemed hurtful and vicious, the law\nshould remain neuter, and hand it over to natural responsibility.\n\nIn the first place, this is the course which the law ought to take in\nthe case of an action or a habit which is doubtful, which one part of\nthe population thinks good and another part bad. You think me wrong\nin following the Catholic ritual; I think you wrong in adopting the\nLutheran faith. Let God judge of that. Why should I aim a blow at\nyou, or why should you aim a blow [p482] at me? If it is not right\nthat we should strike at each other, how can it be right that we\nshould delegate a third party, the depositary of the public force, to\nchastise one of us for the satisfaction of the other?\n\nYou allege that I am wrong in teaching my child the moral and natural\nsciences; I believe that you are wrong in teaching your child Greek\nand Latin exclusively. Let us act on both sides according to our\nfeeling of what is right. Let our families be acted on by the law of\nResponsibility. That law will punish the one who is wrong. Do not\ninvoke human law, which may punish the one who is right.\n\nYou assert that I would do better to pursue such or such a career,\nto work according to your process, to employ an iron in place of a\nwooden plough, to sow thin in place of sowing thick, to purchase\nin the East rather than in the West. I maintain just the contrary.\nI have made all my calculations; and surely I am more interested\nthan you in not falling into any mistake in matters upon the right\nordering of which my welfare, my existence, and the happiness\nof my family depend, while in your case they interest only your\n\u2039amour-propre\u203a and the credit of your systems. Give me as much\nadvice as you please, but constrain me to nothing. I decide upon \u2039my\nown proper risk and peril\u203a, and surely that is enough without the\ntyrannical intervention of law.\n\nWe see that, in almost all the important actions of life, it is\nnecessary to respect free will, to rely on the individual judgment\nof men, on that inward light which God has given them for their\nguidance, and after that to leave Responsibility to do its own work.\n\nThe intervention of law in analogous cases, over and above the very\ngreat inconvenience of opening the way equally to error and to truth,\nhas the still greater inconvenience of paralyzing intelligence\nitself, of extinguishing that light which is the inheritance of\nhumanity and the pledge of progress.\n\nBut even when an action, a habit, a practice is acknowledged by\npublic good sense to be bad, vicious, and immoral, when it is so\nbeyond doubt; when those who give themselves up to it are the first\nto blame themselves,\u2014that is not enough to justify the intervention\nof law. As I have already said, it is necessary also to know if, in\nadding to the bad consequences of this vice the bad consequences\ninherent in all legal repression, we do not produce, in the long-run,\na sum of evil which exceeds the good which the legal sanction adds to\nthe natural sanction.\n\nWe might examine, for instance, the evils which would result [p483]\nfrom the application of the legal sanction to the repression of\nidleness, prodigality, avarice, egotism, cupidity, ambition.\n\nLet us take the case of idleness.\n\nThis is a very natural inclination, and there are not wanting men\nwho join the chorus of the Italians when they celebrate the \u2039dolce\nfar niente\u203a, and of Rousseau, when he says, \u2039Je suis paresscux avec\nd\u00e9lices\u203a. We cannot doubt, then, that idleness is attended with a\ncertain amount of enjoyment. Were it not so, in fact, there would be\nno idleness in the world.\n\nAnd yet there flows from this inclination a host of evils, so much so\nthat the wisdom of nations has embodied itself in the proverb that\n\u2039Idleness is the parent of every vice\u203a.\n\nThe evils of idleness infinitely surpass the good; and it is\nnecessary that the law of Responsibility should act in this matter\nwith some energy, either as a lesson or as a spur, seeing that\nit is in fact by labour that the world has reached the state of\ncivilisation which it has now attained.\n\nNow, considered either as a lesson or as a spur to action, what would\na legal sanction add to the providential sanction? Suppose we had\na law to punish idleness. In what precise degree would such a law\nquicken the national activity?\n\nIf we could find this out, we should have an exact measure of the\nbenefit resulting from the law. I confess I can form no idea of\nthis part of the problem. But we must ask, at what price would this\nbenefit, whatever it were, be purchased; and surely little reflection\nis needed in order to see that the certain inconveniences of legal\nrepression would far exceed its problematical advantages.\n\nIn the first place, there are in France thirty-six millions of\ninhabitants. It would be necessary to exercise over them all a\nrigorous \u2039surveillance\u203a, to follow them into their fields, their\nworkshops, to their domestic circles. Think of the number of\nfunctionaries, the increase of taxes, etc., which would be the result.\n\nThen, those who are now industrious\u2014and the number, thank God, is\ngreat\u2014would be, no less than the idle, subjected to this intolerable\ninquisition. It is surely an immense inconvenience to subject a\nhundred innocent people to degrading measures, in order to punish one\nguilty person whom nature has herself taken it in hand to chastise.\n\nAnd then, when does idleness begin? In the case of each man\nbrought to justice, the most minute and delicate inquiries would\nbe necessary. Was the accused really idle, or did he merely take\n[p484] necessary repose? Was he sick, or was he meditating, or was\nhe saying his prayers, etc.? How could we appreciate all those shades\nof difference? Did he work harder and longer in the morning in order\nto have a little more time at his disposal in the evening? How many\nwitnesses, judges, juries, policemen, would be needed, how much\nresistance, espionage, and hatred would be engendered!\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\nNext we should have the chapter of judicial blunders. How great an\namount of idleness would escape! and, in return, how many industrious\npeople would go to redeem in prison the inactivity of a day by the\ninactivity of a month!\n\nWith these consequences and many others before our eyes, we say, Let\nnatural Responsibility do its own work. And we do well in saying so.\n\nThe Socialists, who never decline to have recourse to despotism\nin order to accomplish their ends\u2014for the end is everything\nwith them\u2014have branded Responsibility under the name of\n\u2039individualism\u203a,\u2014and have then tried to annihilate it, and absorb it\nin the sphere of action of a \u2039solidarity\u203a extended beyond all natural\nbounds.\n\nThe consequences of this perversion of the two great springs of\nhuman perfectibility are fatal. There is no longer any dignity, any\nliberty, for man. For, from the moment that the man who acts is\nnot personally answerable for the good or bad consequences of his\nactions, his right to act singly and individually no longer exists.\nIf each movement of the individual is to reflect back the series of\nits effects on society at large, the initiative of each such movement\ncan no longer be left to the individual\u2014it belongs to society. The\ncommunity alone must decide all, and regulate all,\u2014education, food,\nwages, amusements, locomotion, affections, families, etc. Now, the\nlaw is the voice of Society; the law is the legislator. Here, then,\nwe have a flock and a shepherd,\u2014less than that even, inert matter,\nand a workman. We see, then, to what point the suppression of\nResponsibility and of individualism would lead us.\n\nTo conceal this frightful design from the eyes of the vulgar, it\nwas necessary to flatter their selfish passions by declaiming\nagainst egotism. To the suffering classes Socialism says, \u201cDo not\ntrouble yourselves to examine whether your sufferings are to be\nascribed to the law of Responsibility. There are fortunate people\nin the world, and in virtue of the law of Solidarity they ought to\nshare their prosperity with you.\u201d And for the purpose of paving the\nway to the degrading level of a factitious, official, legal, con\n[p485] strained, and unnatural Solidarity, they erect spoliation\ninto a system, they twist all our notions of justice, and they\nexalt that individualist sentiment, which they were thought to have\nproscribed, up to the highest point of power and perversity. Their\nwhole system is thus of a piece,\u2014negation of the harmonies which\nspring from liberty in the principle,\u2014despotism and slavery in the\nresult,\u2014immorality in the means.\n\n        *       *       *       *       *\n\nEvery effort to divert the natural course of responsibility is a\nblow aimed at justice, at liberty, at order, at civilisation, and at\nprogress.\n\n\u2039At justice.\u203a An act or a habit being assumed to exist, its good\nor bad consequences must follow necessarily. Were it possible,\nindeed, to suppress these consequences, there would doubtless be\nsome advantage in suspending the action of the natural law of\nresponsibility. But the only result to which a written law could lead\nwould be that the good effects of a bad action would be reaped by the\nauthor of that action, and that its bad effects would fall back on a\nthird party, or upon the community; which has certainly the special\naspect of injustice.\n\nThus, modern societies are constituted on the principle that the\nfather of a family should rear and educate his children. And it\nis this principle which restrains within just limits the increase\nand distribution of population; each man acting under a sense of\nresponsibility. Men are not all indued with the same amount of\nforesight; and[113] in large towns improvidence is allied with\nimmorality. We have nowadays a regular budget, and an administration,\nfor the purpose of collecting children abandoned by their parents;\nno inquiry discourages this shameful desertion, and a constantly\nincreasing number of destitute children inundates our poorer\ndistricts.\n\nHere, then, we have a peasant who marries late in life, in order not\nto be overburdened with a family, obliged to bring up the children of\nothers. He will not inculcate foresight on his son. Another lives in\ncontinence, and we see him taxed to bring up a set of bastards. In a\nreligious point of view, his conscience is tranquil, but in a human\npoint of view he must call himself a fool.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\nWe do not pretend here to enter on the grave question of public\n[p486] charity, we wish only to make this essential observation,\nthat the more a State is centralized, the more that it turns natural\nresponsibility into factitious solidarity, the more it takes away\nfrom consequences (which thenceforth affect those who have no\nconnexion with their cause) their providential character of justice,\nchastisement, and preventive restraint.\n\nWhen Government cannot avoid charging itself with a service\nwhich ought to remain within the domain of private activity, it\nought at least to allow the responsibility to rest as nearly as\npossible where it would naturally fall. Thus, in the question of\nfoundling hospitals, the principle being that the father and mother\nshould bring up the child, the law should exhaust every means of\nendeavouring to enforce this. Failing the parents, this burden should\nfall on the commune; and failing the commune, on the department. Do\nyou desire to multiply foundlings \u2039ad infinitum\u203a? Declare that the\nState will take charge of them. It would be still worse if France\nshould undertake to maintain the children of the Chinese, and \u2039vice\nversa\u203a.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\nIt is, in truth, a singular thing that we should be always\nendeavouring to make laws to check the evils of responsibility! Will\nit never be understood that we do not annihilate these evils\u2014we only\nturn them into a new channel? The result is one injustice the more,\nand one lesson the less.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\nHow is the world to be improved if it be not by every man learning\nto discharge his duty better? And will each man not discharge his\nduties better in proportion as he has more to suffer by neglecting\nor violating them? If social action is to be mixed up in the work of\nresponsibility, it ought to be in order to second it, not to thwart\nit, to concentrate its effects, not to abandon them to chance.\n\nIt has been said that opinion is the mistress of the world.\nAssuredly, in order that opinion should have its proper sway it\nis necessary that it should be enlightened; and opinion is so\nmuch more enlightened in proportion as each man who contributes\nto form it perceives more clearly the connexion of causes and\neffects. Now nothing leads us to perceive this connexion better than\nexperience, and experience, as we know, is personal, and the fruit of\nresponsibility.\n\nIn the natural play, then, of this great law of responsibility we\nhave a system of valuable teaching with which it is very imprudent to\ntamper.\n\nIf, by ill-considered combinations, you relieve men from\nresponsibility for their actions, they may still be taught by\ntheory\u2014but [p487] no longer by experience. And I doubt if\ninstruction which has never been sanctioned and confirmed by\nexperience is not more dangerous than ignorance itself.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\nThe \u2039sense of responsibility\u203a is eminently capable of improvement.\n\nThis is one of the most beautiful moral phenomena. There is nothing\nwhich we admire more in a man, in a class, in a nation, than the\nfeeling of responsibility. It indicates superior moral culture, and\nan exquisite sensibility to the awards of public opinion. It may be,\nhowever, that the sense of responsibility is highly developed in\none thing and very little in another. In France, among the educated\nclasses, one would die of shame to be caught cheating at play or\naddicting oneself to solitary drinking. These things are laughed\nat among the peasants. But to traffic in political rights, to make\nmerchandise of his vote, to be guilty of inconsistency, to cry out by\nturns \u2039Vive le Roi! Vive la Ligue!\u203a as the interest of the moment may\nprompt, these are things which our manners do not brand with shame.\n\nThe development of the sense of responsibility may be much aided by\nfemale intervention.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\nFemales are themselves extremely sensible of the feeling of\nresponsibility.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. It rests with them to create this \u2039force\nmoralisatrice\u203a among the other sex; for it is their province to\ndistribute praise and blame effectively. Why, then, do they not do\nso? because they are not sufficiently acquainted with the connexion\nbetween causes and effects in the moral world.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\nThe science of morals is the science of all, but especially of the\nfemale sex, for they form the manners of a nation.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. [p488]\n\n\n\n\n XXI.\n SOLIDARITY.\n\n\nIf man were perfect, if he were infallible, society would present\na very different harmony from that which is the subject of our\ninquiries. Ours is not the society of Fourier. It does not exclude\nevil; it admits dissonances; only we assert that it does not cease to\nbe harmony if these dissonances pave the way to concord, and bring us\nback to it.\n\nOur point of departure is that man is fallible, and that God has\ngiven him free will; and with the faculty of choosing, that of\nerring, of mistaking what is false for what is true, of sacrificing\nthe future to the present, of giving way to unreasonable desires,\netc.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\nMan errs. But every act, every habit has its consequences.\n\nBy means of Responsibility, as we have seen, these consequences fall\nback on the author of the act. A natural concatenation of rewards or\npunishments, then, attracts him towards good, or repels him from evil.\n\nHad man been destined to a solitary life, and to solitary labour,\nResponsibility would have been his only law.\n\nBut he is differently placed; he is sociable \u2039by destination\u203a.\nIt is not true, as Rousseau has said, that man is naturally a\n\u2039perfect and solitary whole\u203a, and that the will of the lawgiver has\ntransformed him into a fraction of a greater \u2039whole\u203a. The family,\nthe province, the nation, the human race, are aggregates with which\nman has \u2039necessary\u203a relations. Hence it follows that the actions\nand the habits of the individual produce, besides the consequences\nwhich fall back upon himself, other good or bad consequences which\nextend themselves to his fellow-men. This is what we term the law of\n\u2039Solidarity\u203a, which is a sort of \u2039collective Responsibility\u203a.\n\nThis idea of Rousseau that the legislator has invented society\u2014an\nidea false in itself\u2014has been injurious in this respect, that it has\nled men to think that Solidarity is of legislative creation, and we\n[p489] shall immediately see that modern legislators have based upon\nthis doctrine their efforts to subject society to an \u2039artificial\nsolidarity\u203a, acting in an inverse sense to \u2039natural solidarity\u203a. In\neverything, the principle of these great manipulators of the human\nrace is to set up their own work in room of the work of God, which\nthey disown.\n\n        *       *       *       *       *\n\nOur first task is to prove undeniably the natural existence of the\nlaw of \u2039Solidarity\u203a.\n\nIn the eighteenth century they did not believe in it. They adhered to\nthe doctrine of the personality of faults. The philosophers of the\nlast century, engaged above all in the reaction against Catholicism,\nwould have feared, by admitting the principle of Solidarity, to open\na door to the doctrine of \u2039original sin\u203a. Every time Voltaire found\nin the Scriptures a man bearing the punishment of another, he said\nironically, \u201cThis is frightful, but the justice of God is not that of\nman.\u201d\n\nWe are not concerned here to discuss \u2039original sin\u203a. But what\nVoltaire laughed at is nevertheless a fact, which is not less\nincontestable than it is mysterious. The law of Solidarity makes its\nappearance so frequently and so strikingly, in the individual and\nin the masses, in details and in the aggregate, in particular and\nin general facts, that to fail to recognise it implies either the\nblindness of sectarianism or the zeal of embittered controversy.\n\nThe first rule of all human justice is to concentrate the punishment\nof an action on its author, in virtue of the principle that faults\nare personal. But this law, sacred as regards individuals, is not the\nlaw of God, or even the law of society.\n\nWhy is this man rich? Because his father was active, honest,\nindustrious, and economical. The father practised virtue; the son\nreaps the rewards.\n\nWhy is this other man always suffering, sick, feeble, timorous, and\nwretched? Because his father, endowed with a powerful constitution,\nabused it by debauchery and excess. To the guilty fall the agreeable\nconsequences of vice, to the innocent fall its fatal consequences.\n\nThere exists not a man upon this earth whose condition has not\nbeen determined by thousands of millions of facts in which his own\ndeterminations have had no part. What I complain of to-day was\nperhaps caused by the caprice of my great-grandfather, etc.\n\nSolidarity manifests itself on a greater scale still, and at\ndistances which are still more inexplicable, when we consider the\n[p490] relations of divers nations, or of different generations of\nthe same people.\n\nIs it not strange that the eighteenth century was so occupied with\nintellectual or material works of which we are now enjoying the\nbenefit? Is it not marvellous that we ourselves should make such\nefforts to cover the country with railways, on which none of us\nperhaps will ever travel? Who can fail to recognise the profound\ninfluence of our old revolutions on the events of our own time? Who\ncan foresee what an inheritance of peace or of discord our present\ndiscussions may bequeath to our children?\n\nLook at the public loans. We make war,\u2014we obey savage passions,\u2014we\nthrow away by these means valuable power; and we find means of laying\nthe scourge of all this destruction on our children, who may haply\nhold war in abhorrence, and be unable to understand our passions and\nhatreds.\n\nCast your eyes upon Europe; contemplate the events which agitate\nFrance, Germany, Italy, and Poland, and say if the law of\n\u2039Solidarity\u203a is a chimerical law.\n\nThere is no need to carry this enumeration farther. In order to\nprove undeniably the existence of the law, it is enough that the\naction of one man, of one people, of one generation, exerts a certain\ninfluence upon another man, another people, or another generation.\nSociety at large is only an aggregate of solidarities which cross and\noverlap one another. This results from the communicable nature of\nhuman intelligence. Conversation, literature, discoveries, sciences,\nmorals, etc., are all examples of this. All these unperceived\ncurrents by which one mind corresponds with another, all these\nefforts without visible connexion, the resulting force of which\nnevertheless pushes on the human race towards an equilibrium, towards\nan average level which is always rising\u2014all that vast treasury of\nutilities and of acquired knowledge which each may draw upon without\ndiminishing it, or augment without being aware of it,\u2014all this\ninterchange of thoughts, of productions, of services, and of labour,\nof good and evil, of virtue and vice, which makes the human family\none grand whole, and imparts to thousands of millions of ephemeral\nexistences a common, a universal, a continuous life,\u2014all this is\n\u2039Solidarity\u203a.\n\nNaturally, then, and to a certain extent, there is an incontestable\nSolidarity among men. In other words, Responsibility is not\nexclusively personal, but is shared and divided. Action emanates from\nindividuality; consequences are spread over the community.\n\nWe must remark that it is in the nature of every man \u2039to desire\n[p491] to be happy\u203a. You may say that I am extolling egotism\nif you will; I extol nothing; I show, I prove undeniably, the\nexistence of an innate universal sentiment, which can never cease\nto exist,\u2014personal interest, the desire for happiness, and the\nrepugnance to pain.\n\nHence it follows that the individual is led so to order his conduct\nthat the good consequences of his actions accrue to himself, while\nthe bad effects fall upon others. He endeavours to spread these bad\nconsequences over the greatest possible number of men, in order that\nthey may be less perceived, and call forth less reaction.\n\nBut opinion, \u2039that mistress of the world\u203a, the daughter of\nsolidarity, brings together all those scattered grievances, and\ncollects all aggrieved interests into a formidable resisting mass.\nWhen a man\u2019s habits become injurious to those who live around\nhim, they call forth a feeling of repulsion. We judge such habits\nseverely. We denounce them, we brand them; and the man who gives\nhimself up to them becomes an object of distrust, of contempt, and of\nabhorrence. If he reap some advantages, they are soon far more than\ncompensated by the sufferings which public aversion accumulates on\nhis head. To the troublesome consequences which a bad habit always\nentails in virtue of the law of \u2039Responsibility\u203a, there come to be\nadded other consequences still more grievous in virtue of the law of\n\u2039Solidarity\u203a.\n\nOur contempt for the man soon extends to the habit, to the vice; and\nas the want of consideration is one of our most powerful springs of\naction, it is clear that solidarity, by the reaction which it brings\nto bear against vicious acts, tends to restrain and to prevent them.\n\nSolidarity, then, like Responsibility, is a \u2039progressive force\u203a;\nand we see that, in relation to the author of the act, it resolves\nitself, if I may so speak, into \u2039repercussive or reflected\nresponsibility\u203a; that it is still a system of reciprocal rewards and\npunishments, admirably fitted to circumscribe evil, to extend good,\nand to urge on mankind on the road of progress.\n\nBut in order that it should operate in this way,\u2014in order that those\nwho benefit or suffer from an action which is not their own should\nreact upon its author by approbation or disapprobation, by gratitude\nor resistance, by esteem, affection, praise, or blame, hatred or\nvengeance,\u2014one condition is indispensable; and that condition is,\nthat the connecting link between the act and all its effects should\nbe known and appreciated.\n\nWhen the public is mistaken in this respect, the law fails in its\ndesign. [p492]\n\nAn act is hurtful to the masses; but the masses are convinced that\nthis act is advantageous to them. What is the consequence? The\nconsequence is, that instead of reacting against it, in place of\ncondemning it, and by that means restraining it, the public exalt it,\nhonour it, extol it, and repeat it.\n\nNothing is more frequent, and here is the reason of it:\n\nAn act produces on the masses not only an effect, but a series of\neffects. Now it frequently happens that the primary effect is a\nlocal good, visible and tangible, whilst the ulterior effects set\na-filtering through the body politic evils which are difficult to\ndiscover or to connect with their cause.\n\nWar is an example of this. In the infancy of society, we do not\nperceive all the consequences of war. And, to say truth, in a state\nof civilisation in which there is a less amount of anterior labour\n(capital) exposed to destruction, less science and money devoted to\nthe machinery of war, etc., these consequences are less prejudicial\nthan they afterwards become. We see only the first campaign, the\nbooty which follows victory, the intoxication of triumph. At\nthat stage, war and warriors are very popular. Then we see the\nenemy, having become conqueror in his turn, burning down houses\nand harvests, levying contributions, and imposing laws. In these\nalternations of success and misfortune, we see generations of men\nannihilated, agriculture crushed, and two nations impoverished. We\nsee the most important portion of the people contemning the arts of\npeace, turning their arms against the institutions of their country,\nserving as the tools of despotism, employing their restless energy\nin sedition and civil discord, and creating barbarism and solitude\nat home, as they had formerly done among their neighbours. Do we\nthen pronounce war to be plunder upon a great scale?\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. No; we\nsee its effects without desiring to understand its cause; and when\nthis people, in a state of decadence, shall be invaded in its turn\nby a swarm of conquerors, centuries after the catastrophe, grave\nhistorians will relate that the nation fell because the people had\nbecome enervated by peace, because they had forgotten the art of war\nand the austere virtues of their ancestors.\n\nI could point out the same illusions in connexion with the system of\nslavery.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\nThe same thing is true of religious errors.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\nIn our own day, the \u2039r\u00e9gime\u203a of prohibition gives rise to the same\nfallacy.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\nTo bring back public opinion, by the diffusion of knowledge and\nthe profound appreciation of causes and effects, into that [p493]\nintelligent state in which bad tendencies come to be branded, and\nprejudicial measures opposed, is to render a great service to one\u2019s\ncountry. When public opinion, deceived and misled, honours what is\nworthy of contempt, contemns what is honourable, punishes virtue\nand rewards vice, encourages what is hurtful and discourages what\nis useful, applauds a lie and smothers truth under indifference\nor insult, a nation turns its back upon progress, and can only be\nreclaimed by terrible lessons and catastrophes.\n\nWe have indicated elsewhere the gross misuse which certain Socialist\nschools have made of the word Solidarity.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\nLet us now see in what spirit human laws should be framed.\n\nIt seems to me that here there can be no room for doubt. Human law\nshould coincide with the natural law. It should facilitate and\nensure the just retribution of men\u2019s acts; in other words, it should\ncircumscribe solidarity, and organize reaction in order to enforce\nresponsibility. The law can have no other object than to restrain\nvicious actions and to multiply virtuous ones, and for that purpose\nit should favour the just distribution of rewards and punishments,\nso that the bad effects of an act should be concentrated as much as\npossible on the person who commits it.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\nIn acting thus, the law conforms itself to the nature of things;\nsolidarity induces a reaction against a vicious act, and the law only\nregulates that reaction.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\n        *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe law thus contributes to progress: The more rapidly it brings\nback the bad effect of the act upon the agent, the more surely it\nrestrains the act itself.\n\nTo give an example: Violence is attended with pernicious\nconsequences. Among savages the repression of violence is left to the\nnatural course of things; and what happens? It provokes a terrible\nreaction. When a man has committed an act of violence against another\nman, an inextinguishable desire of vengeance is lighted up in the\nfamily of the injured party, and is transmitted from generation to\ngeneration. The law interferes; and what ought it to do? Should it\nlimit itself to stifle the desire for vengeance, to repress it, to\npunish it? It is clear that this would be to encourage violence,\nby sheltering it from reprisals. This is not, then, what the law\nshould do. It ought to substitute itself, so to speak, for the spirit\nof vengeance, by organizing in its place a reaction against the\nviolence. It should say to the injured family, \u201cI charge myself with\nthe repression of the act you complain of.\u201d When the whole tribe\nconsiders itself as injured and menaced, the [p494] law inquires\ninto the grievance, interrogates the guilty party, makes sure that\nthere is no error as to the fact and as to the person, and thus\nrepresses with regularity and certainty an act which would have been\npunished irregularly.[114]\u00a0. [p495]\n\n\n\n\n XXII.\n SOCIAL MOTIVE FORCE.\n\n\nIt belongs to no human science to assign the ultimate reason of\nthings.\n\nMan suffers; society suffers. We ask why? This is to ask why God has\nbeen pleased to indue man with sensibility and free will. As regards\nthis, no one knows more than the revelation in which he has faith has\ntaught him.\n\nBut whatever may have been the designs of God, what human science can\ntake as its point of departure is a positive fact, namely, that man\nhas been created \u2039free\u203a and indued with \u2039feeling\u203a.\n\nThis is so true that I defy those who are astonished at it to\nconceive a living, thinking, acting being indued with volition\nand affections\u2014such a being, in short, as man\u2014yet destitute of\nsensibility and free will.\n\nCould God have ordered things otherwise? Reason undoubtedly answers\n\u2039yes\u203a, but imagination says eternally \u2039no\u203a, so radically impossible\nis it for us to separate in thought humanity from this double\nattribute. Now, to be indued with \u2039feeling\u203a is to be capable of\nexperiencing sensations which are agreeable or painful. Hence comfort\nor uneasiness. From the moment, then, that God gave existence to\nsensibility, He permitted evil, or the possibility of evil.\n\nIn giving us free will, He has indued us with the faculty, at least\nin a certain measure, of shunning evil and seeking after good. Free\nwill supposes and accompanies intelligence\u2014what would the faculty of\nchoosing signify if it were not allied with the faculty of examining,\nof comparing, of judging? Thus, every man who comes into the world\nbrings with him \u2039mind\u203a and a \u2039motive force\u203a.\n\nThe motive force is that personal irresistible impulse, the essence\nof all our forces, which leads us to shun Evil and seek [p496] after\nGood. We term it the instinct of preservation, personal or private\ninterest.\n\nThis sentiment has been sometimes decried, sometimes misunderstood,\nbut as regards its existence there can be no doubt. Irresistibly we\nseek after all which, according to our notions, can ameliorate our\ndestiny, and we avoid all which is likely to deteriorate it. This is\nat least as certain as it is that every material molecule possesses\ncentripetal and centrifugal force. And just as the double movement of\nattraction and repulsion is the grand spring of the physical world,\nwe may affirm that the double force of human attraction towards\nhappiness and human repulsion from pain is the mainspring of the\nsocial mechanism.\n\nBut it is not enough that man is irresistibly led to prefer good to\nevil; he must also be able to discern what is good and what is evil.\nThis is what God has provided for in giving him that marvellous and\ncomplex mechanism called intelligence. To fix his attention, to\ncompare, judge, reason, connect effects with causes, to remember,\nto foresee; such are\u2014if I may use the expression\u2014the wheels of that\nadmirable machine.\n\nThe impulsive force which is possessed by each of us moves under the\ndirection of our intelligence. But our intelligence is imperfect.\nIt is liable to error. We compare, we judge, we act in consequence;\nbut we may err, we may make a bad choice, we may tend towards\nevil, mistaking it for good, or we may shun good, mistaking it\nfor evil. This is the first source of social \u2039dissonances\u203a; and\nit is inevitable, for this reason, that the great motive spring\nof humanity\u2014personal interest\u2014is not, like material attraction, a\nblind force, but a force guided by an imperfect intelligence. Let\nus be very sure, then, that we shall not see Harmony except under\nthis restriction. God has not seen proper to found social order or\nHarmony upon perfection, but upon human perfectibility, our capacity\nfor improvement. If our intelligence is imperfect, it is improvable.\nIt develops, enlarges, and rectifies itself. It begins of new and\nverifies its operations. Experience at each moment puts us right,\nand Responsibility suspends over our heads a complete system of\npunishments and rewards. Every step that we take on the road of\nerror plunges us into increased suffering, and in such a way that\nthe warning cannot fail to be heard, and the rectification of our\ndeterminations, and consequently of our actions, follows, sooner or\nlater, with infallible certainty.\n\nUnder the impulse which urges him on, ardent to pursue happiness,\nprompt to seize it, man may be seeking his own good in the misery of\nothers. This is a second and an abundant source of [p497] discordant\nsocial combinations. But the limit of such disturbances is marked;\nand they find their inevitable doom in the law of Solidarity.\nIndividual force thus misapplied calls forth opposition from all the\nanalogous forces, which, antagonistic to evil by their nature, repel\ninjustice and chastise it.\n\nIt is thus that progress is realized, and it is not the less progress\nfrom being dearly bought. It springs from a native impulse, which is\nuniversal and inherent in our nature, directed by an intelligence\nwhich is frequently misled, and subjected to a will which is\nfrequently depraved. Arrested on its march by Error and Injustice,\nit receives the all-powerful assistance of Responsibility and\nSolidarity to enable it to surmount these obstacles, and it cannot\nfail to receive that assistance since it springs from these obstacles\nthemselves.\n\nThis internal, universal, and imperishable motive power, which\nresides in each individual and constitutes him an active being, this\ntendency of every man to pursue happiness and shun misery, this\nproduct, this effect, this necessary complement of sensibility,\nwithout which sensibility would be only an inexplicable scourge, this\nprimordial phenomenon which is at the bottom of all human actions,\nthis attractive and repulsive force which we have denominated the\nmainspring of the social mechanism, has had for detractors the\ngreater part of our publicists; and this is one of the strangest\naberrations which the annals of science present.\n\nIt is true that self-interest is the cause of all the evils, as it is\nof all the good, incident to man. It cannot fail to be so, since it\ndetermines all our acts. Seeing this, some publicists can imagine no\nbetter means of eradicating evil than by stifling \u2039self-interest\u203a.\nBut as by this means they would destroy the very spring and motive of\nour activity, they have thought proper to endow us with a different\nmotive force, namely, \u2039devotion\u203a, \u2039self-sacrifice\u203a. They hope that\nhenceforth all transactions and social combinations will take place\nat their bidding, upon the principle of self-abandonment. We are no\nlonger to pursue our own happiness, but the happiness of others; the\nwarnings of sensibility are to go for nothing, like the rewards and\npunishments of Responsibility. All the laws of our nature are to\nbe reversed; the spirit of sacrifice is to be substituted for the\ninstinct of preservation; in a word, no one is to think longer on\nhis own personality, but for the purpose of hastening to sacrifice\nit to the public good. It is from such a universal transformation of\nthe human heart that certain publicists, who think themselves very\nreligious, expect to realize perfect social harmony. They [p498]\nhave forgotten to tell us how they hope to effect this indispensable\npreliminary, the transformation of the human heart.\n\nIf they are foolish enough to undertake this, they will find that\nthey want the power to accomplish it. Do they desire the proof of\nwhat I say? Let them try the experiment on themselves; let them\nendeavour to stifle in their own hearts all feeling of self-interest,\nso that it shall no longer make its appearance in the most ordinary\nactions of life. They will not be long in finding out their\npowerlessness. Why, then, pretend to impose upon all men, without\nexception, a doctrine to which they themselves cannot submit?\n\nI confess myself unable to see anything religious, unless it be\nin intention and appearance, in these affected theories, in these\nimpracticable maxims which they affect so earnestly to preach, while\nthey continue to act just as the vulgar act. Is it, I would ask, true\nand genuine religion which inspires these catholic economists with\nthe presumptuous thought that God has done His work ill, and that it\nis their mission to repair it? Bossuet did not think so when he said,\n\u201cMan aspires to happiness, and he cannot help aspiring to it.\u201d\n\nDeclamations against personal interest never can have much scientific\nsignificance; for self-interest is part of man\u2019s indestructible\nnature\u2014at least, we cannot destroy it without destroying man himself.\nAll that religion, morals, and political economy can do is to give\nan enlightened direction to this impulsive force\u2014to point out not\nonly the primary, but the ulterior consequences of those acts to\nwhich it urges us. A superior and progressive satisfaction consequent\non a transient suffering, long continued and constantly increased\nsuffering following on a momentary gratification; such, after all,\nare moral good and evil. That which determines the choice of men\ntowards virtue is an elevated and enlightened interest, but it is\nalways primarily a personal interest.\n\nIf it is strange that personal interest should be decried, when\nconsidered not with reference to its immoral abuse, but as the\nprovidential moving spring of all human activity, it is still\nstranger that it should have been put aside altogether, and that men\nshould have imagined themselves in a situation to frame a system of\nsocial science without taking it into account.\n\nIt is an inexplicable instance of folly that publicists in general\nshould regard themselves as the depositaries and the arbiters of this\nmotive spring. Each starts from this point of departure: Assuming\nthat mankind are a flock, and that I am the shepherd, [p499] how am\nI to manage in order to make mankind happy? Or this: Given on the\none hand a certain quantity of clay, and on the other a potter, what\nshould the potter do in order to turn that clay to the best account?\n\nOur publicists may differ when the question comes to be which is\nthe best potter, who forms and moulds the clay most advantageously;\nbut they are all at one upon this, that their function is to knead\nthe human clay, and what the clay has to do is simply to be kneaded\nby them. Under the title of legislators they establish between\nthemselves and the human race relations analogous to those of\nguardian and ward. The idea never occurs to them that the human\nrace is a living sentient body, indued with volition, and acting\naccording to laws which it is not their business to invent, since\nthey already exist, nor to impose, but to study; that humanity is an\naggregate of beings in all respects like themselves, and in no way\ninferior or subordinate; endowed both with an impulse to act, and\nwith intelligence to choose; which feels on all sides the stimulus\nof Responsibility and Solidarity; and that, in short, from all these\nphenomena there results an aggregate of self-existing relations,\nwhich it is not the business of science to create, as they imagine,\nbut to observe.\n\nRousseau, I think, is the publicist who has most na\u00efvely exhumed\nfrom antiquity this omnipotence of the resuscitated legislator of\nthe Greeks. Convinced that the social order is a human invention, he\ncompares it to a machine; men are the wheels of that machine, the\nruler sets it in motion; the lawgiver invents it, under the impulse\ngiven him by the publicist, who thus finds himself definitively the\nmainspring and regulator of the human species. This is the reason why\nthe publicist never fails to address himself to the legislator in the\nimperative style; he decrees him to decree: \u201cFound your society upon\nsuch or such a principle; give it good manners and customs; bend it\nto the yoke of religion; direct its aims and energies towards arms,\nor commerce, or agriculture, or virtue,\u201d etc. Others more modest\nspeak in this way: \u201cIdlers will not be tolerated in the republic; you\nwill distribute the population conveniently between the towns and the\ncountry; you will take order that there shall be neither rich nor\npoor,\u201d etc.\n\nThese formulas attest the unmeasured presumption of those who employ\nthem. They imply a doctrine which does not leave one atom of dignity\nto the human race.\n\nI know not whether they are more false in theory or pernicious in\npractice. In both views, they lead to deplorable results.\n\nThey would lead us to believe that the social economy is an [p500]\nartificial arrangement coined in the brain of an inventor. Hence\nevery publicist constitutes himself an inventor. His greatest desire\nis to find acceptance for his mechanism; his greatest care is to\ncreate abhorrence of all others, and principally of that which\nsprings spontaneously from the organization of man and from the\nnature of things. The books conceived and written on this plan are,\nand can only be, prolix declamations against Society.\n\nThis false science does not study the concatenation of effects and\ncauses. It does not inquire into the good and evil produced by men\u2019s\nactions, and trust afterwards to the motive force of Society in\nchoosing the road it is to follow. No; it enjoins, it constrains,\nit imposes, or, if it cannot do that, it counsels; like a natural\nphilosopher who should say to the stone, \u201cThou art not supported; I\norder thee to fall, or at least I advise it.\u201d It is upon this footing\nthat M. Droz has said that \u201cthe design of political economy is to\nrender easy circumstances as general as possible,\u201d\u2014a definition which\nhas been welcomed with great favour by the Socialists, because it\nopens a door to every Utopia, and leads to artificial regulation.\nWhat should we say if M. Arago were to open his course in this\nway, \u201cThe object of astronomy is to render gravitation as general\nas possible?\u201d It is true that men are animated beings, indued with\nvolition, and acting under the influence of free will. But there\nalso resides in them an internal force, a sort of gravitation;\nand the question is to know towards what they gravitate. If it be\nfatally, inevitably, towards evil, there is no remedy, and assuredly\nthe remedy will not come to us from a publicist subject like other\nmen to the common tendency. If it be towards good, here we have the\nmotive force already found; science has no need to substitute for\nit constraint or advice. Its part is to enlighten our free will, to\ndisplay effects as flowing from causes, well assured that, under the\ninfluence of truth, \u201cease and material prosperity tend to become as\ngeneral as possible.\u201d\n\nPractically, the doctrine which would place the motive force of\nsociety, not in mankind at large, nor in their peculiar organization,\nbut in legislators and governments, is attended with consequences\nstill more deplorable. It tends to draw down upon Governments a\ncrushing responsibility, from which they never recover. If there are\nsufferings, it is the fault of Government; if there are poor, it is\nthe fault of Government. Is not Government the prime mover? If the\nmainspring is bad or inoperative, break it, and choose another. Or\nelse they lay the blame on science itself; and in our days we have\nit repeated \u2039ad nauseam\u203a that \u201call social sufferings are [p501]\nimputable to Political Economy.\u201d[115] Why not, when Political Economy\npresents herself as having for design to realize the happiness of men\nwithout their co-operation? When such notions prevail, the last thing\nmen take it into their heads to do is to turn their regards upon\nthemselves, and inquire whether the true cause of their sufferings is\nnot their own ignorance and injustice; their ignorance which brings\nthem under the discipline of Responsibility, and their injustice\nwhich draws down upon them the reaction of Solidarity. How should\nmankind ever dream of seeking in their errors the cause of their\nsufferings when the human race is persuaded that it is inert by\nnature, and that the principle of all activity, consequently of all\nresponsibility, is external, and resides in the will of the lawgiver\nand the governing power?\n\nWere I called upon to mark the feature which distinguishes Socialism\nfrom Political Economy, I should find it here. Socialism boasts of\na vast number of sects. Each sect has its Utopia, and so far are\nthey from any mutual understanding, that they declare against each\nother war to the knife. The \u2039atelier social organis\u00e9\u203a of M. Blanc,\nand the \u2039an-archie\u203a of M. Proudhon,\u2014the \u2039association\u203a of Fourier,\nand the \u2039communisme\u203a of M. Cabet,\u2014are as different from each other\nas night is from day. Why do these sectarian leaders, then, range\nthemselves under the common denomination of \u2039Socialists\u203a, and what is\nthe bond which unites them against natural or providential society?\nThey have no other bond than this, \u2039they all repudiate natural\nsociety\u203a. What they wish is an artificial society springing ready\nmade from the brain of the inventor. No doubt, each of them wishes\nto be the Jupiter of this Minerva\u2014no doubt each of them hugs his\nown contrivance, and dreams of his own social order. But they have\nthis in common, that they recognise in humanity neither the motive\nforce, which urges mankind on to good, nor the \u2039curative\u203a force,\nwhich delivers them from evil. They fight among themselves as to\nwhat form they are to mould the human clay into, but they are all\nagreed that humanity is clay to be moulded. Humanity is not in their\neyes a living harmonious being, that God himself has provided with\nprogressive and self-sustaining forces, but rather a mass of inert\nmatter which has been waiting for them to impart to it sentiment\nand life; it is not a subject to be studied, but a subject to be\nexperimented on.\n\nPolitical Economy, on the other hand, after having clearly shown\n[p502] that there are in each man forces of impulse and repulsion,\nthe aggregate of which constitutes the social impellent, and after\nbeing convinced that this motive force tends towards good, never\ndreams of annihilating it in order to substitute another of its own\ncreation, but studies the varied and complicated social phenomena to\nwhich it gives birth.\n\nIs this to say that Political Economy is as much a stranger to social\nprogress, as astronomy is to the motion of the heavenly bodies?\nCertainly not. Political Economy has to do with beings which are\nintelligent and free,\u2014and, as such, let us never forget, subject to\nerror. Their tendency is towards good; but they may err. Science,\nthen, interferes usefully, not to create causes and effects, not to\nchange the tendencies of man, not to subject him to organizations, to\ninjunctions, or even to advice, but to point out to him the good and\nthe evil which result from his determinations.\n\nPolitical Economy is thus quite a science of observation and\nexposition. She does not say to men, \u201cI enjoin you, I counsel you,\nnot to go too near the fire;\u201d she does not say, \u201cI have invented\na social organization; the gods have taught me institutions which\nwill keep you at a respectful distance from the fire.\u201d No, Political\nEconomy only shows men clearly that fire will burn them, proclaims\nit, proves it, and does the same thing as regards all other social\nor moral phenomena, convinced that this is enough. The repugnance to\ndie by fire is considered as a primordial pre-existent fact, which\nPolitical Economy has not created, and which she cannot alter or\nchange.\n\nEconomists cannot be always at one; but it is easy to see that their\ndifferences are quite of another kind from those which divide the\nSocialists. Two men who devote their whole attention to observe one\nand the same phenomenon and its effects\u2014rent, for example, exchange,\ncompetition\u2014may not arrive at the same conclusion, and this proves\nnothing more than that one of the two has observed the phenomenon\ninaccurately or imperfectly. It is an operation to be repeated. With\nthe aid of other observers, the probability is that truth in the end\nwill be discovered. It is for this reason, that if each economist\nwere, like each astronomer, to make himself fully acquainted with\nwhat his predecessors have done, as far as they have gone, the\nscience would be progressive, and for that reason more and more\nuseful, rectifying constantly observations inaccurately made, and\nadding indefinitely new observations to those which had been made\nbefore.\n\nBut the Socialists,\u2014each pursuing his own road, and coining [p503]\nartificial combinations in the mint of his own brain,\u2014may pursue\ntheir inquiries in this way to all eternity without coming to any\ncommon understanding, and without the labours of one aiding to any\nextent the labours of another. Say profited by the labours of Adam\nSmith; Rossi by those of Say; Blanqui and Joseph Garnier by those\nof all their predecessors. But Plato, Sir Thomas More, Harrington,\nF\u00e9n\u00e9lon, Fourier, might amuse themselves with organizing according\nto their own fancy a Republic, an Utopia, an Oceana, a Salente, a\nPhalanst\u00e8re, and no one would ever discover the slightest affinity\nbetween their chimerical creations. These dreamers spin all out of\ntheir own imaginations, men as well as things. They invent a social\norder without respect to the human heart, and then they invent a\nhuman heart to suit their social order. [p504]\n\n\n\n\n XXIII.\n EXISTENCE OF EVIL.\n\n\nIn these last days science has retrograded and been driven back. It\nhas been bent and twisted under the obligation imposed upon it, if I\nmay so speak, of denying the existence of Evil under pain of being\nconvicted of denying the existence of God.\n\nWriters whose business it is to display exquisite sensibility,\nunbounded philanthropy, and unrivalled devotion to religion, have\ngot into the way of saying, \u201cEvil cannot enter into the providential\nplan. Suffering is no ordinance of God and nature, but comes from\nhuman institutions.\u201d\n\nAs this doctrine falls in with the passions that they desire to\ncherish, it soon becomes popular. Books and journals have been\nfilled with declamations against society. Science is no longer\npermitted to study facts impartially. Whoever dares to warn men that\na certain vice, a certain habit, leads necessarily to certain hurtful\nconsequences, is marked down as a man destitute of human feelings,\nwithout religion, an Atheist, a Malthusian, an Economist.\n\nSocialism has carried its folly so far as to announce the termination\nof all social suffering, but not of all individual suffering. It has\nnot ventured to predict that a day will come when man will no longer\nsuffer, grow old, and die.\n\nNow, I would ask, is it easier to reconcile with the infinite\ngoodness of God, evil which assails individually every man who comes\ninto the world, than evil which is extended over society at large?\nAnd then is it not a contradiction so transparent as to be puerile,\nto deny the existence of suffering in the masses, when we admit its\nexistence in individuals?\n\nMan suffers, and will always suffer. Society, then, also suffers, and\nwill always suffer. Those who address mankind should have the courage\nto tell them this. Humanity is not [p505] a fine lady with delicate\nnerves and an irritable temperament, from whom we must conceal the\ncoming storm, more especially when to foresee it is the only way\nto ensure our getting out of it safely. In this respect, all the\nbooks with which France has been inundated, from Sismondi and Buret\ndownwards, appear to me to be wanting in virility. Their authors dare\nnot tell the truth; nay, they dare not investigate it, for fear of\ndiscovering that absolute poverty is the necessary starting-point of\nthe human race, and that, consequently, so far are we from being in a\nposition to attribute that poverty to the social order, it is to the\nsocial order that we must attribute all the triumphs which we have\nalready achieved over our original destitution. But, then, after such\nan avowal, they could no longer constitute themselves tribunes of the\npeople, and the avengers of the masses oppressed by civilisation.\n\nAfter all, science merely establishes, combines, and deduces facts;\nshe does not create them; she does not produce them, nor is she\nresponsible for them. Is it not strange that men should have gone the\nlength of announcing and disseminating the paradox, that if mankind\nsuffer, their sufferings are due to Political Economy? Thus, after\nbeing blamed for investigating the sufferings of society, Political\nEconomy is accused of engendering those sufferings by that same\ninvestigation.\n\nI assert that science can do nothing more than observe and establish\nfacts. Prove to us that humanity, instead of being progressive, is\nretrograde; and that inevitable and insurmountable laws urge mankind\non to irremediable deterioration. Show us that the law of Malthus and\nthat of Ricardo are true in their worst and most pernicious sense,\nand that it is impossible to deny the tyranny of capital, or the\nincompatibility between machinery and labour, or any of the other\ncontradictory alternatives in which Ch\u00e2teaubriand and Tocqueville\nhave placed the human race; then I maintain that science ought to\nproclaim this, and proclaim it aloud.\n\nWhy should we shut our eyes to a gulf which is gaping before us?\nDo we require the naturalist or the physiologist to reason upon\nindividual man, on the assumption that his organs are exempt from\npain or not liable to destruction? \u2039Pulvis es, et in pulverem\nreverteris\u203a; such is the declaration of anatomical science backed\nby universal experience. No doubt, this is a hard truth for us to\nreceive\u2014not less hard than the contested propositions of Malthus and\nRicardo. But are we for this reason to spare the delicate sensibility\nwhich has sprung up all at once among our modern [p506] publicists,\nand has given existence to Socialism? Is medical science, for the\nsame reason, to affirm audaciously that we are constantly renewing\nour youth and are immortal? Or, if medical science refuse to stoop to\nsuch juggling, are we to foam at the mouth, and cry out, as has been\ndone in the case of the social sciences\u2014\u201cMedical science admits the\nexistence of pain and death; it is misanthropical; it is cruel; it\naccuses God of being malevolent or powerless; it is impious; it is\natheistical; nay, more, it creates the evil the existence of which it\nrefuses to deny\u201d?\n\nI have never doubted that the Socialist schools have led away many\ngenerous hearts and earnest minds, and I have no wish to humiliate\nany one. But the general character of Socialism is very whimsical,\nand I cannot help asking myself how long such a tissue of puerilities\ncan continue in vogue.\n\nIn Socialism all is affectation.\n\nIt affects scientific forms and scientific language, and we have seen\nwhat sort of science it teaches.\n\nIn its writings, it affects a delicacy of nerve so feminine as to be\nunable to listen to a tale of social sufferings; and whilst it has\nintroduced into literature this insipid and mawkish sensibility, it\nhas established in the arts a taste for the trivial and the horrible;\nin ordinary life, a sort of scarecrow fashion in dress, appearance,\nand deportment\u2014the long beard, the grim and sullen countenance, the\nvulgar airs of a village Titan or Prometheus. In politics (where such\npuerilities are less innocent), Socialism has introduced the doctrine\nof energetic means of \u2039transition\u203a, the violence of revolutionary\npractices, life and material interests sacrificed \u2039en masse\u203a to what\nis ideal and chimerical. But what Socialism affects, above all, is\na certain show and appearance of religion? This is only one of the\nSocialist tactics, it is true\u2014such tactics are always disgraceful to\na school when they lead to hypocrisy.\n\nThese Socialists are perpetually talking to us of Christ; but I would\nask them, how it is that while they acknowledge that Christ, the\ninnocent \u2039par excellence\u203a, prayed in His agony that \u201cthe cup might\npass from Him,\u201d adding, \u201cNevertheless, not my will but Thine be\ndone,\u201d they should think it strange that mankind at large should be\ncalled upon to exercise resignation also.\n\nNo doubt, had God willed it, He might have so arranged His almighty\nplans that just as the individual advances towards inevitable death,\nthe human race might have advanced towards inevitable destruction. In\nthat case, we should have had no choice but to [p507] submit, and\nscience, whether she liked it or not, must have admitted the sombre\nsocial \u2039d\u00e9no\u00fbment\u203a, just as she now admits the melancholy individual\n\u2039d\u00e9no\u00fbment\u203a.\n\nBut happily it is not so.\n\nThere is redemption for man, and for humanity.\n\nThe one is indued with an immortal soul; the other with indefinite\nperfectibility.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0[p508]\n\n\n\n\n XXIV.\n PERFECTIBILITY.\n\n\nThat the human race is perfectible; that it progresses towards a\nhigher and higher level; that its wealth is increasing and becoming\nmore equalized; that its ideas are being enlarged and purified; that\nits errors, and the oppressions which these errors support, are\ndisappearing; that its knowledge shines with brighter and brighter\neffulgence; that its morality is improving; that it is learning,\nby reason or by experience, in the domain of responsibility, the\nart of earning a constantly larger amount of recompense, and a\nconstantly smaller amount of chastisement; that, consequently, evil\nis continually lessening, and good continually increasing;\u2014these are\nconclusions which it is impossible to doubt when we scrutinize the\nnature of man and that intelligent principle, which is his essence,\nwhich was breathed into him with the breath of life, and warrants the\nscriptural declaration that man is made in the image of God.\n\nWe know too well that man is not a perfect being. Were he perfect,\nhe would not reflect a vague resemblance of God; he would be\nGod himself. He is imperfect, then,\u2014subject to error and to\nsuffering,\u2014but, on the other hand, were he stationary, what title\ncould he have to claim the unspeakable privilege of bearing in\nhimself the image of a perfect being?\n\nMoreover, if intelligence, which is the faculty of comparing, of\njudging, of rectifying errors, of learning, does not constitute\nindividual perfectibility, what can constitute it?\n\nAnd if the union of all individual perfectibilities, especially among\nbeings capable of communicating to each other their acquisitions,\ndoes not afford a guarantee for collective perfectibility, we must\nrenounce all philosophy and all moral and political science.\n\nWhat constitutes man\u2019s perfectibility is his intelligence, or the\n[p509] faculty which has been given to him of passing from error,\nwhich is the parent of evil, to truth, which is the generating\nprinciple of good.\n\nIt is science and experience which cause man to abandon, in his mind,\nerror for truth, and afterwards, in his conduct, evil for good; it is\nthe discovery which he makes, in phenomena and in acts, of effects\nwhich he had not suspected.\n\nBut to enable him to acquire this science, he must have an interest\nin acquiring it. In order that he should profit by this experience,\nhe must have an interest in profiting by it. It is in the law of\nresponsibility, then, that we must search for the means of realizing\nhuman perfectibility.\n\nAnd as we can form no idea of responsibility apart from liberty;\nas acts which are not voluntary can afford neither instruction\nnor available experience; as beings capable of being improved or\ndeteriorated by the exclusive action of external causes without the\nparticipation of choice, reflection, or free will (although this\nhappens in the case of unconscious organized matter), could not be\ncalled perfectible, in the moral acceptation of the word, we must\nconclude that liberty is the very essence of progress. To impair\nman\u2019s liberty is not only to hurt and degrade him; it is to change\nhis nature; it is (in the measure and proportion in which such\noppression is exercised) to render him incapable of improvement; it\nis to despoil him of his resemblance to the Creator; it is to dim and\ndeaden in his noble nature that vital spark which glowed there from\nthe beginning.\n\nBut in thus proclaiming aloud our fixed and unalterable belief in\nhuman perfectibility, and in progress, which is necessary in every\nsense, and which, by a marvellous correspondence, is as much more\nactive in one direction as it is more active in all others, we must\nnot be regarded as indulging in Utopianism, or be considered as\noptimists, believing \u201call to be for the best, in the best of worlds,\u201d\nand expecting the immediate arrival of the millennium.\n\nAlas! when we turn our regards on the world as it is, and see around\nus the enormous amount of mud and meanness, suffering and complaint,\nvice and crime, which still exist,\u2014when we reflect on the moral\naction exerted on society by the classes who ought to point out to\nthe lagging multitude the way to the New Jerusalem,\u2014when we ask\nourselves what use the rich make of their fortune, the poets of their\ngenius, philosophers of their scientific lucubrations, journalists\nof the ministry with which they are invested, high functionaries,\nministers of state, representatives of the people, kings, of the\npower which fate has placed in their hands,\u2014when [p510] we witness\nrevolutions like that which has recently agitated Europe, and in\nwhich each man seems to be in search of what must in the long-run\nprove fatal to himself and to society at large,\u2014when we see cupidity\nin all shapes and among all ranks, the constant sacrifice of the\ninterests of others to our own selfish interest, and of the future to\nthe present,\u2014when we see that great and inevitable moving spring of\nthe human race, personal interest, still making its appearance only\nin manifestations the most material and the most improvident,\u2014when\nwe see the working classes, preyed upon by the parasitism of public\nfunctionaries, rise up in revolutionary convulsions, not against this\nwithering parasitism, but against wealth legitimately acquired, that\nis to say, against the very element of their own deliverance and the\nprinciple of their own right and force,\u2014when such spectacles present\nthemselves to us on all sides, we get afraid of ourselves, we tremble\nfor our faith in human perfectibility, the light would seem to waver,\nand be on the eve of extinction, leaving us in the fearful darkness\nof Pessimism.\n\nBut no\u2014there is no ground for despair. Whatever be the impressions\nwhich too recent circumstances have made upon us, humanity still\nmoves onward. What causes the illusion is that we measure the life of\nnations by the short span of our own individual lives; and because\na few years are a long period for us, we imagine them also a long\nperiod for them. But even adopting this inadequate measure, the\nprogress of society on all sides is visible. I need scarcely remind\nyou of the marvels which have already been accomplished in what\nconcerns material advantages, the improved salubrity of towns, and in\nthe means of locomotion and communication, etc.\n\nIn a political point of view, has the French nation gained no\nexperience? Who dares affirm that had all the difficulties through\nwhich we have just passed presented themselves half a century ago,\nor sooner, France would have overcome them with as much ability,\nprudence, and wisdom, and with so few sacrifices? I write these lines\nin a country which has been fertile in revolutions. Florence used to\nhave a rising every five years, and at each rising one-half of her\ncitizens robbed and murdered the other half. Had we only a little\nmore imagination\u2014not that which creates, invents, and assumes facts,\nbut that which recalls them and brings them to mind\u2014we should be\nmore just to our times and to our contemporaries! What remains true,\nand it is a truth which no one can know better than an Economist, is\nthis, that human progress, especially in its dawn, is excessively\nslow, so very slow as to give rise to despair in the heart of the\nphilanthropist.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. [p511]\n\nMen whose genius invests them with the power of the press ought, it\nseems to me, to regard things more nearly, before scattering amidst\nthe social fermentation discouraging speculations which imply for\nhumanity the alternative of two modes of degradation.\n\nWe have already seen some examples of this, when treating of\npopulation, of rent, of machinery, of the division of inheritance,\netc.\n\nHere is another, taken from M. de Ch\u00e2teaubriand, who merely\nformulates a fashionable conventionalism: \u201cThe corruption of morals\nand the civilisation of nations march abreast. If the last present\nmeans of liberty, the first is an inexhaustible source of slavery.\u201d\n\nIt is beyond doubt that civilisation presents means of liberty, and\nit is equally beyond doubt that corruption is a source of slavery.\nThat which is doubtful, more than doubtful,\u2014and what for my own\npart I deny solemnly and formally,\u2014is this, that civilisation and\ncorruption march abreast. If it were so, a fatal equilibrium would\nbe established between \u2039the means of liberty\u203a and \u2039the sources of\nslavery\u203a; and immobility would be the fate of the human race.\n\nThere cannot, moreover, enter into the human heart a thought more\nmelancholy, more discouraging, more desolating, a thought more fitted\nto urge us to despair, to irreligion, to impiety, to blasphemy, than\nthis, that every human being, whether he wills it or not, whether\nhe doubts it or not, proceeds on the road of civilisation\u2014and\ncivilisation is corruption!\n\nThen, if all civilisation be corruption, wherein consist its\nadvantages? It is impossible to pretend that civilisation is\nunattended with moral, intellectual, and material advantages, for\nthen it would cease to be civilisation. As Ch\u00e2teaubriand employs\nthe term, civilisation signifies material progress, an increase\nof population, of wealth, of prosperity, the development of\nintelligence, the advancement of the sciences; and all these steps of\nprogress imply, according to him, a corresponding retrogression of\nthe moral sense.\n\nThis were enough to tempt men to a wholesale suicide; for I repeat\nthat material and intellectual progress is not of our preparation\nand ordination. God himself has decreed it, in giving us expansible\ndesires and improvable faculties. We are urged on to it without\nwishing it, without knowing it,\u2014Ch\u00e2teaubriand, and his equals, if\nhe has any, more than any one else. And this progress is to sink\nus deeper and deeper into immorality and slavery, by means of\ncorruption!\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. [p512]\n\nI thought at first that Ch\u00e2teaubriand had let slip an unguarded\nphrase, as poets frequently do, without examining it too narrowly.\nWith that class of writers, sound sometimes runs away with sense.\nProvided the antithesis is symmetrical, what matters it that the\nthought be false or objectionable? Provided the metaphor produces its\nintended effect, that it has an air of inspiration and depth, that it\nsecures the applause of the public, and enables the author to pass\nfor an oracle, of what importance are exactitude and truth?\n\nI had thought, then, that Ch\u00e2teaubriand, giving way to a momentary\nexcess of misanthropy, had allowed himself to formulate a\nconventionalism, a vulgarism dragged from the kennel. \u201cCivilisation\nand corruption march abreast,\u201d is a phrase that has been repeated\nsince the days of Heraclitus, but it is not more true on that account.\n\nAt a distance of several years, however, the same great writer has\nreproduced the same thought, and in a more didactic form; which shows\nthat it expressed his deliberate opinion. It is proper to combat\nit, not because it comes from Ch\u00e2teaubriand, but because it has got\nabroad, and so generally prevails.\n\n\u201cThe material condition is ameliorated,\u201d he says, \u201cintellectual\nprogress advances, and nations, in place of profiting, decay. Here\nis the explanation of the decay of society and the growth of the\nindividual. Had the moral sense been developed in proportion to the\ndevelopment of intelligence, there would have been a counter weight,\nand the human race would have grown greater without danger. But it\nis just the contrary which happens. The perception of good and evil\nis obscured in proportion as intelligence is enlightened; conscience\nbecomes narrowed in proportion as ideas are enlarged.\u201d\u2014\u2039M\u00e9moires\nd\u2019Outre-Tombe\u203a, vol. xi. [p513]\n\n\n\n\n XXV.\n\n RELATIONS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY WITH\n MORALS, WITH POLITICS, WITH\n LEGISLATION.[116]\n\n WITH RELIGION.\n\n\nA phenomenon is always found placed between two other phenomena, one\nof which is its \u2039efficient\u203a, and the other its \u2039final\u203a cause; [p514]\nand science has not done with that phenomenon as long as either of\nthese relations remains undeveloped.\n\nThe human mind generally begins, I think, with the discovery of\nfinal causes, because they are more immediately interesting to us.\nNo species of knowledge, besides, leads us with more force towards\nreligious ideas, or is more fitted to make us feel in all the fibres\nof our heart a lively sense of gratitude for the inexhaustible\ngoodness of God.\n\nHabit, it is true, has so familiarized us with a great number of\nthese \u2039providential intentions\u203a, that we enjoy them without thought.\nWe see, and we hear, without thinking of the ingenious mechanism of\nthe eye and of the ear. The sun, the dew, the rain, lavish upon us\ntheir useful effects, or their gentle sensations, without awakening\nour surprise or our gratitude. This is solely owing to the continued\naction upon us of these admirable phenomena. For let a final cause,\nalthough comparatively insignificant, come to be disclosed to us for\nthe first time, let the botanist explain to us why this plant affects\nsuch or such a form, or why that other is clothed in such or such a\ncolour, we immediately feel in our heart the unspeakable enchantment\nwith which new proofs of the power, the goodness, and the wisdom of\nGod never fail to penetrate us.\n\nThe region of final intentions, then, is for man\u2019s imagination as an\natmosphere impregnated with religious ideas.\n\nBut after we have perceived, or had a glimpse of the phenomenon in\nthis aspect, we have still to study it in another relation, that is\nto say, to seek for its efficient cause. [p515]\n\nIt is strange, but it sometimes happens, that after having obtained\nthe full knowledge of that cause, we find that it carries with it\nso necessarily the effect which we had admired at first, that we\nrefuse to recognise in it longer the character of a final cause; and\nwe say: \u201cI was very simple to believe that God had provided such an\narrangement with such a design; I see now that the cause which I have\ndiscovered being given (and it is inevitable), this arrangement must\nfollow necessarily, apart from any pretended providential intention.\u201d\n\nIt is thus that defective and superficial science, with its scalpel\nand its analyses, comes sometimes to destroy in our souls the\nreligious sentiment to which the simple aspect of nature had given\nrise.\n\nThis is the case frequently with the anatomist and the astronomer.\nWhat a strange thing it is, exclaims the ignorant man, that when an\nextraneous substance penetrates into a tissue, where its presence\ndoes great injury, an inflammation and a suppuration take place,\nwhich tend to expel it! No, says the anatomist, there is nothing\nintentional in that expulsion. It is a \u2039necessary\u203a effect of the\nsuppuration; and the suppuration itself is a \u2039necessary\u203a effect of\nthe presence of an extraneous substance in our tissues. If you wish\nit, I shall explain to you the mechanism, and you will acknowledge\nyourself that the effect follows the cause, but that the cause has\nnot been arranged intentionally to produce that effect, since it is\nitself the necessary effect of an anterior cause.\n\nHow I admire, says the ignorant man, the foresight of God, who has\nwilled that the rain should not descend on the soil in a sheet, but\nshould fall in drops, as if it came from the gardener\u2019s watering-pot!\nWere it not so, vegetation would be impossible. You throw away your\nadmiration, answers the learned naturalist; the cloud is not a sheet\nof water; if it were, it could not be supported by the atmosphere.\nIt is a collection of microscopic vesicles, or minute bladders like\nsoap-bubbles. When their density increases, or when they burst by\ncompression, these thousands of millions of infinitesimal drops fall,\ngrowing larger in their descent by the vapour of the water which they\nprecipitate, etc. If vegetation is benefited in consequence, it is by\naccident; but we must not think that the Creator amuses himself in\nsending us down water through the sieve of a monster watering-pot.\n\nIgnorance, we must confess, very often imparts a certain plausibility\nto science, when the connexion of causes and effects is regarded in\nthis way, by attributing a phenomenon to a final intention which\ndoes not exist, and which is dissipated before the light of superior\nknowledge. [p516]\n\nThus, in former days, before men had any knowledge of electricity,\nthey were frightened by the noise of thunder, being able to recognise\nin that astounding voice, bellowing amid the storm, nothing less\nthan a manifestation of Divine wrath. This is an association of\nideas which, like many others, has disappeared before the progress\nof physical science. Man is so constituted, that when a phenomenon\naffects him, he searches for the cause of it; and if he finds out\nthat cause, he gives it a name. Then he sets himself to find out\nthe cause of that cause, and so he goes on until he can mount no\nhigher, when he stops, and exclaims, \u201c\u2039It is God; it is the will of\nGod\u203a.\u201d This is his \u2039ultima ratio\u203a. He is arrested, however, only\nfor the moment. Science advances, and soon this second, third, or\nfourth cause, which had remained unperceived, is revealed to his\neyes. Then science says, This effect is not due, as we believed, to\nthe immediate will of God, but to that natural cause which I have\njust discovered. And man, after having taken possession of this\ndiscovery, after having gained this step in the region of science,\nfinds himself, so to speak, one step farther removed from the region\nof Faith, and again asks, What is the cause of that cause? And not\nfinding it, he persists in the ever-recurring explanation, \u201cIt is the\nwill of God.\u201d And so he proceeds onwards for indefinite ages, through\na countless succession of scientific revelations and exercises of\nfaith.\n\nThis procedure on the part of mankind must appear to superficial\nminds to be destructive of every religious idea; for is the result\nof it not this, that as science advances, God recedes? Do we not see\nclearly that the domain of final intentions is narrowed in proportion\nas the domain of natural causes is enlarged?\n\nUnhappy are they who give to this fine problem so narrow a solution.\nNo, it is not true that as science advances, the idea of God\nrecedes. On the contrary, what is true is that, as our intelligence\nincreases, this idea is enlarged, and broadened, and elevated. When\nwe discover a natural cause for what we had imagined an immediate,\nspontaneous, supernatural act of the Divine will, are we to conclude\nthat that will is absent or indifferent? No, indeed; all that it\nproves is, that that will acts by processes different from those\nwhich it had pleased us to imagine. All that it proves is, that the\nphenomenon which we regarded as an accident in creation occupies\nits place in the universal frame; and that everything, even the\nmost special effects, have been foreseen from all eternity by the\ndivine prescience. What! is the idea which we form of the power of\nGod lessened when we come to see that each of the countless results\nwhich we discover, or which escape our [p517] investigations, not\nonly has its natural cause, but is bound up in an infinite circle of\ncauses; so that there is not a detail of movement, of force, of form,\nof life, which is not the product of the great whole, or which can be\nexplained apart from that whole.\n\nBut why this dissertation, which is foreign, as it would seem,\nto the main object of our inquiries? The phenomena of the social\neconomy have likewise their efficient cause, and their providential\nintention. In this department, as in natural science, as in anatomy,\nor in astronomy, men have frequently denied the final cause precisely\nbecause the efficient cause assumes the character of an absolute\nnecessity.\n\nThe social world abounds in harmonies, of which we can form no\nadequate or complete conception until the mind has remounted to\ncauses, in order to seek their explanation, and descended to effects,\nto discover the destination of the phenomena.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\n\n\n\n NOTES.\n\n TRANSLATOR\u2019S PREFACE\n\n [1]\u00a0\u00a0Notice, etc., p. 30, \u2039note\u203a [TRANSCRIBER\u2019S NOTE: This refers to\n NOTE 11 Below].\n\n NOTICE OF THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF FR\u00c9D\u00c9RIC BASTIAT.\n\n [2]\u00a0\u00a0\u2039Notice sur la vie, etc.\u203a\u2014\u2039\u0152uvres Compl\u00e8tes\u203a, t. i. pp. 10, 11.\n\n [3]\u00a0\u00a0\u2039Correspondance\u203a\u2014\u2039\u0152uvres Compl\u00e8tes\u203a, t. i. p. 27. \u2039Revue des\n Deux Mondes\u203a, t. xvii. p. 139.\n\n [4]\u00a0\u00a0\u2039\u0152uvres Compl\u00e8tes\u203a, tome i. p. 244.\n\n [5]\u00a0\u00a0Tome xvii. p. 148.\n\n [6]\u00a0\u00a0\u2039Revue des Deux Mondes\u203a, t. xvii. p. 146.\n\n [7]\u00a0\u00a0\u2039Correspondance\u203a\u2014\u2039\u0152uvres Compl\u00e8tes\u203a, t. i. p. 99.\n\n [8]\u00a0\u00a0\u2039Notice sur la vie\u203a, etc.\u2014\u2039\u0152uvres Compl\u00e8tes\u203a, t. i. p. 18.\n\n [9]\u00a0\u00a0This admirable work, the best and most complete treatise on\n money which exists in any language, well deserves a place in English\n literature.\n\n [10]\u00a0\u00a0\u201cGod made the country; and it is perhaps in surveying plains,\n and meads, and mountains, remote from man, that the mind is most\n elevated to pure and high contemplations. But cities, temples, and\n the memorials of past ages, bridges, aqueducts, statues, pictures,\n and all the elegancies and comforts of the town, are equally the\n work of God, through the propensities of His creatures, and, we must\n presume, for the fulfilment of His design.\u201d\u2014\u2039Sir Charles Bell on the\n Hand\u203a, ch. 3.\n\n [11]\u00a0\u00a0The following list of chapters, intended to complete the\n \u2039Harmonies \u00c9conomiques\u203a, found among the author\u2019s papers, is\n exceedingly interesting. Of those marked * no notes or traces were\n found.\n\n \u00abNormal Phenomena.\u00bb\n\n 1. Producer\u2014Consumer.\n 2. The Two Aphorisms.\n 3. Theory of Rent.\n 4. *Money.\n 5. *Credit.\n 6. Wages.\n 7. Saving.\n 8. Population.\n 9. Private and Public Services.\n 10. *Taxation.\n\n \u00abCorollaries.\u00bb\n\n 11. Machinery.\n 12. Free Trade.\n 13. Intermediaries.\n 14. Raw Materials\u2014Manufactured Products.\n 15. Luxury.\n\n \u00abDisturbing Phenomena.\u00bb\n\n 16. Spoliation.\n 17. War.\n 18. *Slavery.\n 19. *Theocracy.\n 20. *Monopoly.\n 21. Governmental Undertakings.\n 22. False Fraternity or Communism.\n\n \u00abGeneral Views.\u00bb\n\n 23. Responsibility\u2014Solidarity.\n 24. Personal Interest or Social Motive Force.\n 25. Perfectibility.\n 26. *Public Opinion.\n 27. *Relations of Political Economy.\n     with Morals,\n     *with Politics,\n     *with Legislation,\n     with Religion.\n\n TO THE YOUTH OF FRANCE\n\n [12]\u00a0\u00a0The First Edition of the \u2039Harmonies \u00c9conomiques\u203a appeared in\n 1850.\u2014\u00abTranslator.\u00bb\n\n [13]\u00a0\u00a0The author employs the term \u2039prol\u00e9taire\u203a, for which we have no\n equivalent word, to distinguish the man who lives by wages from the\n man who lives upon realized property\u2014\u201cles hommes qui n\u2019ont que leurs\n bras, les salari\u00e9s.\u201d\u2014\u2039See post\u203a, Chap. X.\u2014\u00abTranslator.\u00bb\n\n [14]\u00a0\u00a0I shall explain this law by figures: Suppose three periods\n during which capital increases, labour remaining the same. Let the\n total production at these three periods be as 80\u2014100\u2014120. It will be\n thus divided:\n\n                  Capitalist\u2019s   Labourer\u2019s   Total.\n                    share.         share.\n First Period,        45             35         80\n Second Period,       50             50        100\n Third Period,        55             65        120\n\n Of course these proportions are merely given for the sake of\n illustration.\n\n I. NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL ORGANIZATION\n\n [15]\u00a0\u00a0This Chapter was first published in the \u2039Journal des\n \u00c9conomistes\u203a, January 1848.\u2014\u00abEditor.\u00bb\n\n [16]\u00a0\u00a0Allusion to a socialist work of the day\u2014\u2039La Reforme\n industrielle, ou la Phalanst\u00e8re, par Ch. Fourier\u203a.\u2014\u00abTranslator.\u00bb\n\n [17]\u00a0\u00a0\u2039M\u00e9tayage\u203a is a mode of letting farms in the south of\n Europe, where the landlord furnishes a proportion of the means\n of cultivation, and shares the produce with the cultivator, or\n \u2039m\u00e9tayer\u203a.\u2014\u00abTranslator.\u00bb\n\n [18]\u00a0\u00a0\u201cIt is averred that the r\u00e9gime of free competition demanded\n by an ignorant Political Economy, and intended to do away with\n monopolies, tends only to the general organization of monster\n monopolies in all departments.\u201d\u2014\u2039Principes du Socialisme, par M.\n Consid\u00e9rant\u203a, p. 15.\n\n II. WANTS, EFFORTS, SATISFACTIONS\n\n [19]\u00a0\u00a0This and the following chapter were inserted in the \u2039Journal\n des \u00c9conomistes\u203a, September and December 1848.\u2014\u00abEditor.\u00bb\n\n [20]\u00a0\u00a0Icarie, Phalanst\u00e8re, etc.,\u2014allusion to Socialist works of the\n day.\u2014\u00abTranslator.\u00bb\n\n [21]\u00a0\u00a0\u201cOur industrial r\u00e9gime, founded on competition without\n guarantee and without organization, is then only a social hell, a\n vast realization of all the torments and all the punishments of\n the ancient T\u00e6narus. There is one difference, however\u2014namely, the\n victims.\u201d\u2014(\u2039Vide Consid\u00e9rant.\u203a)\n\n III. WANTS OF MAN\n\n [22]\u00a0\u00a0A mathematical law of frequent occurrence, but very little\n understood in Political Economy.\n\n [23]\u00a0\u00a0One of the indirect objects of this work is to combat modern\n sentimental schools, who, in spite of facts, refuse to admit that\n suffering to any extent enters into the designs of Providence. As\n these schools are said to proceed from Rousseau, I must here cite\n to them a passage from their master: \u201cThe evil which we see is not\n absolute evil; and far from being directly antagonistic to the good,\n it concurs with it in the universal harmony.\u201d\n\n [24]\u00a0\u00a0The term \u2039consumption\u203a employed by English Economists, the\n French Economists translate by \u2039consommation\u203a.\u2014\u00abTranslator.\u00bb\n\n IV. EXCHANGE\n\n [25]\u00a0\u00a0V. J. B. Say.\n\n [26]\u00a0\u00a0Moreover, this slave, by reason of his superiority, ends in\n the long-run by depreciating and emancipating all others. This is a\n \u2039harmony\u203a which I leave to the sagacity of the reader to follow to\n its consequences.\n\n [27]\u00a0\u00a0See \u2039Sophismes \u00c9conomiques\u203a (English edition), 2d series, p.\n 127, \u2039et seq.\u203a\n\n [28]\u00a0\u00a0What follows is from a note found among the author\u2019s papers.\n Had he lived, he would have incorporated the substance of it in the\n body of his dissertation on Exchange. All that we feel authorized to\n do is to place it at the end of the present chapter.\u2014\u00abEditor.\u00bb\n\n [29]\u00a0\u00a0See, for the refutation of this error, chapter xi.,\n \u2039post.\u203a\u2014Also chapters ii. and iii. of \u2039Sophismes \u00c9conomiques\u203a,\n English Edition.\n\n V. OF VALUE\n\n [30]\u00a0\u00a0I have ventured to state elsewhere some of the reasons which\n induce me to doubt the entire soundness of Bastiat\u2019s conclusions on\n the subject of Rent and the Value of Land.\u2014See note to chapter ix.\n \u2039post\u203a.\u2014\u00abTranslator.\u00bb\n\n [31]\u00a0\u00a0French Economists of the school of Quesnay.\u2014\u00abTranslator.\u00bb\n\n [32]\u00a0\u00a0Adds! The subject had then intrinsic value, anterior to the\n bestowal of labour upon it. That could only come from nature.\n The action of nature is not then \u2039gratuitous\u203a, according to this\n showing; but in that case, who can have the audacity to exact\n payment for this portion of \u2039superhuman\u203a value?\n\n [33]\u00a0\u00a0The French Economists translate our word \u2039consumption\u203a by\n consommation.\u2014\u00abTranslator.\u00bb\n\n [34]\u00a0\u00a0It is because, in a state of freedom, efforts compete with\n each other that they obtain this remuneration nearly in proportion\n to their intensity. But, I repeat, this proportionality is not\n inherent in the notion of value.\n\n It is a proof that where this competition does not exist the\n proportionality ceases. In that case we discover no relation between\n divers kinds of labour and their remuneration.\n\n The absence of competition may result from the nature of things or\n from human perversity.\n\n If it arises from the nature of things, we shall see a very small\n amount of labour give rise to great \u2039value\u203a, and no one have reason\n to complain. Such is the case of the man who finds a diamond. Such\n is the case of Rubini, of Malibran, of Taglioni, of a fashionable\n tailor, of the proprietor of the Clos-Vougeot, etc., etc.\n Circumstances have put them in possession of rare means of rendering\n service; they have no rivals, and exact a high price. \u2039The service\n being, from its very nature, of excessive rarity\u203a, shows that it\n is not essential to the well-being and progress of mankind. It is\n an object of luxury, of vanity, which wealthy people are enabled\n to procure. Is it not natural that a man, before indulging in such\n satisfactions, should wait until he finds himself in a situation to\n provide for wants which are more imperious and more reasonable?\n\n If competition is absent in consequence of some human intervention,\n the same effects are produced, but with this enormous difference,\n that they have been produced where they ought not. In that case\n we see a comparatively small amount of labour give rise to great\n value; but how? By forcibly interdicting that competition the effect\n of which is to proportion remuneration to services. Then, just as\n Rubini might say to a \u2039dilettante\u203a. \u201cYou must pay me handsomely,\n or I don\u2019t sing this evening,\u201d\u2014presuming on being able to render a\n service which no one else can render,\u2014in the same way a butcher, a\n baker, a landlord, a banker, may say, \u201cI must have an extravagant\n price, or you shall have none of my corn, my bread, my meat, my\n gold; and I have adopted precautions, I shall employ force, to\n prevent you being able to provide yourself elsewhere, and to make\n sure that no one shall render you services analogous to mine.\u201d\n\n People who assimilate artificial to what they call natural\n monopolies, because they have this in common, that they enhance the\n value of labour, such people, I say, are both blind and superficial.\n\n Artificial monopoly is nothing else than spoliation. It produces\n evils which, apart from it, did not exist. It inflicts privations on\n a considerable portion of society, frequently as regards commodities\n of primary necessity. Moreover, it gives rise to irritation,\n hatreds, reprisals,\u2014all the fruits of injustice.\n\n Natural advantages do no harm to mankind. At most we can say that\n they merely exhibit pre-existent evils, imputable to no one. It may\n be regretted, perhaps, that tokay is not as cheap and as abundant as\n \u2039vin ordinaire\u203a. But that is not a social evil; it is one imposed on\n us by nature.\n\n Between natural and artificial monopolies, then, there is this\n essential difference:\n\n The one is the effect of scarcity, pre-existent and inevitable.\n\n The other is the effect of a scarcity which is factitious and\n unnatural.\n\n In the first case, it is not the absence of competition which\n creates the scarcity; it is the scarcity which explains the absence\n of competition. Society would be puerile were it to complain and\n torment itself because there is in the world only one Jenny Lind,\n one Clos-Vougeot, one Regent.\n\n In the second case it is very different. It is not on account of\n a providential scarcity that competition becomes impossible, but\n because force has repressed and put down competition that there is\n created among men a scarcity which ought not to have existed.\u2014(\u2039Note\n extracted from MSS. left by the Author.\u203a)\n\n [35]\u00a0\u00a0\u2039Vide post\u203a, chap. xv.\n\n \u2039Accumulation\u203a is a circumstance of no account in Political Economy.\n\n Let the satisfaction be immediate or delayed, let it be adjourned or\n follow instantly on the effort,\u2014in what respect does this change the\n nature of things?\n\n I choose to make a sacrifice to enjoy the pleasure of hearing a\n fine voice. I go to the theatre, and pay for my entertainment\u2014the\n satisfaction is immediate. I devote my money to the purchase of\n a basket of strawberries, and I can delay my satisfaction till\n to-morrow\u2014that is all.\n\n It may be said that the strawberries constitute wealth, because I\n can exchange them. True. Whilst the effort has been made and the\n satisfaction is delayed, wealth subsists. It is satisfaction which\n destroys wealth. When the strawberries been eaten the satisfaction\n will be on a level with that which I derived from hearing Alboni.\n\n Service received\u2014service rendered\u2014this is political economy.\u2014(\u2039Note\n from MSS. left by the Author.\u203a)\n\n [36]\u00a0\u00a0What follows was intended by the author to form part of this\n chapter.\n\n [37]\u00a0\u00a0These are the words by which Roman lawyers designated what\n they termed \u2039innominate\u203a contracts, as distinguished from contracts\n with known names, as \u2039purchase\u203a and \u2039sale\u203a, \u2039letting\u203a, \u2039hiring\u203a,\n \u2039borrowing\u203a, \u2039lending\u203a, etc.\u2014\u00abTranslator.\u00bb\n\n [38]\u00a0\u00a0\u2039Trait\u00e9 d\u2019\u00c9conomie Politique\u203a, p. 1.\n\n VI. WEALTH\n\n [39]\u00a0\u00a0\u2039Nouvel essai sur la Richesse des Nations\u203a, p. 438.\n\n [40]\u00a0\u00a0\u2039Ib.\u203a, p. 263.\n\n [41]\u00a0\u00a0\u2039Ib.\u203a, p. 456.\n\n [42]\u00a0\u00a0\u2039Ib.\u203a, p. 456.\n\n [43]\u00a0\u00a0\u2039Nouvel essai sur la Richesse des Nations\u203a, p. 161.\n\n [44]\u00a0\u00a0\u2039Ib.\u203a, p. 168.\n\n [45]\u00a0\u00a0\u2039Ib.\u203a, p. 168\n\n [46]\u00a0\u00a0\u2039Ib.\u203a, p. 63.\n\n [47]\u00a0\u00a0The Earl of Lauderdale, from adopting the false principle\n which the author here exposes, fell into the same error, maintaining\n that \u201c\u2039an increase of riches\u203a, when arising from alterations in\n the quantity of commodities, is always a proof of the immediate\n \u2039diminution of wealth\u203a,\u201d and that a diminution of riches is evidence\n of an immediate increase of wealth; and that \u201cin proportion as the\n \u2039riches\u203a of individuals are increased by an augmentation of the\n \u2039value\u203a of any commodity, the wealth of the nation is generally\n diminished; and in proportion as the mass of individual \u2039riches\u203a\n is diminished by the diminution of the \u2039value\u203a of the commodity,\n the national opulence is generally increased.\u201d This melancholy\n paradox Lord Lauderdale maintained stoutly in a set treatise.\n See \u2039Inquiry into the Nature and Origin of Public Wealth by the\n Earl of Lauderdale\u203a. Edition 1804, p. 50. Mr Ricardo has given an\n exposition of the \u201cDistinctive Properties of Value and Riches\u201d in\n his work on the \u2039Principles of Political Economy\u203a. Third Edition, p.\n 320.\u2014\u00abTranslator.\u00bb\n\n [48]\u00a0\u00a0\u201cDo you take the side of Competition, you are wrong\u2014do you\n argue against Competition, you are still wrong; which means that you\n are always right.\u201d\u2014P. J. Proudhon, \u2039Contradictions \u00c9conomiques\u203a, p.\n 182.\n\n [49]\u00a0\u00a0Always this perpetual and lamentable confusion between\n Value and Utility? I can show you many utilities which are not\n appropriated, but I defy you to show me in the whole world a single\n \u2039value\u203a which has not a proprietor.\n\n [50]\u00a0\u00a0What follows is the commencement of a supplementary note found\n among the papers of the author.\u2014\u00abTranslator.\u00bb\n\n VII. CAPITAL\n\n [51]\u00a0\u00a0See my brochure entitled \u2039Capital et Rente\u203a.\n\n [52]\u00a0\u00a0Allusion to Socialist works\u2014\u2039La R\u00e9forme industrielle, ou\n le Phalanst\u00e8re, Recueil periodique, r\u00e9dig\u00e9 par Ch. Fourier\u203a,\n 1832.\u2014\u2039Visite au Phalanst\u00e8re, par M. Briancourt\u203a, 1848.\u2014\u2039Voyage en\n Icarie, par Cabet\u203a, 1848, etc.\u2014\u00abTranslator.\u00bb\n\n [53]\u00a0\u00a0\u2039Ante\u203a, p. 82, \u2039et. seq.\u203a\n\n VIII. PROPERTY\u2014COMMUNITY\n\n [54]\u00a0\u00a0Public warehouses where goods were deposited, and negotiable\n receipts issued in exchange for them.\u2014\u00abTranslator.\u00bb\n\n IX. LANDED PROPERTY\n\n [55]\u00a0\u00a0\u2039Wealth of Nations\u203a (Buchanan\u2019s 2d edit.), vol. ii. p. 53.\n\n [56]\u00a0\u00a0\u2039Ib.\u203a, vol. ii. p. 54.\n\n [57]\u00a0\u00a0\u2039Ib.\u203a, vol. ii. p. 55, note.\n\n [58]\u00a0\u00a0\u2039Ricardo\u2019s Political Works\u203a (M\u2019Culloch\u2019s edit.), pp. 34, 35.\n\n [59]\u00a0\u00a0The words in \u2039italics\u203a and \u2039capitals\u203a are thus printed in the\n original text.\n\n [60]\u00a0\u00a0\u2039Alterner un champ\u203a, is to rear alternate crops of corn and\n hay in a field.\u2014\u00abTranslator.\u00bb\n\n [61]\u00a0\u00a0On the subject of Rent, and the constituent elements of the\n Value of Land, Bastiat would seem to have adopted, though perhaps\n unconsciously, the theory of Mr Carey, in his able and original work\n on \u2039The Principles of Political Economy\u203a (Philadelphia, 1837-38).\n Practically, no doubt, Mr Carey\u2019s view of the subject to a great\n extent holds true. If we take into account all the labour and\n capital laid out in permanent ameliorations upon a field or a farm,\n from its first clearance to the present moment, it may be true that\n there is scarcely any land now under cultivation which is worth\n what it cost; and that the Rent yielded by such land, consequently,\n resolves itself into the remuneration of anterior labour. But\n the sweeping assertion of Bastiat, that \u201cland which has not been\n subjected, directly or indirectly, to human action is everywhere\n destitute of value,\u201d is certainly not correct as a \u201cmatter of fact;\u201d\n for from the spot where I am now writing, I can see thousands of\n acres which have never since the creation had a spade, or a plough,\n or a human hand applied to them, which nevertheless do yield a\n Rent\u2014a small rent, a shilling, a penny an acre, it may be\u2014but a\n return which can by no process of analysis be resolved into the\n remuneration of anterior labour or capital. With regard to such\n land, the question of rent or no rent would seem to depend on the\n current and usual rate of profits.\n\n Land in its natural state, and without cultivation, is capable\n of producing grass for the food of cattle, and other products\n capable of rendering service to man. Suppose, for example, that the\n agriculture of a country has reached the least productive corn-land,\n which yields a return of \u00a3120 for each \u00a3100 of capital employed in\n its cultivation, and that much of the remaining land is incapable of\n cultivation,\u2014a tract of moorland, or rough pasture, for instance,\n like some parts of the Highlands of Scotland. Whether such land\n will or will not yield a rent must depend on whether the return,\n in sheep, cattle, copsewood, or other produce, after replacing the\n capital employed, exceeds or falls short of 20 per cent.\n\n Suppose that a person possessed of a capital equal to \u00a3100, instead\n of applying that capital to the cultivation of the least productive\n corn-land, with a return equal to \u00a3120, employs his \u00a3100 in\n purchasing, tending, and bringing to market 100 sheep,\u2014if the annual\n produce and increase of his flock, over and above his necessary\n outgoings, amounts only to 10 per cent. on his capital, of course he\n will find the rearing of sheep unprofitable, and give up the trade.\n He can in that case pay no rent, for his return is not equal to\n even the ordinary profits. But if the increase of his flock, over\n and above his outgoings, amounts to 30 per cent. on the capital\n employed, then the land to which we refer will yield a rent equal\n to 10 per cent. on that capital. Whether this shall be the rent of\n 10, of 50, or 100, or 1000 acres of land, depends entirely on how\n much land is required to feed 100 sheep; the greater the extent of\n land, the less will be the rent of each acre; it may be a pound, or\n a shilling, or a penny an acre; still every acre, and every part of\n every acre, will yield a \u2039rent\u203a. Nor does the question of rent or no\n rent depend on the amount of the capital employed; for if a capital\n of \u00a3100 employed on 10,000 acres of land yields a clear return of\n \u00a3130 when profits are at 20 per cent., the surplus \u00a310 clearly\n constitutes rent. Rent depends on the ratio of the product to the\n capital employed, and if that product, or its value, exceed the\n capital, or its value, by more than the ordinary rate of profits,\n a rent, greater or less in amount, according to the value of the\n capital and the extent of surface over which that capital is spread,\n will be yielded by every inch of land capable of giving nourishment\n to a blade of grass.\n\n On a searching analysis of rent, then, we always find a \u2039residuum\u203a\n which cannot be resolved into the remuneration of anterior labour or\n capital; and as the value of land in its natural and uncultivated\n state depends on the amount of this residuum, or rent, if that\n value is to be brought within the limits of Bastiat\u2019s theory, we\n must apply to it the same principle which he applied (Chap. V.,\n pp. 139-141 \u2039ante\u203a) to the case of a diamond found by accident,\n and resolve it, not into service rendered by undergoing labour,\n or \u2039making an effort\u203a, for another, but into service rendered by\n \u2039saving\u203a another from undergoing the labour or making the effort\n for himself. Bastiat seems to have felt this as he approached the\n conclusion of the present chapter. (See \u2039post\u203a, p. 282.)\n\n In this part of his work, Bastiat, in his desire to refute the\n fallacies of the Socialists and Communists on the subject of\n property, seems to have gone beyond the proper domain of Political\n Economy; for in strictness it is not the business of that science\n to vindicate the institution of property, or to explain its origin.\n It is enough for the Economist that property \u2039exists\u203a, and all that\n he is concerned to do is to explain the laws which regulate the\n production, distribution, and consumption of wealth.\u2014\u00abTranslator.\u00bb\n\n [62]\u00a0\u00a0Ricardo.\n\n X. COMPETITION\n\n [63]\u00a0\u00a0\u2039Ante\u203a, p. 48 \u2039et seq.\u203a\n\n [64]\u00a0\u00a0Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.\u2014\u00abTranslator.\u00bb\n\n [65]\u00a0\u00a0See Voltaire\u2019s tragedy, \u2039Le Fanatisme\u203a.\u2014\u00abTranslator.\u00bb\n\n XI. PRODUCER\u2014CONSUMER\n\n [66]\u00a0\u00a0\u2039Economic Sophisms\u203a, chap. 1.\n\n [67]\u00a0\u00a0Allusion to Socialist works. See p. 205, \u2039ante\u203a.\n\n [68]\u00a0\u00a0See the author\u2019s discourse \u2039Sur l\u2019Imp\u00f4t des Boissons\u203a, in\n the second edition of the pamphlet entitled \u2039Incompatibilit\u00e9s\n Parlementaires\u203a.\u2014\u00abEditor.\u00bb\n\n XII. THE TWO APHORISMS\n\n [69]\u00a0\u00a0When the van-guard of the Icarian expedition left Havre, I\n questioned some of these visionaries with a view to discover their\n real thoughts. \u2039Competence easily obtained\u203a, such was their hope and\n their motive. One of them said to me, \u201cI am going, and my brother\n follows with the second expedition. He has eight children, and you\n see what a great thing it will be for him to have no longer to\n educate and maintain them.\u201d \u201cI see it at once,\u201d I replied, \u201cbut\n that heavy charge must fall on some other body.\u201d To rid oneself of\n a burden and transfer it to the shoulders of another, such was the\n sense in which these unfortunate people understood the apophthegm of\n Fraternity\u2014\u2039all for each\u203a.\n\n [70]\u00a0\u00a0See the pamphlet \u2039Spoliation et Loi\u203a, p. 22 \u2039et seq.\u203a\u2014\u00abEditor.\u00bb\n\n XIII. RENT\n\n [71]\u00a0\u00a0Two or three short fragments are all that the author has left\n us on this important subject. The reason is, that he proposed, as he\n has told us, to set forth the views of Mr Carey of Philadelphia, in\n opposition to the theory of Ricardo.\u2014\u00abEditor.\u00bb\n\n [72]\u00a0\u00a0Celebrated vineyard of Burgundy.\u2014\u00abTranslator.\u00bb\n\n [73]\u00a0\u00a0Of these intended developments none, unfortunately, exist;\n but we may be permitted to notice, briefly, the two principal\n consequences of the state of matters supposed by the author.\n\n 1. Two fields, the one cultivated, A, the other uncultivated, B,\n being supposed of identical quality, the amount of labour formerly\n devoted to the clearance of A is assumed as the necessary measure of\n the amount of labour required for the clearance of B. We may even\n say that, on account of our now superior knowledge of agriculture,\n of our implements, of our improved means of communication, etc.,\n a \u2039less\u203a amount of labour would now be necessary to bring B into\n cultivation than was formerly required in the case of A. If land\n had value in itself, A would be worth all that it cost to bring it\n into culture, \u2039plus something additional for its natural productive\n powers\u203a; that is to say, much more than the sum now required to\n bring B into the same state. Now it is just the reverse. The field A\n is worth less since we buy it rather than bring B into cultivation.\n In purchasing A, then, we pay nothing for the natural productive\n powers, since the price does not even compensate the original cost\n of bringing it into cultivation.\n\n 2. If the field A produces 1000 measures of corn, the field B when\n cultivated must be supposed to produce the same quantity. The reason\n why A was formerly cultivated was, that formerly 1000 measures of\n corn amply remunerated all the labour required both for its original\n clearance and its annual cultivation. The reason why B is not\n cultivated is, that now 1000 measures of corn would not remunerate\n the same amount of labour, or even a less amount, as we have just\n before remarked.\n\n And what does this show? Evidently that the value of human labour\n has risen in relation to corn; that a day\u2019s labour is worth more\n wages estimated in corn. In other words, corn is obtained with\n less effort, and is exchanged for a less amount of labour; and the\n theory of \u2039the progressive dearness of the means of subsistence is\n erroneous\u203a.\u2014\u00abEditor.\u00bb\n\n MONEY\n\n [74]\u00a0\u00a0See the author\u2019s brochure, \u2039Maudit Argent\u203a.\u2014\u00abEditor.\u00bb\n\n CREDIT\n\n [75]\u00a0\u00a0See the author\u2019s brochure, \u2039Gratuit\u00e9 du Credit\u203a.\u2014\u00abEditor.\u00bb\n\n XIV. WAGES\n\n [76]\u00a0\u00a0See \u2039ante\u203a, chapters i. and ii.\n\n [77]\u00a0\u00a0\u2039Ante\u203a, p. 172.\n\n [78]\u00a0\u00a0See \u2039post\u203a, chapter xx., on \u2039Responsibility\u203a.\n\n [79]\u00a0\u00a0Extract from \u2039La Presse\u203a, 22d June 1850.\n\n [80]\u00a0\u00a0\u2039Caisse de Retraite\u203a,\u2014a friendly accumulation society which\n has for object to provide for the labourer in his old age.\u2014See\n an account of these \u2039Caisses de Retraite\u203a in \u2039Dictionnaire de\n l\u2019\u00c9conomie Politique\u203a, t. i. p. 255.\u2014\u00abTranslator.\u00bb\n\n [81]\u00a0\u00a0\u2039Emeutes\u203a of June 1848.\n\n [82]\u00a0\u00a0The chapter, \u201c\u2039Des Machines\u203a,\u201d is one of those included\n in the author\u2019s list of intended additions, which he did not\n live to write. (See \u2039Notice of Life and Writings, etc.\u203a, p. 30,\n \u2039ante\u203a.)\u2014\u00abTranslator.\u00bb\n\n [83]\u00a0\u00a0For an explanation of these terms, borrowed from the Civil\n Law, see \u2039ante\u203a, p. 172.\u2014\u00abTranslator.\u00bb\n\n [84]\u00a0\u00a0See \u2039ante\u203a, chapter iv.\n\n [85]\u00a0\u00a0The manuscript brought from Rome stops here. What is subjoined\n was found among the papers left by the author in Paris. It indicates\n how he intended to terminate and sum up this chapter.\u2014\u00abEditor.\u00bb\n\n XV. SAVING\n\n [86]\u00a0\u00a0Sir James Steuart of Coltness, whose \u2039Inquiry into the\n Principles of Political Economy\u203a was published in 1767, nine years\n before the appearance of Adam Smith\u2019s great work, takes the very\n same view of the principle of population which Malthus, thirty years\n afterwards, more formally enunciated. \u201cThe generative faculty,\u201d says\n Sir James Steuart, \u201cresembles a spring loaded with a weight, which\n always exerts itself in proportion to the diminution of resistance.\n When food has remained some time without augmentation or diminution,\n generation will carry numbers as high as possible; if, then, food\n come to be diminished, the spring is overpowered, the force of it\n becomes less than nothing, inhabitants will diminish, at least\n in proportion to the overcharge. If, on the other hand, food be\n increased, the spring will begin to exert itself in proportion as\n the resistance diminishes, people will begin to be better fed, they\n will multiply, and, in proportion as they increase in numbers, the\n food will become scarce again.\u201d\u2014\u00abTranslator.\u00bb\n\n [87]\u00a0\u00a0\u201cThreescore and ten \u2039souls\u203a.\u201d\u2014\u2039Gen.\u203a xlvi. 27. \u201cSeventy\n \u2039souls\u203a.\u201d\u2014\u2039Exodus\u203a i. 5. \u201cThreescore and ten \u2039persons\u203a.\u201d\u2014\u2039Deut.\u203a x.\n 22.\u2014\u00abTranslator.\u00bb\n\n [88]\u00a0\u00a0601,730 \u201cfrom twenty years old and upwards.\u201d\u2014\u2039Numbers\u203a xxvi. 2\n and 51.\u2014\u00abTranslator.\u00bb\n\n [89]\u00a0\u00a0What follows was written in 1846.\u2014\u00abEditor.\u00bb\n\n [90]\u00a0\u00a0It is fair to mention that J. B. Say represents the \u2039means of\n existence\u203a as a variable quantity.\n\n [91]\u00a0\u00a0\u201cThere are few states in which there is not a constant effort\n in the population to increase beyond the means of subsistence.\n This constant effort as \u2039constantly tends\u203a to subject the lower\n classes of society to distress, \u2039and to prevent any great permanent\n melioration of their condition\u203a.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. The constant effort towards\n population\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. increases the number of people \u2039before\u203a the means\n of subsistence are increased,\u201d etc.\u2014\u00abMalthus\u00bb \u2039on Population\u203a, vol.\n i. pp. 17, 18, 6th edition.\n\n [92]\u00a0\u00a0See chap. xi. \u2039ante\u203a.\n\n [93]\u00a0\u00a0\u201cAlthough we might describe \u2039fermage\u203a, in a general way, as\n the letting or leasing of land, in whatever form it is done, we must\n distinguish two forms of letting, equally common in various parts\n of Europe, and very different in their effects. In the one form,\n the land is let for a fixed rent, payable in money annually. In the\n other, it is let under the condition of the produce being divided\n between the proprietor and the cultivator. It is to the first of\n these two modes of leasing land that we give more particularly the\n name of \u2039fermage\u203a. The other is generally designated in France as\n \u2039m\u00e9tayage\u203a.\u201d (\u2039Dictionnaire de l\u2019\u00c9conomie Politique\u203a, tome i. p.\n 759.)\u2014\u00abTranslator.\u00bb\n\n XVII. PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SERVICES\n\n [94]\u00a0\u00a0\u201cThe moment this value is handed over by the taxpayer, it is\n lost to him; the moment it is consumed by the Government, it is lost\n to everybody, and does not return to society.\u201d\u2014\u00abJ. B. Say\u00bb, \u2039Trait\u00e9\n d\u2019\u00c9conomie Politique\u203a, liv. iii. chap 9.\n\n Unquestionably; but society gains in return the service which is\n rendered to it\u2014security, for example. Moreover, Say returns to the\n correct doctrine almost immediately afterwards, when he says,\u2014\u201cTo\n levy a tax is to do a wrong to society\u2014a wrong which is compensated\n by no advantage, \u2039when no service is rendered to society in\n exchange\u203a.\u201d\u2014\u2039Ibid.\u203a\n\n [95]\u00a0\u00a0\u201cPublic contributions, even when they are consented to by\n the nation, are a violation of property, seeing they can be levied\n only on values which have been produced by the land, capital, and\n industry of individuals. Thus, \u2039whenever they exceed the amount\n indispensable for the preservation of society\u203a, we must regard them\n as spoliation.\u201d\u2014\u00abJ. B. Say.\u00bb \u2039Trait\u00e9 d\u2019\u00c9conomie Politique\u203a, liv.\n iii. chap. 9.\n\n Here, again, the subsequent qualification corrects the too absolute\n judgment previously pronounced. The doctrine that \u2039services are\n exchanged for services\u203a, simplifies much both the problem and its\n solution.\n\n [96]\u00a0\u00a0Civil law terms. See \u2039ante\u203a, p. 172.\n\n [97]\u00a0\u00a0The effects of such a transformation are strikingly\n exemplified in an instance given by M. d\u2019Hautpoul, the Minister of\n War:\u2014\u201cEach soldier,\u201d he says, \u201creceives 16 centimes a day for his\n maintenance. The Government takes these 16 centimes, and undertakes\n to support him. The consequence is that all have the same rations,\n and of the same kind, whether it suit them or not. One has too much\n bread, and throws it away. Another has not enough of butcher\u2019s meat,\n and so on. We have, therefore, made an experiment. We leave to the\n soldiers the free disposal of these 16 centimes, and we are happy to\n find that this has been attended with a great improvement in their\n condition. Each now consults his own tastes and likings, and studies\n the market prices of what they want to purchase. Generally they\n have, of their own accord, substituted a portion of butcher\u2019s meat\n for bread. In some instances they buy more bread, in others more\n meat, in others more vegetables, in others more fish. Their health\n is improved; they are better pleased; and the State is relieved from\n a great responsibility.\u201d\n\n The reader will understand that it is not as bearing on military\n affairs that I cite this experiment. I refer to it as calculated to\n illustrate a radical difference between public and private service,\n between official regulations and liberty. Would it be better for the\n State to take from us our means of support, and undertake to feed\n us, or to leave us both our means of support and the care of feeding\n ourselves? The same question may be asked with reference to all our\n wants.\n\n [98]\u00a0\u00a0See the author\u2019s pamphlet, entitled \u2039Baccalaur\u00e9at et\n Socialisme\u203a.\u2014\u00abEditor.\u00bb\n\n [99]\u00a0\u00a0The author, in a previous work, had sought the solution of\n the same question. The subject of his inquiry was the legitimate\n province of law. All the developments in the pamphlet, entitled \u2039La\n Loi\u203a, are applicable to the subject he is now discussing. We refer\n the reader to that \u2039brochure\u203a.\u2014\u00abEditor.\u00bb\n\n [100]\u00a0\u00a0Here ends the MS. We refer the reader to the author\u2019s\n pamphlet entitled \u2039Spoliation et Loi\u203a, in the second part of which\n he has exposed the sophisms which were given utterance to at this\n meeting of the \u2039Conseil g\u00e9n\u00e9ral\u203a.\n\n On the subjects of the six chapters intended to follow this, under\n the titles of Taxation, Machinery, Free Trade, Intermediaries, Raw\n Materials, and Luxury, we refer the reader, \u20391st\u203a, to the \u2039Discours\n sur l\u2019Imp\u00f4t des Boissons\u203a, inserted in the second edition of the\n pamphlet, \u2039Incompatibilit\u00e9s Parlementaires\u203a; \u20392dly\u203a, to the pamphlet\n entitled \u2039Ce qu\u2019on voit et Ce qu\u2019on ne voit pas\u203a; \u20393dly\u203a, to the\n \u2039Sophismes \u00c9conomiques\u203a.\n\n XVIII. DISTURBING CAUSES\n\n [101]\u00a0\u00a0The author was unable to continue this examination of\n errors\u2014which are for those who are misled by them a nearly immediate\n cause of suffering\u2014nor to describe another class of errors, which\n make their appearance in the shape of violence and fraud, and the\n first effects of which bear heavily on others. His notes contain\n nothing on the subject of \u2039disturbing causes\u203a but the preceding\n fragment and that which follows. We would also refer the reader\n to the first chapter of the second series of \u2039Sophisms\u203a, entitled\n \u2039Spoliation\u203a.\u2014\u00abEditor.\u00bb\n\n XIX. WAR\n\n [102]\u00a0\u00a0See concluding part of chapter xi. \u2039ante\u203a.\n\n [103]\u00a0\u00a0We forget this, when we propose the question, Is slave labour\n dearer or cheaper than free labour?\n\n [104]\u00a0\u00a0See the author\u2019s brochure, \u2039Baccalaur\u00e9at et\n Socialisme\u203a.\u2014\u00abEditor.\u00bb\n\n XX. RESPONSIBILITY\n\n [105] \u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. because I believe that it is under the direction\n of a superior impulse, because, Providence being unable to act in\n the social order except through the intervention of men\u2019s interests\n and men\u2019s wills, it is impossible that the natural resulting force\n of these interests, the common tendency of these wills, should\n be towards ultimate evil; for then we must conclude that it is\n not only man, or the human race, which proceeds onward towards\n error; but that God himself, being powerless or malevolent, urges\n on to evil His abortive creation. We believe, then, in liberty,\n because we believe in universal harmony, because we believe in God.\n Proclaiming in the name of faith, and formulating in the name of\n science, the Divine laws of the moral movement, living and pliant\n as these laws are, we spurn the narrow, sinister, unbending, and\n unalterable institutions which the blind leaders of the ignorant\n would substitute for this admirable mechanism. It would be absurd in\n the atheist to say, \u2039laissez faire le hasard!\u203a\u2014seek not to control\n chance, or blind destiny. But, as believers, we have a right to say,\n seek not to control the order and justice of God\u2014seek not to control\n the free action of the sovereign and infallible mover of all, or of\n that machinery of transmission which we call the human initiative.\n Liberty thus understood is no longer the anarchical deification of\n individualism. What we adore is above and beyond man who struggles;\n it is God who leads him.\n\n We acknowledge, indeed, that man may err; yes, by the whole interval\n which separates a truth realized and established from one which\n is merely guessed at or suspected. But since man\u2019s nature is to\n seek, his destiny is to find. Truth, be it observed, has harmonious\n relations, necessary affinities, not only with the constitution of\n the understanding and the instincts of the heart, but also with the\n whole physical and moral conditions of our existence; so that even\n when we fail to grasp it as \u2039absolute truth\u203a, even when it fails to\n recommend itself to our innate sympathies as \u2039just\u203a, or to our ideal\n aspirations as \u2039beautiful\u203a, it, nevertheless, at length contrives\n to find acceptance in its practical and unobjectionable aspect as\n \u2039useful\u203a.\n\n Liberty, we know, may lead to evil. But evil has itself its\n mission. Assuredly God has not thrown it across our path as a\n stumbling-block. He has placed it, as it were, on each side of that\n path as a warning,\u2014as a means of keeping us in the right road, or\n bringing us back to it.\n\n Man\u2019s will and inclinations, like inert molecules, have their law\n of gravitation. But, whilst things inanimate obey blindly their\n pre-existent and inevitable tendencies, in the case of beings\n indued with free will, the force of attraction and repulsion does\n not precede action; it springs from the voluntary determination\n which it seems to be waiting for, it is developed by the very act\n itself, and it reacts for or against the agent, by a progressive\n exertion of co-operation or resistance, which we term recompense\n or chastisement, pleasure or pain. If the direction of the will\n coincides with that of the general laws, if the act is \u2039good\u203a,\n happiness is the result. If it takes an opposite direction, if\n it is \u2039bad\u203a, something opposes or repels it; error gives rise to\n suffering, which is its remedy and its end. Thus, Evil is constantly\n opposed by Evil, and Good as constantly gives rise to Good. And\n we venture to say that, when seen from a higher point of view,\n the errors of free will are limited to certain oscillations, of\n a determinate extent, around a superior and necessary orbit; all\n persistent resistance, which would force this limit, tending only to\n destroy itself, without at all succeeding in disturbing the order of\n the sphere in which it moves.\n\n This reactive force of co-operation or repulsion, which, by means\n of recompense and suffering, governs the orbit, at once voluntary\n and necessary, of the human race, this \u2039law of gravitation of free\n beings\u203a (of which Evil is only a necessary part) is distinguished by\n the terms Responsibility and Solidarity; the one brings back upon\n the individual; the other reflects and sends back on the social body\n the good or bad consequences of the act; the one applies to man as\n a solitary and self-governing individual; the other envelops him\n in an inevitable community of good and evil as a partial element,\n a dependent member, of a collective and imperishable being\u2014man.\n \u2039Responsibility\u203a is the sanction of individual liberty, the\n foundation of the \u2039rights\u203a of man. \u2039Solidarity\u203a is the evidence of\n his social subordination, and his principle of duty.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\n [\u2039A leaf of Bastiat\u2019s MS. being awanting, I hope to be pardoned\n for thus endeavouring to continue the idea of this religious\n introduction.\u203a]\u2014R. F.\n\n [106]\u00a0\u00a0Religion (\u2039religare\u203a, to bind), that which connects the\n present life with the future, the living with the dead, time with\n eternity, the finite with the infinite, man with God.\n\n [107]\u00a0\u00a0May we not say that Divine Justice, which is so\n incomprehensible when we consider the lot of individuals, becomes\n striking when we reflect on the destinies of nations? Each man\u2019s\n life is a drama which is begun on one theatre and completed on\n another. But the same thing cannot be said of the life of nations.\n That instructive tragedy begins and ends upon earth. This is the\n reason why history becomes a holy lesson; it is the justice of\n Providence.\u2014\u00abDe Custine\u2019s\u00bb \u2039La Russie\u203a.\n\n [108]\u00a0\u00a0Allusion to Socialist Utopias of the day.\u2014\u00abTranslator.\u00bb\n\n [109]\u00a0\u00a0\u201cAs to the doctrine of necessity, no one believes it. If\n a man should give me arguments that I do not see, though I could\n not answer them, should I believe that I do not see?\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. All\n theory is against the freedom of the will; all experience for\n it.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. I \u2039know\u203a that I am free, and there\u2019s an end on\u2019t.\u201d (\u2039Dr\n Johnson.\u203a)\u2014\u00abTranslator.\u00bb\n\n [110]\u00a0\u00a0\u201cCursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat\n of it all the days of thy life: Thorns also and thistles shall it\n bring forth to thee.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat\n bread, until thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou\n taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.\u201d\u2014\u2039Gen.\u203a\n iii. 17, 18, 19.\n\n [111]\u00a0\u00a0The interesting developments which the author intended to\n present here by way of illustrations, and of which he indicated\n beforehand the character, he unfortunately did not live to write.\n The reader may supply the want by referring to chapter xvi. of this\n work, and likewise to chapters vii. and xi. of Bastiat\u2019s pamphlet,\n \u2039Ce qu\u2019on voit et Ce qu\u2019on ne voit pas\u203a.\u2014\u00abNote of the Editor.\u00bb\n\n [112]\u00a0\u00a0\u201cFor when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature\n the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a\n law unto themselves; which show the work of the law written in their\n hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts\n the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another.\u201d\u2014\u2039Romans\u203a ii.\n 14, 15. See also \u2039Bishop Butler\u2019s 3d Sermon, on Human Nature\u203a:\n \u201cNothing,\u201d says he, \u201ccan be more evident than that, \u2039exclusive of\n revelation\u203a, man cannot be considered as a creature left by his\n Maker to act at random, and live at large up to the extent of his\n natural power, as passion, humour, wilfulness, happen to carry him;\n which is the condition brute creatures are in. But that, \u2039from his\n make, constitution, or nature, he is in the strictest and most\n proper sense a law to himself\u203a. He hath the rule of right within.\n What is wanting is only that he honestly attend to it.\u201d\u2014\u00abButler\u2019s\u00bb\n \u2039Works\u203a, vol. ii. p. 65.\u2014\u00abTranslator.\u00bb\n\n [113]\u00a0\u00a0The conclusion of this chapter is little more than\n a series of notes thrown together, without transitions or\n developments.\u2014\u00abEditor.\u00bb\n\n XXI. SOLIDARITY\n\n [114]\u00a0\u00a0This sketch terminates here abruptly; the \u2039economic\u203a view of\n the law of solidarity is not indicated. We may refer the reader to\n chapter x. and chapter xi. \u2039ante\u203a.\n\n Moreover, the whole scope of this work on the Harmonies, the\n concordance of interests, and the grand maxims, \u201cThe prosperity\n of each is the prosperity of all\u2014the prosperity of all is the\n prosperity of each,\u201d etc., the accord between property and\n community, the services of capital, extension of the domain of the\n gratuitous, etc., are all developments in a utilitarian point of\n view of the very title of this chapter\u2014Solidarity.\u2014\u00abNote of the\n Editor.\u00bb\n\n XXII. SOCIAL MOTIVE FORCE\n\n [115]\u00a0\u00a0\u201cPoverty is the fruit of Political Economy.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. Political\n Economy requires death to come to its aid;\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. it is the theory of\n instability and theft.\u201d\u2014\u00abProudhon\u00bb, \u2039Contradictions \u00c9conomiques\u203a,\n t. xi. p. 214. \u201cIf the people want bread,\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. it is the fault of\n Political Economy.\u201d\u2014\u2039Ibid.\u203a\n\n XXV. RELATIONS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY WITH MORALS, WITH\n POLITICS, WITH LEGISLATION\n\n [116]\u00a0\u00a0The author has unfortunately left nothing on the subject\n of the four chapters with which he appears (\u2039see ante\u203a, p. 30) to\n have intended to conclude the present work, except the following\n introduction to his projected chapter on the Relations of Political\n Economy with Religion.\n\n The line which separates the field of Political Economy from the\n wider domains of Morals, Politics, and Legislation is perhaps by no\n writer more accurately marked than by Mr Senior in the admirable\n introduction to his article \u201cPolitical Economy\u201d in the \u2039Encyclop.\n Metropolitana\u203a.\n\n \u201cThe questions, to what extent and under what circumstances the\n possession of wealth is, on the whole, beneficial or injurious to\n its possessor, or to the society of which he is a member? what\n distribution of wealth is most desirable in each different state\n of society? and what are the means by which any given country can\n facilitate such a distribution?\u2014all these are questions of great\n interest and difficulty, but no more form part of the science of\n Political Economy, in the sense in which we use that term, than\n Navigation forms part of the science of Astronomy. The principles\n supplied by Political Economy are indeed necessary elements\n in their solution, but they are not the only or even the most\n important elements. The writer who pursues such investigations is,\n in fact, engaged on the great science of Legislation; a science\n which requires a knowledge of the general principles supplied by\n Political Economy, but differs from it essentially in its subject,\n its premises, and its conclusions. The subject of legislation is not\n wealth, but human welfare. Its premises are drawn from an infinite\n variety of phenomena, supported by evidence of every degree of\n strength, and authorizing conclusions deserving every degree of\n assent, from perfect confidence to bare suspicion. And its expounder\n is enabled, and even required, not merely to state certain general\n facts, but to urge the adoption or rejection of actual measures or\n trains of action.\n\n \u201cOn the other hand, the subject treated by the Political Economist,\n using that term in the limited sense in which we apply it, is not\n happiness, but wealth; his premises consist of a very few general\n propositions, the result of observation or consciousness, and\n scarcely requiring proof or even formal statement, which almost\n every man, as soon as he hears them, admits as familiar to his\n thoughts, or at least as included in his previous knowledge; and his\n inferences are nearly as general, and, if he has reasoned correctly,\n as certain as his premises. Those which relate to the nature and the\n production of wealth are universally true; and though those which\n relate to the distribution of wealth are liable to be affected by\n the peculiar institutions of particular countries, in the cases, for\n instance, of slavery, legal monopolies, or poor laws, the natural\n state of things can be laid down as the general rule, and the\n anomalies produced by particular disturbing causes can be afterwards\n accounted for. But his conclusions, whatever be their generality\n and their truth, do not authorize him in adding a single syllable\n of advice. That privilege belongs to the writer or the statesman\n who has considered all the causes which may promote or impede the\n general welfare of those whom he addresses, not to the theorist\n who has considered only one, though among the most important, of\n those causes. The business of a Political Economist is neither to\n recommend nor to dissuade, but to state general principles which it\n is fatal to neglect, but neither advisable nor perhaps practicable\n to use as the sole, or even the principal, guides in the actual\n conduct of affairs. In the meantime, the duty of each individual\n writer is clear. Employed as he is upon a science in which error,\n or even ignorance, may be productive of such intense and such\n extensive mischief, he is bound, like a juryman, to give deliverance\n true according to the evidence, and to allow neither sympathy with\n indigence nor disgust at profusion or at avarice, neither reverence\n for existing institutions nor detestation of existing abuses\u2014neither\n love of popularity nor of paradox, nor of system, to deter him from\n stating what he believes to be the facts, or from drawing from those\n facts what appear to him to be the legitimate conclusions. To decide\n in each case how far these conclusions are to be acted on belongs\n to the art of government, an art to which Political Economy is only\n one of many subservient sciences, which involves the consideration\n of motives, of which the desire for wealth is only one among many,\n and aims at objects to which the possession of wealth is only a\n subordinate means.\u201d\u2014\u00abTranslator.\u00bb\n\n\n\n\n INDEX.\n\n\n A.\n\n \u2039Accumulation\u203a, a circumstance of no account in Political Economy,\n page 169, \u2039note\u203a.\n\n \u2039Air, Atmospheric\u203a, has utility without having value, 137;\n   but if pumped into a diving-bell, the service has value, 138.\n\n \u2039Algeria\u203a, usual rate of interest in, said to be 10 per cent., 302.\n\n \u2039America, United States of\u203a, population of, doubles, according to\n M. Moreau de Jonn\u00e8s\u2019s estimate, in 25 years, 404.\n\n \u2039Aphorisms, the Two\u203a, \u201cEach for all, all for each\u201d\u2014\u201cEach for\n himself, each by himself,\u201d 339-346.\n\n   Opposed to each other if we regard the motive, not so if we look\n   to results, 339.\n\n   No incompatibility in this last view between individualism and\n   association, 340.\n\n   Men associate in obedience to self-interest, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Difficulties attending a state of isolation lead naturally to\n   association, 341.\n\n   As regards labour and exchanges, the principle \u201cEach for himself\u201d\n   must be predominant, 342.\n\n   By following the rule each for himself, individual efforts act in\n   the direction of each for all, 343.\n\n   Icarian expedition proceeded on the principle of all for each,\n   344, \u2039note\u203a.\n\n   Principles of Socialism and Communism refuted, 343, 344.\n\n   All desire monopolies and privileges, even the working classes, at\n   their own expense, 345, 346.\n\n\n B.\n\n \u2039Baccalaur\u00e9at et Socialisme\u203a, a pamphlet by Bastiat against\n monopoly of university degrees, and too exclusive addiction to\n classical learning, 23.\n\n \u2039Barter\u203a, primitive form of exchange, direct or roundabout, 108.\n\n   When barter is effected by means of an intermediate commodity,\n   it is called sale and purchase, 109.\n\n   Barter of two factors, 110.\n\n   Value resolves itself into a barter of services, 137.\n\n \u2039Bastiat, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric\u203a, his birth, parentage, and education, p. 9.\n\n   His early friendship with M. Calm\u00e8tes, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Begins the study of Political Economy, 10.\n\n   Gives up commerce as a profession, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   His friendship with M. Coudroy, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   They study Philosophy and Political Economy together, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Takes part in the Revolution of 1830, 11.\n\n   Bastiat publishes his first brochure in 1834, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Becomes \u2039Juge de Paix\u203a, and a Member of the Council-General,\n   \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Visits Spain, Portugal, and England, 12.\n\n   Writes \u2039Le Fisc et la Vigne\u203a, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Publishes two other brochures in 1843 and 1844, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Anecdote regarding unfounded Anglophobia, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Sends his first contribution to the \u2039Journal des \u00c9conomistes\u203a,\n   13.\n\n   Publishes \u2039Cobden et la Ligue\u203a in 1845, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Letter to Mr Cobden quoted, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Named a corresponding member of the Institute, 14.\n\n   Letter to M. Calm\u00e8tes quoted, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Visits Paris, and introduced to leading economists, 15.\n\n   Visits England in 1845, and makes the acquaintance of Cobden,\n   Bright, and the other Corn-Law Leaguers, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Letter to M. Coudroy quoted, 15, 16.\n\n   Bastiat complains of the hatred to England then prevalent in\n   France, 16.\n\n   Settles in Paris, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   His appearance, as described by M. de Molinari and M. Reybaud,\n   17.\n\n   Letters to Cobden and Coudroy quoted, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Conducts the \u2039Libre-\u00c9change\u203a newspaper, 18.\n\n   His mode of life in Paris, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Publishes the \u2039Sophismes \u00c9conomiques\u203a, great success of that\n   work, and extract from it, 18, 19, 20, 21.\n\n   Delivers a course of lectures on Political Economy, 21.\n\n   Is returned as a member of the Legislative Assembly, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   His daily occupations, 22.\n\n   His pamphlets against the Socialists, \u2039Propri\u00e9t\u00e9 et Loi\u203a;\n   \u2039Propri\u00e9t\u00e9 et Spoliation\u203a; \u2039Justice et Fraternit\u00e9\u203a; \u2039Capital et\n   Rente\u203a; \u2039Gratuit\u00e9 du Credit\u203a; \u2039Protectionisme et Communisme\u203a,\n   etc., published in 1848-49, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Publishes \u2039Baccalaur\u00e9at et Socialisme\u203a, and \u2039Ce qu\u2019on voit et ce\n   qu\u2019on ne voit pas\u203a, in 1850, 23.\n\n   Extract from the latter, 24, 25.\n\n   Projects \u2039Harmonies \u00c9conomiques\u203a, and letter to Mr Cobden on\n   that subject quoted, 25.\n\n   Letter to M. Coudroy on the same subjects, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   His health begins to give way, 26, 27.\n\n   His account of the reception of the \u2039Harmonies\u203a, 27.\n\n   Notice of that work, 27, 28, 29.\n\n   List of chapters intended to complete the second volume of the\n   \u2039Harmonies\u203a, 30, \u2039note\u203a.\n\n   Goes to Italy on account of his health, 30.\n\n   His letter to M. Coudroy from Rome, 31.\n\n   His last illness and death, 31, 32.\n\n \u2039Bell, Sir Charles\u203a, his work on the Hand quoted, 29, \u2039note\u203a.\n\n \u2039Blanqui\u203a, his opinions on landed property quoted, 255.\n\n \u2039Bonald, M. de\u203a, quoted, 152.\n\n \u2039Brazil\u203a, usual rate of interest in, said to be 20 per cent., 302.\n\n \u2039Buchanan, D.\u203a, his opinions on landed property quoted, 252.\n\n \u2039Buret, M.\u203a, his false theory on the relations of capitalist and\n labourer, 384.\n\n \u2039Butler, Bishop\u203a, his Sermons on Human Nature quoted, 478, \u2039note\u203a.\n\n \u2039Byron, Lord\u203a, quoted, 32.\n\n\n C.\n\n \u2039Cairnes, Professor\u203a, quoted, 18.\n\n \u2039Caisses de Retraite\u203a, friendly accumulation societies to provide for\n old age, 372, \u2039note\u203a.\n\n   Such institutions satisfy the natural desire for stability and\n   fixity, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   To succeed must proceed from the working classes themselves,\n   without Government support or interference, 373.\n\n   Future of the working classes, 374.\n\n \u2039Calm\u00e8tes, M.\u203a, the early friend of Bastiat, 9.\n\n   Letter to, quoted, 14.\n\n \u2039Candlemakers\u2019 Petition\u203a quoted, 19.\n\n \u2039Capital et Rente\u203a, pamphlet by Bastiat against the Socialists, 22.\n\n \u2039Capital\u203a, in the beginning formed very slowly, 197.\n\n   Consists of tools, materials, and provisions, 198.\n\n   The man who furnishes capital renders a service, and is paid for\n   that service, 199, 200.\n\n   The man who accords delay renders a service, and hence the\n   legitimacy of interest, 203, 204.\n\n   Principle which governs the returns for capital, 206-211.\n\n   Progress of mankind coincides with rapid accumulation of\n   capital, 210.\n\n   Capital has in itself a power of progression, 211.\n\n   Increase of capital is followed by increase of general\n   prosperity, 212.\n\n   By increase of capital, the capitalist\u2019s \u2039absolute\u203a share of\n   product increased, his \u2039relative\u203a share diminished, while\n   labourer\u2019s share is increased both absolutely and relatively,\n   \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Illustrations of this, 213-216.\n\n   Progress of civilisation tends to lower rate of interest, 302.\n\n   Rates in Brazil, Algeria, Spain, Italy, Germany, France,\n   England, and Holland, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Relations of capitalist and labourer, 383.\n\n   Erroneous notions on this subject most dangerous, 384.\n\n   Falsest theories abroad, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Due to M. de Sismondi and M. Buret, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Labourer\u2019s share of product has a tendency to increase as\n   capital increases, 385.\n\n   When exchange takes place between capital, or anterior labour,\n   and present labour, it is not on the footing of their duration\n   or intensity, but of their value, 387.\n\n   Anterior labour has a general tendency to become depreciated,\n   388, 389.\n\n   Presence of capital always beneficial to labourer, 390.\n\n   Groundless outcry against tyranny of capital, 391, 392.\n\n \u2039Carey, Mr\u203a, his theory of rent referred to, 274, \u2039note by\n Translator\u203a.\n\n \u2039Ce qu\u2019on voit et ce qu\u2019on ne voit pas\u203a, or Political Economy in one\n Lesson, pamphlet by Bastiat, quoted, 24.\n\n   Referred to, 478, \u2039note\u203a.\n\n \u2039Ch\u00e2teaubriand\u203a, represents civilisation and corruption of morals as\n marching abreast, 511, 512.\n\n   His \u2039M\u00e9moires d\u2019Outre Tombe\u203a quoted, 512.\n\n \u2039Civil law terms\u203a explained, 172, and \u2039note\u203a.\n\n \u2039Cobden, Mr\u203a, letter from, on the subject of Bastiat\u2019s merits as an\n economist and writer, 4.\n\n   Triumph of free trade due to him rather than to Sir Robert Peel,\n   374.\n\n   His efforts for the suppression of war, 375.\n\n \u2039Communists\u203a, their erroneous views of landed property\n controverted, 155.\n\n \u2039Competition\u203a, no organization or form of association can be\n substituted for, 288.\n\n   Implies freedom from all constraint, 289.\n\n   Levels all factitious inequalities, 290.\n\n   Misunderstood by the Socialists, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Value diminishes through the co-operation of natural forces, not\n   of its own accord, but by the pressure exerted by competition,\n   291, 292.\n\n   In the absence of competition, society would be constituted on\n   the principle of universal monopoly, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Competition enables one country to participate in the natural\n   advantages of another, 293.\n\n   Examples of this, 294, 299.\n\n   Inventions and discoveries become, through competition, the\n   common and gratuitous patrimony of all, 299.\n\n   Mode in which this takes place, 300, 301.\n\n   Competition among capitalists reduces the price of commodities,\n   301, 302.\n\n   Progress of civilisation tends to lower the rate of interest,\n   and this effected by competition, 302.\n\n   If wages are sometimes reduced by competition, the labourers, as\n   consumers, profit by it, 303-307.\n\n   Competition tends to render services proportional to efforts,\n   306.\n\n   Laws of modern society too often cramp competition, 309, 310.\n\n   Competition essential to progress, and allied with human\n   perfectibility, 313.\n\n   It approximates ranks, fortunes, and intelligence, 316.\n\n   Advantages from inventions, or from local situation, climate,\n   etc., slip rapidly from hands of producers, and go to enlarge\n   enjoyments of consumers, 333, 334.\n\n   Same thing holds of disadvantages, 334.\n\n \u2039Condillac\u203a quoted, 114, 107.\n\n \u2039Consid\u00e9rant, M.\u203a, his work on Socialism quoted, 62, \u2039note\u203a.\n\n   His opinions on landed property, 257-260.\n\n \u2039Consumer\u203a, every man may in turn be both producer and consumer,\n 324, 325.\n\n   The wishes and desires of consumers are those which are in\n   harmony with the public interest, 325.\n\n   Consumers and producers should be left free to take care of\n   their own interests, 326.\n\n   The effect of inventions and discoveries on the interests of\n   consumers and producers represented by diagrams, 331, 332.\n\n   Advantages from inventions, or from local situation, climate,\n   etc., slip rapidly from the hands of producers, and go to\n   enlarge the enjoyments of consumers, 333, 334.\n\n   Same thing holds of disadvantages, 334.\n\n   All great economic effects must be regarded from the consumer\u2019s\n   point of view, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Subordination of producer\u2019s interests to those of consumer\n   confirmed when viewed in connexion with morals, 335.\n\n   Consumer is alone responsible for morality or utility of\n   production, 338.\n\n   Producer looks only to value, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Consumer represents society, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n \u2039Consumption\u203a, a term employed to designate the enjoyment to which\n utility gives rise, 323.\n\n   General prosperity is measured by consumption, and not by\n   labour, 325.\n\n   Consumption the great end of Political Economy, 338.\n\n \u2039Coudroy, Felix\u203a, studies Philosophy and Political Economy along\n with Bastiat, 10.\n\n   Letter to, quoted, 15.\n\n   Another letter to, quoted, 26.\n\n\n D.\n\n \u2039Defoe, D.\u203a, his Robinson Crusoe referred to, 101.\n\n   Illustration drawn from, 197.\n\n \u2039Demand\u203a determines all in connexion with production, 335.\n\n \u2039Diamond\u203a, has great value without appreciable utility, 139.\n\n   Value of one found accidentally and exchanged arises, not from\n   the effort of the person who renders the service, but the effort\n   saved to the one who receives it, 141, 142.\n\n   This a new principle not to be found in the works of economists,\n   141.\n\n \u2039Disturbing Causes.\u203a Political Economy sets out by assuming\n transactions to be free and voluntary, 446.\n\n   Liberty is harmony, 447.\n\n   Economists not optimists, 448, 449.\n\n   Errors of judgment one disturbing cause, 452, 453.\n\n \u2039Division of Labour\u203a admits of being viewed in a more general light\n than hitherto, 105.\n\n \u2039Dunoyer, M.\u203a, his work \u2039Sur la Libert\u00e9 du Travail\u203a referred to and\n commended, 92.\n\n\n E.\n\n \u2039Economists\u203a differ from the Socialists at the starting-point, 35,\n 36.\n\n \u2039Efforts.\u203a Wants, efforts, and satisfactions, 63-74.\n\n   Effort saved to the person who receives a service imparts value\n   to the service rendered, 141, 142.\n\n \u2039England\u203a, population of, doubles in 43 years, 404.\n\n \u2039L\u2019\u00c9tat\u203a, pamphlet by Bastiat defining the proper province of\n Government, 23.\n\n \u2039Euler\u203a, his calculation of the period in which population doubles\n itself, 407.\n\n   Applying this calculation to the facts stated by Moses, Hebrews\n   who entered Egypt must have doubled in 14 years, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n \u2039Evil, Existence of.\u203a Science has been retarded by being called on\n to deny the existence of evil, 504.\n\n   Socialists, while admitting individual suffering, deny social\n   suffering, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Their contradictions exposed, 504-507.\n\n \u2039Exchange\u203a, impossible to conceive society as existing without, 97.\n\n   A phenomenon peculiar to man, 101.\n\n   Has two manifestations, union of forces, and separation of\n   occupations, 104.\n\n   Consists in exchange of services, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Its influence on labour, 105.\n\n   Upon the co-operation of natural agents, 105.\n\n   Upon human powers and faculties, 107.\n\n   Upon capital, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Progress of exchange, 108-111.\n\n   Primitive form of, barter, 108.\n\n   Barter direct and roundabout, 109.\n\n   Limits of exchange, 111.\n\n   An element in the problem of population which Malthus has\n   neglected, 113.\n\n   Moral force of exchange, 116.\n\n   In consequence of exchange, our powers exceed our wants, \u2039ib.\u203a;\n\n     and the gain of each is the gain of all, 117.\n\n   Illusions to which exchange gives rise, 128-130.\n\n   Exchange imparts the idea of value, 135.\n\n\n F.\n\n \u2039F\u00e9n\u00e9lon\u203a quoted, 77.\n\n \u2039Final Causes\u203a, faith in, not unattended with danger to the mind of\n an inquirer, 397.\n\n \u2039Fisc, le, et la Vigne\u203a, pamphlet written by Bastiat in 1840, 12.\n\n \u2039Florez Estrada\u203a, his opinions on landed property quoted, 254.\n\n \u2039Florian\u2019s Fables\u203a quoted, 135.\n\n \u2039Force, Public\u203a, should be confined to ensuring justice, liberty,\n and security, 121, 122.\n\n \u2039France\u203a, youth of, address to, 33.\n\n   Usual rate of interest in, said to be 4 per cent., 302.\n\n   Population of, doubles in 138 years, 401.\n\n \u2039Friendly Societies\u203a, have conferred immense benefits on the working\n classes, 368.\n\n   Admirable means of providing against sickness and old age, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Liberty and non-interference of Government essential to ensure\n   their success, 369.\n\n   This secures reciprocal surveillance, 369-373.\n\n   Marked success of these societies in England, 370-373.\n\n   This due to the non-interference of Government, 371.\n\n\n G.\n\n \u2039Garnier, M. Joseph\u203a, his opinions on landed property quoted, 256.\n\n \u2039Germany\u203a, usual rate of interest in said to be 5 per cent., 302.\n\n   Population of, doubles in 76 years, 404.\n\n \u2039Girardin, M. Saint-Marc\u203a, quoted as to the influence of employments\n on the condition of nations, 455.\n\n \u2039Gratuit\u00e9 du Credit\u203a, pamphlet by Bastiat against Proudhon\u2019s\n doctrine, in 1850, 22.\n\n\n H.\n\n \u2039Habit\u203a, force of, as changing man\u2019s wants, an essential element to\n be taken into account, 84.\n\n   Transforms desire into want, 85.\n\n \u2039Harmonies \u00c9conomiques\u203a projected, and letters to Mr Cobden and M.\n Coudroy on that subject quoted, 25.\n\n   Bastiat\u2019s account of the reception of that work, 27.\n\n   Notice of the \u2039Harmonies\u203a, 27, 28, 29.\n\n   List of chapters intended to complete 2d vol. of, 30, \u2039note\u203a.\n\n \u2039Holland\u203a, usual rate of interest in, said to be under 3 per cent.,\n 302.\n\n   Population of, doubles in 100 years, 404.\n\n\n I.\n\n \u2039Icarie, voyage en\u203a, Socialist work referred to, 205.\n\n \u2039Institute\u203a, Bastiat named a member of, 14.\n\n \u2039Interest of Capital\u203a, Proudhon\u2019s error regarding, 158.\n\n   All the power of the Church unable to enforce prohibition of, 480.\n\n \u2039Isolation\u203a, in the state of, our wants exceed our powers, 98;\n\n   and the gain of one may be the loss of another, 117.\n\n \u2039Italy\u203a, usual rate of interest in, said to be 6 per cent., 302.\n\n\n J.\n\n \u2039Johnson, Dr\u203a, his opinions on free will and necessity quoted,\n 473, \u2039note\u203a.\n\n \u2039Journal des \u00c9conomistes\u203a, Bastiat\u2019s first contribution to, 13.\n\n \u2039Justice et Fraternit\u00e9\u203a, pamphlet by Bastiat against the\n Socialists, 22.\n\n\n K.\n\n \u2039Kepler\u203a referred to, 68.\n\n\n L.\n\n \u2039Labour\u203a, the assertion that all wealth comes from labour\n combated, 88.\n\n   Utility communicated by nature, by labour, and oftener by a\n   combination of both, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   To produce utility, action of labour in an inverse ratio to that\n   of nature, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   As used by Economists, a vague term, and more extended meaning\n   given to it in this work, 92.\n\n   Distinction between productive and unproductive, has led to\n   error, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Distinction between productive and unproductive labour rejected,\n   156, 157.\n\n   \u2039Effort\u203a a better term than labour, 158.\n\n   Labour cannot serve as a measure of value, 171.\n\n   Unskilled labour the best for making a comparison, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   In exchanging present for anterior labour, the advantage is on\n   the side of present labour, 178.\n\n   The opposite phenomenon sometimes manifests itself, 179.\n\n \u2039Laissez-faire\u203a, doctrine of, explained, 48, 448, 449.\n\n \u2039Lamennais, M. de\u203a, his opinions on the principle of population\n combated, 408, 409.\n\n \u2039Landed Property.\u203a The idea of value gives rise to that of\n property, 249.\n\n   Confusion caused by Economists mistaking utility for value, 250.\n\n   Property represented as monopoly, 250, 251.\n\n   Is not a monopoly, 251.\n\n   Opinions of English Economists on this subject\u2014Adam Smith\n   quoted, 252;\n\n     Buchanan quoted, 252, 253;\n\n     Ricardo\u2019s opinion, \u2039ib.\u203a;\n\n     M\u2019Culloch\u2019s views, 253;\n\n     Scrope and Senior quoted, \u2039ib.\u203a;\n\n     opinions of Mill and Malthus referred to, 254;\n\n     Scialoja and Florez Estrada quoted, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   French Economists\u2014M. Say quoted, \u2039ib.\u203a;\n\n     Blanqui and J. Garnier quoted, 255, 256.\n\n   Opinions of Socialists and Communists\u2014M. Consid\u00e9rant quoted, 257;\n\n     Proudhon quoted, 260.\n\n   These opinions controverted, 260-273.\n\n   Recapitulation, 273.\n\n   Bastiat has adopted the theory of Mr Carey on this subject,\n   which should be taken with some modification, 274, \u2039note by\n   Translator\u203a.\n\n   Land which has not been subjected to human action, destitute of\n   value, 274.\n\n   Value resolves itself into the remuneration of anterior labour\n   or capital, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   M. Consid\u00e9rant\u2019s views reverted to, 278-280.\n\n   Productive powers of the soil have no independent value, 285.\n\n   Case of the South Australian Association referred to, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Ameliorations which increase the value of land generally\n   diminish the price of its produce, 347.\n\n   Explanation of this, 348, 349.\n\n   Theory of the progressive dearness of means of subsistence\n   erroneous, 351, \u2039note\u203a.\n\n \u2039Lauderdale, Lord\u203a, his \u2039Inquiry into the Nature and Origin of\n Public Wealth\u203a quoted, 187, \u2039note\u203a.\n\n \u2039Legislation\u203a, relations of Political Economy with, 513, \u2039note\u203a.\n\n \u2039Liberty\u203a, solution of social problem to be found in, 34.\n\n \u2039Libre-\u00c9change\u203a, newspaper, conducted by Bastiat, 18.\n\n\n M.\n\n \u2039M\u2019Culloch\u203a, his opinion on landed property quoted, 253.\n\n \u2039Machiavel\u203a quoted, 56.\n\n \u2039Malthus\u203a on population, referred to, 113.\n\n   Vindicated from violent attacks made on him, 397.\n\n   Authors of those attacks writers of no reputation and grossly\n   ignorant, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Malthus feared that, with so great a power of reproduction,\n   mankind would come to exceed what the earth could maintain but\n   for prudence and foresight, 398.\n\n   An expression which occurred in the first edition of his Essay\n   on Population, to the effect that population increases in a\n   geometrical, and food in an arithmetical progression, gave rise\n   to misrepresentation, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Made a handle of by Godwin and Sismondi, and was suppressed in\n   all subsequent editions, 399.\n\n   Attacks continued notwithstanding, the fiercest proceeding from\n   men who confessed they had not read Malthus\u2019s work, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   The laws of population cannot be comprised in a brief aphorism\n   or formula, 400.\n\n   Were known before Malthus wrote, 402.\n\n   Objections to his theory illogical, 405.\n\n   Arguments against his geometrical progression not conclusive,\n   \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Wrong in adopting the limit of twenty-five years, although that\n   holds good in America, 406, 407.\n\n   Malthus attributes more force to repressive than preventive\n   check, 410.\n\n   His true formula is, not that population tends to keep on a\n   level with, but to go beyond, the means of subsistence, 416.\n\n \u2039Maudit Argent!\u203a pamphlet by Bastiat exposing popular errors\n arising from confounding capital with money, and money with\n inconvertible paper, 23.\n\n \u2039Measure of Value\u203a, the \u2039quadrature\u203a of Political Economy, 170.\n\n   Absolute measure a chimera, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Labour cannot serve as a measure, 171.\n\n \u2039M\u00e9moire sur la question Vinicole\u203a, pamphlet published by Bastiat\n in 1843, 12.\n\n \u2039M\u00e9moire sur la r\u00e9partition de l\u2019imp\u00f4t foncier\u203a, pamphlet by\n Bastiat, written in 1844, 12.\n\n \u2039Metals, Precious\u203a, not a perfect standard of value, their own\n value fluctuating, 151, 152.\n\n \u2039M\u00e9tayage\u203a, system of, explained, 61, \u2039note\u203a.\n\n \u2039Moli\u00e8re\u203a, his \u2039Malade Imaginaire\u203a quoted, 104.\n\n \u2039Molinari, M. de\u203a, his description of Bastiat\u2019s appearance quoted,\n 17.\n\n \u2039Money\u203a, an intermediate commodity which facilitates the exchange\n of services, but does not change the principle of value, 142.\n\n \u2039Montaigne\u203a quoted, 97.\n\n \u2039Moral qualities\u203a must be taken into account with reference to\n production of wealth, 93, 94.\n\n \u2039Morality of Wealth\u203a, considerations on, 193, 194.\n\n \u2039Morals\u203a, relations of Political Economy with, 513, \u2039note\u203a.\n\n \u2039Moreau de Jonn\u00e8s\u203a, his calculations of the period of doubling the\n population in various countries, 403.\n\n \u2039Moses\u203a, his account of the multiplication of Hebrews who entered\n Egypt, 407.\n\n\n N.\n\n \u2039Newton, Sir Isaac\u203a, referred to, 62.\n\n\n O.\n\n \u2039Organization\u203a, natural and artificial, 47.\n\n\n P.\n\n \u2039Paix et Libert\u00e9\u203a, pamphlet by Bastiat against excessive taxation\n and overgrown military and naval armaments, 22.\n\n \u2039Pamphlets\u203a by Bastiat, \u2039R\u00e9flexions concernant les Douanes\u203a, and\n \u2039Le Fisc et la Vigne\u203a, published 1840, 11, 12.\n\n   \u2039M\u00e9moire sur la question Vinicole\u203a appeared in 1843, and\n   \u2039M\u00e9moire sur la r\u00e9partition de l\u2019imp\u00f4t foncier\u203a in 1844, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Pamphlets against the Socialists, \u2039Propri\u00e9t\u00e9 et Loi\u203a, \u2039Propri\u00e9t\u00e9\n   et Spoliation\u203a, \u2039Justice et Fraternit\u00e9\u203a, \u2039Capital et Rente\u203a,\n   \u2039Gratuit\u00e9 du Credit\u203a, \u2039Protectionisme et Communisme\u203a, etc.,\n   published in 1848-9, 22.\n\n   \u2039Maudit Argent!\u203a extract from, 23.\n\n   \u2039Baccalaur\u00e9at et Socialisme\u203a, and \u2039Ce qu\u2019on voit et ce qu\u2019on ne\n   voit pas\u203a, published in 1850, \u2039ib.\u203a;\n\n     extracts from the latter, 24, 25.\n\n \u2039Peel, Sir R.\u203a, triumph of Free Trade due not so much to him as to\n Mr Cobden, 374.\n\n \u2039Perfectibility\u203a, means of realizing, to be found in law of\n Responsibility, 509.\n\n   Liberty the essence of progress, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Formidable obstacles to progress, 509, 510.\n\n   But no ground for despair, 510.\n\n   Ch\u00e2teaubriand represents civilisation and corruption of morals\n   as marching abreast, 511, 512.\n\n \u2039Petty, Sir W.\u203a, cited, 186.\n\n \u2039Phalanst\u00e8re\u203a, a Socialist work, referred to, 64, 205, \u2039note\u203a.\n\n \u2039Physiocrates\u203a, French Economists of the school of Quesnay, 153,\n \u2039note\u203a.\n\n   Represented all labour not worked up in a material commodity as\n   sterile, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n \u2039Political Economy\u203a, limits of the science marked out, 70, 71.\n\n   May be defined the theory of exchange, 73;\n\n     or the theory of value, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Takes for granted the existence of evil and suffering, 76.\n\n   Many errors in, arise from regarding human wants as a fixed\n   quantity, 79.\n\n   Not one of the exact sciences, 82, 83.\n\n   First principles of, involved in difficulties by erroneous\n   definitions of value, 136.\n\n   A science of observation and exposition, 502.\n\n   Contrast between Political Economy and Socialism, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Relations of Political Economy with Morals, Politics, and\n   Legislation, 513, \u2039note\u203a.\n\n \u2039Population\u203a, laws of, cannot be comprised in a brief formula, 400.\n\n   Vindication of Malthus, and of the general doctrine of his Essay\n   on Population, 397, 400.\n\n   If, as wealth increases, the number among whom it is to be\n   divided increases more rapidly, absolute wealth may be greater,\n   but individual wealth will be less, 401.\n\n   Malthus has reduced the principle to the formula that population\n   tends to keep on a level with the means of subsistence, 402.\n\n   This principle not new; every writer on such subjects since\n   Aristotle has proclaimed it, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Enunciated by Sir James Steuart thirty years before the\n   appearance of the Essay on Population, \u2039ib.\u203a, \u2039note\u203a.\n\n   Nature has taken greater care of species than of individuals, in\n   order to insure the perpetuity of races, 402.\n\n   Instances of this in the vegetable kingdom, \u2039ib.\u203a;\n\n     and in animals whose life is of a type more akin to\n     vegetables, 402, 403.\n\n   Advancing in scale of social life, means of reproduction\n   bestowed with greater parsimony, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   In the human species, reproductive faculty less powerful than in\n   any other, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   But, physically, man does not escape the law of a tendency to\n   multiplication beyond the limits of space and nourishment, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Difference between the physiological power of multiplying and\n   actual multiplication, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Malthus inquired in what period of time mankind would double, if\n   space and food were unlimited, 404.\n\n   But as this hypothesis is never realized, theoretical must be\n   shorter than actual period, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Different rates of increase in different countries according to\n   estimate of M. Moreau de Jonn\u00e8s, 403.\n\n   Such differences not the result of physiological causes, but of\n   external obstacles, 404.\n\n   New sources of local wealth lead invariably to increase of\n   population, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Objections made to the theory of Malthus very illogical, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Nor are the arguments against his geometrical progression more\n   conclusive, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Fixed on twenty-five years as the minimum period in which\n   population may double itself, because this actually takes place\n   in America, 405.\n\n   Malthus merely asserts that it has a \u2039tendency\u203a to increase in a\n   geometrical progression, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   That this virtual power of multiplication will be restrained is\n   just what Malthus contends for, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Restrained by preventive and repressive checks, 406.\n\n   He was wrong in adopting the limit of twenty-five years,\n   although it holds good in America, 406, 407.\n\n   This mixing up of the virtual and the real has exposed him to be\n   misunderstood and misrepresented, 406.\n\n   Calculation by Euler of period of doubling, 407.\n\n   Applying Euler\u2019s calculation to the facts stated by Moses,\n   Hebrews who entered Egypt must have doubled in 14 years, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Absolute power of multiplication limited by obstacles, 408.\n\n   Vegetable life limited by want of space and territorial\n   fertility\u2014animals destitute of foresight, by want of food, 409.\n\n   Opinions of M. de Lamennais on this subject combated, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Law of limitation as regards man manifests itself by the double\n   action of foresight and destruction, 410.\n\n   The term moral restraint, used by Malthus, does not give us a\n   just idea of the domain of foresight, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Other obstacles besides fear of poverty aid the action of the\n   law of limitation in its preventive shape, 410, 411.\n\n   Marriages on an average are probably later than they otherwise\n   would be by eight years in consequence of these preventive\n   obstacles, 411.\n\n   Supposed advice of an old clergyman regarding too early\n   marriages, 411, 412.\n\n   Man\u2019s perfectibility an important element in resolving the\n   problem of population, 413.\n\n   Malthus, by neglecting this, has attributed less force to the\n   preventive than to the repressive check, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   For the expression, \u201cmeans of subsistence,\u201d Say has substituted\n   one more exact, namely, \u201cmeans of existence,\u201d \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Man\u2019s constant effort to better his condition exercises control\n   over increase of numbers, 414.\n\n   Better circumstances induce greater foresight, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   In countries like China or Ireland, when rice and potatoes fail,\n   there is nothing to fall back on, and repressive check comes\n   into operation, 416.\n\n   The true formula of Malthus is, not that population tends\n   to keep on a level with, but to go beyond, the means of\n   subsistence, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Foresight prevents this in the human race, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Recapitulation, 416, 417.\n\n   Population tends to redundancy most among unskilled labourers,\n   420.\n\n   Marriages are less improvident among the higher classes, 421.\n\n   \u2039Fermage\u203a less efficacious in interposing a preventive obstacle\n   to increase of population than \u2039M\u00e9tayage\u203a, 421, 422.\n\n   These terms explained, 421. \u2039note\u203a.\n\n   Almsgiving tends to destroy foresight, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Improvement in labourers\u2019 cottages in England, 422.\n\n   Rate, of wages in one country influences the rate in others, 423.\n\n   Population is in itself a force, for increase of productive\n   power results from density of population, 424, \u2039note\u203a.\n\n \u2039Producer\u203a, every member of society may in turn be both producer\n and consumer, 324, 325.\n\n   Producers and consumers should be left free to take care of\n   their own interests, 327.\n\n   The effect of inventions and discoveries on the interest of\n   producers and consumers illustrated by diagrams, 331, 332.\n\n   Advantages, from inventions, or from local situation, climate,\n   etc., slip rapidly from the hands of producers, and go to\n   enlarge enjoyments of consumers, 333, 334.\n\n   Same thing holds of disadvantages, 334.\n\n   Producer has nothing to do with the utility of what is produced,\n   only with its value, 336.\n\n   The utility concerns the demander, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   It is in the intention of the consumer that moral or immoral\n   enjoyment is to be discovered, 338.\n\n \u2039Production\u203a is to modify and combine substances, not to create,\n them, 100.\n\n   Production and consumption not the best terms to designate\n   services rendered and received, 323.\n\n   Production is employed to designate whatever confers utility,\n   \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n \u2039Progress\u203a annihilates value by substituting gratuitous for\n onerous utility, 73.\n\n \u2039Prol\u00e9taire\u203a, definition of the term as used by Bastiat, 35,\n \u2039note\u203a.\n\n \u2039Property and Community\u203a, two ideas correlative to ideas of\n onerosity and gratuitousness, 223.\n\n   Gifts of nature, the domain of community\u2014human efforts, domain\n   of property, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Principle of property, 226-229.\n\n   Illustrations of this, 229-232.\n\n   As society advances, property tends to recede, and community to\n   advance, 232.\n\n   Illustrations of this, 233-236.\n\n   Vindication of property, 238-240.\n\n   Distinction between community and communism, 245-248.\n\n \u2039Property.\u203a See \u2039Landed Property\u203a.\n\n \u2039Propri\u00e9t\u00e9 et Loi\u203a, pamphlet by Bastiat against the Socialists, 22.\n\n \u2039Propri\u00e9t\u00e9 et Spoliation\u203a, pamphlet by Bastiat, 22.\n\n \u2039Protection\u203a, a phase of communism, 323.\n\n   This demonstrated by Bastiat in pamphlet entitled\n   \u2039Protectionisme et Communisme\u203a, 22.\n\n \u2039Proudhon\u203a, his erroneous view of landed property, 155, 233, 260.\n\n   Error as to interest of capital, 158.\n\n   His view of wealth and value confuted, 188-190.\n\n   Doctrine of mutuality of services, 224.\n\n \u2039Providence\u203a, laws of, harmonious, 43.\n\n\n Q.\n\n \u2039Quesnay\u203a, French Economists of his school known as the\n \u2039Physiocrates\u203a, 153, \u2039note\u203a.\n\n   Represented all labour not worked up in a material commodity as\n   sterile, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n\n R.\n\n \u2039R\u00e9flexions concernant les Douanes\u203a, pamphlet written by Bastiat\n in 1840, 11.\n\n \u2039Religion\u203a derived from \u2039religare\u203a, to bind, 468.\n\n   False religions may be known from their obstructing progress,\n   480.\n\n   No form of religion ought to be repressed by law, 481, 482.\n\n   Human mind generally begins by discovery of final causes, 514.\n\n   Habit blinds us to final causes, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   When we discover efficient, we are too apt to deny final causes,\n   515-517.\n\n \u2039Rent.\u203a See \u2039Landed Property\u203a.\n\n   Ameliorations which increase the value of land generally\n   diminish the price of its produce, 347.\n\n   Explanation of this, 348, 349.\n\n   Author intended to adopt the theory of Mr Carey in opposition to\n   that of Ricardo, 347, \u2039note\u203a.\n\n   Theory of the progressive dearness of means of subsistence\n   erroneous, 351, \u2039note\u203a.\n\n \u2039Responsibility\u203a, belief in God the leading idea of this work, 465.\n\n   Differs from the writings of Socialists, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   The author\u2019s proposed introduction continued by editor, 465,\n   466, \u2039note\u203a.\n\n   Laws of Responsibility and Solidarity act together, 466;\n\n     and should be viewed in their \u2039ensemble\u203a, but for the method\n     required by science, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Evil and suffering exist everywhere, in the individual and in\n   society, 467, 468.\n\n   The social body not subject to inevitable decline, 468.\n\n   De Custine\u2019s remarks on this subject quoted, \u2039ib.\u203a, \u2039note\u203a.\n\n   Society, like the human body, has a \u2039vis medicatrix\u203a, 469.\n\n   Men approximate to a common level which is constantly rising,\n   \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Liberty implies possible error, and error possible evil, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Socialists\u2019 errors on this subject combated, 470, 471.\n\n   Political Economy is not concerned to explain origin of evil,\n   471.\n\n   Sufficient that evil and suffering exist, and have their\n   mission, 472.\n\n   Existence of free will proved by our consciousness of possessing\n   it, 472, 473.\n\n   Dr Johnson\u2019s opinion on this subject quoted, 473, \u2039note\u203a.\n\n   Every action gives rise to consequences, of which some fall back\n   on the agent, and others on his family or on society, hence\n   responsibility and solidarity, 474.\n\n   Responsibility applies to the person who acts, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   We cannot even conceive of man as exempt from suffering, 474,\n   475.\n\n   Our notions of sensibility and existence are inseparable, 475.\n\n   Faith the necessary complement of our destinies, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Without sensibility we should be constantly exposed to death,\n   \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   If, of the consequences following on action, the majority are\n   bad and hurtful, such action tends to limit and restrain itself,\n   476.\n\n   Ignorance gives rise to bad habits and bad laws, knowledge and\n   experience to the reverse, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Mission of evil is to destroy its own cause and stimulate\n   progress, 477.\n\n   Responsibility has three sanctions,\u2014natural, religious, and\n   legal, 478.\n\n   The first of these is fundamental, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Is an act vicious because revelation declares it so, or does\n   revelation declare it so because its consequences are bad? \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Bishop Butler\u2019s Sermons on Human Nature quoted, 478, \u2039note\u203a.\n\n   If we had a religion which forbade acts proved to be useful, it\n   could not be maintained, 479.\n\n   All the power of the Church insufficient to enforce prohibition\n   of interest, 480.\n\n   False religions known from their obstructing advancement and\n   progress, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Legal sanction should only give force and efficacy to natural\n   sanction, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Where natural repression sufficient, legal repression should be\n   avoided, 481.\n\n   Law acts by means of force, and should not be applied to repress\n   any particular form of religion, 481, 482.\n\n   Other instances of the hurtful interposition of law, 482-485.\n\n   Evils to which foundling hospitals have given rise, 485-487.\n\n   Sense of responsibility capable of improvement, 487.\n\n   Its development may be aided by female intervention, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n \u2039Revolution of February\u203a, remarks on its consequences, 123-128.\n\n \u2039Revue des Deux Mondes\u203a quoted, 16.\n\n \u2039Reybaud, M. Louis\u203a, his notice of Bastiat referred to, 16.\n\n   His description of Bastiat\u2019s appearance quoted, 17.\n\n \u2039Ricardo\u203a, his theory referred to, 38.\n\n   Wrong in representing the principle of value as residing in\n   labour, 136.\n\n   Gave to the word wealth the sense of utility; Say, that of\n   value, 181.\n\n   His opinions on landed property quoted, 252, 253.\n\n \u2039Robinson Crusoe\u203a, illustrations drawn from, 101, 197, 198.\n\n \u2039Rousseau, J. J.\u203a, quoted, 48.\n\n   His \u2039Contrat Social\u203a commented on, 56;\n\n     quoted, 57-60;\n\n     referred to, 77.\n\n   Recognises the elasticity of human wants, 81.\n\n   Admits existence of evil, 85, \u2039note\u203a;\n\n     referred to, 94.\n\n   His doctrine controverted, 97.\n\n   To exalt the state of nature, makes happiness to consist in\n   privation, 102.\n\n   Represents solidarity as of legislative creation, 488, 489.\n\n \u2039Russia\u203a, population of, doubles in 43 years, 404.\n\n   De Custine\u2019s work on Russia quoted, 468, \u2039note\u203a.\n\n\n S.\n\n \u2039Saint-Chamans, M. de\u203a, referred to and quoted, 184.\n\n   His doctrine confuted, 185, 186.\n\n \u2039Sale and Purchase\u203a is barter by means of an intermediate\n commodity, 109.\n\n   Both resolve themselves into an exchange of services, 110.\n\n \u2039Satisfaction of Consumers\u203a, the sole end of production, 94, 95,\n 96.\n\n   The term satisfaction preferred to the word consumption, as more\n   general, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n \u2039Saving\u203a is not to accumulate commodities, but to interpose an\n interval between time of rendering and receiving services, 393.\n\n   The demand for labour and the rise of wages depend on\n   augmentation of capital, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Difficulties on the subject of saving removed by reference to\n   the principle of value, 391.\n\n   To interpose delay between services rendered and received is\n   itself to render a service; it has value, and hence the origin\n   of interest, 395.\n\n   To give credit is to render a service, which also has value, 396.\n\n   Saving not necessarily injurious to industry, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   It does not imply actual hoarding, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n \u2039Say, J. B.\u203a, quoted, 90.\n\n   Referred to, 100.\n\n   Judicious observation on barter\u2014\u2039troc \u00e0 deux facteurs\u203a, 110.\n\n   Wrong in representing value as residing in utility, 136.\n\n   Quoted, 142.\n\n   Erroneous view of landed property, 154.\n\n   Is wrong in representing value as founded on utility, 161-164.\n\n   Discards Smith\u2019s distinction between productive and unproductive\n   labour, 173.\n\n   Gave to the word Wealth the sense of Value; Ricardo that of\n   Utility, 181.\n\n   His definition of natural wealth quoted, 190.\n\n   His opinions on landed property quoted, 255.\n\n   Has substituted the more exact expression \u201cmeans of existence\u201d\n   for the expression \u201cmeans of subsistence,\u201d used by Malthus in\n   his Essay on Population, 413.\n\n   Wrong in representing taxation as in all cases an evil, 426,\n   \u2039notes\u203a.\n\n \u2039Scialoja\u203a, his opinions on landed property quoted, 254.\n\n \u2039Scrope\u203a, his erroneous view of landed property, 253.\n\n \u2039Senior\u203a, his erroneous view of rent, 154.\n\n   Founds value on rarity, remarks on this doctrine, 167.\n\n   His opinions on landed property quoted, 253.\n\n   On the relations of Political Economy with Morals, Politics, and\n   Legislation, 513, \u2039note\u203a.\n\n \u2039Services\u203a, human transactions, when free, resolve themselves into\n exchange of, 43.\n\n   Value consists in comparative appreciation of, 73.\n\n   Service is effort in one man, while the want and satisfaction\n   are in another, 74.\n\n   Exchange of, forms the subject of Political Economy, 133.\n\n   Effort saved to the person who receives a service imparts value\n   to the service rendered, 140-142.\n\n   \u2039Service\u203a a better term than \u2039Labour\u203a, 158.\n\n   Every product which has value implies a service, but every\n   service does not imply a product; value, therefore, is in\n   service, 174.\n\n   When value passes from service to product, it undergoes, in\n   product, all the risks and chances to which the service itself\n   is subject, 176.\n\n   Service is rendered by the man who furnishes capital, 199, 200.\n\n   Private and Public service, 425.\n\n   Where want so general as to be a public want, may be provided\n   for by the community at large, 426.\n\n   This does not alter essential principles of exchange, \u2039ib.\u203a;\n\n     but modifies them, 429.\n\n   Process explained, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Sophism that money paid to public functionaries comes back like\n   rain on the citizens exposed, 430.\n\n   Public services always extinguish private services of the same\n   kind, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Public services leave no discretion to individuals, 432.\n\n   Example of this, \u2039ib.\u203a, \u2039note\u203a.\n\n   Take away control over services both rendered and received, 433.\n\n   Extinguish sense of responsibility, 434.\n\n   Give rise to public discontent, 434, 435.\n\n   Exclude competition, 435, 436.\n\n   Question is, what services should remain in the domain of\n   private exertion, what in that of public? 436.\n\n   Government action is legitimate only where intervention of force\n   legitimate, 437;\n\n     and legitimate only in the case of defence of liberty and\n     property, \u2039ib.\u203a;\n\n     and to ensure the predominance of justice, 438, 439.\n\n   When the State goes beyond this, it destroys liberty and\n   property, which are placed under its safeguard, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Province of Government confined to what involves public\n   security, taking care of common property, and levying\n   contributions for public service, 440.\n\n   Circumscribing the province of Government does not enfeeble, but\n   strengthen it, 441.\n\n   Example of the United States, 442.\n\n   Slavery and protection in America active causes of revolution,\n   \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Revolution of February, remarks on, 444.\n\n \u2039Sismondi, M. de\u203a, referred to, 184.\n\n   His doctrine on wealth and value controverted, 187.\n\n   His false theory on the relations of capitalist and labourer,\n   384.\n\n \u2039Smith, Adam\u203a, wrong in representing value as residing only in\n material substances, 91.\n\n   His distinction between roductive and unproductive labour has\n   led to errors, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   His account of the influence of exchange on labour commended,\n   105.\n\n   Wrong in representing the principle of value as residing in\n   materiality and durability, 136.\n\n   Quoted and controverted on the subject of value, 156.\n\n   Opinions on landed property quoted, 252.\n\n \u2039Social Motive Force\u203a described and explained, 495-503.\n\n   Personal interest is the social motive force which leads us to\n   shun evil and seek after good, 495.\n\n   Attraction towards happiness and repulsion from pain, the\n   mainspring of the social mechanism, 496.\n\n   This impulsive force is under direction of our intelligence, and\n   intelligence may err, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   The laws of responsibility and solidarity lend assistance to\n   repress error and injustice, 497.\n\n   Attempts of the Socialists to substitute devotion and\n   self-sacrifice for personal interest, as the social motive\n   force, combated, 498, 499.\n\n   Socialist works and writers referred to, 500-503.\n\n \u2039Social Problem\u203a, demands solution, 33, 34.\n\n   Solution to be found in liberty, not in constraint, 35.\n\n   The man who demonstrates that the good of each tends to the good\n   of all, as the good of all tends to the good of each, will have\n   resolved the social problem, 118.\n\n \u2039Socialists\u203a differ from Economists in regarding man\u2019s interests as\n antagonistic, 35.\n\n   Socialist works referred to, 64, and \u2039note\u203a.\n\n \u2039Society\u203a, mechanism of, 48.\n\n   Gives the humblest mechanic more in one day than he could\n   himself produce in many ages, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Study of, the business of Political Economy, 51.\n\n   In social state our powers exceed our wants, 98.\n\n \u2039Solidarity\u203a is collective responsibility, 488.\n\n   Not of legislative creation, as represented by Rousseau, 488,\n   489.\n\n   The philosophers of the last century did not believe in it, 489.\n\n   Instances in which individuals suffer from the errors or faults\n   of others\u2014this is the law of solidarity, 489, 490.\n\n   Responsibility is not exclusively personal, but is shared and\n   divided, 490.\n\n   Society, in turn, suffers from the errors or faults of\n   individuals, and the law of solidarity comes to check such\n   actions, 491.\n\n   Solidarity, like responsibility, is a progressive force, and\n   resolves itself into repercussive or reflected responsibility,\n   \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   To enable those who suffer from another\u2019s acts to react against\n   them, connexion between cause and effect should be known, 492.\n\n   Not always known, from the circumstance that the first effect\n   may seem good, though all the subsequent consequences are bad,\n   \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Example of this in case of war, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   In the case of slavery, of religious errors, and of prohibition,\n   \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Human law should coincide with the natural law, and organize\n   reaction, 493.\n\n   Example of this in case of violence, which provokes vengeance,\n   law steps in to repress it with regularity and certainty, 493,\n   494.\n\n   Economic view of the law of solidarity not indicated by the\n   author in this chapter, 494, \u2039note\u203a.\n\n \u2039Sophismes \u00c9conomiques\u203a, great success of that work, and extract\n from it, 18;\n\n   referred to, 124, \u2039note\u203a, and 325.\n\n \u2039Spain\u203a, usual rate of interest in, said to be 8 per cent., 302.\n\n   Population of, doubles in 106 years, 404.\n\n \u2039Spoliation\u203a and oppression, the sources of all social\n dissonances, 318-322.\n\n \u2039Statistics, Experimental\u203a, what meant by, 353-360.\n\n \u2039Stewart, Sir James\u203a, took the same view of the principle of\n population which Malthus more formally enunciated, thirty years\n before the appearance of the Essay on Population, 402, \u2039note\u203a.\n\n \u2039Storch\u203a, his erroneous view of the principle of value, 136.\n\n   His doctrine that value depends on the judgment we form of\n   utility confuted, 168;\n\n     quoted, 191.\n\n \u2039Supply\u203a often virtually precedes demand, 335.\n\n   This arises from foresight of producer, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Intensity of demand pre-existent, 335.\n\n \u2039Switzerland\u203a, population of, doubles in 227 years, 404.\n\n\n T.\n\n \u2039Taxation\u203a, not necessarily a loss, as represented by Say, 426,\n 427, \u2039note\u203a.\n\n \u2039Tracy, M. de\u203a, quoted, 106, 107.\n\n \u2039Turkey\u203a, population of, doubles in 555 years, 403.\n\n\n U.\n\n \u2039Utility\u203a, onerous and gratuitous, 69.\n\n   By substituting gratuitous for onerous utility, progress\n   annihilates value, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Gratuitous, tends to take the place of onerous utility, 90, 91.\n\n   Mode in which this is effected, 91, 92.\n\n   Attributing value to utility has led to many errors, 164-167.\n\n   The term Production employed to designate whatever confers\n   utility, and Consumption to designate the enjoyment to which\n   that utility gives rise, 323.\n\n   What renders service to the masses is utility alone, and value\n   is not the measure of it, 325;\n\n     but in the case of the individual, value is the measure of it,\n     325, 326.\n\n   General utility and onerous utility represented by lines of\n   unequal length; gratuitous utility, by indefinite lines, 328.\n\n   Utility formerly onerous, now become gratuitous, also\n   represented by lines, 330.\n\n\n V.\n\n \u2039Value\u203a consists in the comparative appreciation of reciprocal\n services, 73.\n\n   Does not reside in material substances, as represented by Smith,\n   91.\n\n   Vague definition of, 108.\n\n   Value represents effort, 109.\n\n   Theory of value, 131.\n\n   As essential to Political Economy as numeration is to\n   arithmetic, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Value has a tendency to diminish in relation to utility, 132.\n\n   Does not extend to the co-operation of nature, but is restricted\n   exclusively to human efforts, 134.\n\n   A state of isolation excludes the idea of value, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Exchange imparts the notion of value, 135.\n\n   Value is the relation of two services exchanged, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Not necessarily proportionate to intensity of efforts, 138.\n\n   Arises in some cases, not from the effort of the person who\n   renders the service, but from the effort saved to the person who\n   receives it, 140, 141.\n\n   This is a new principle not to be found in any other work on\n   Political Economy, 141.\n\n   Intervention of money does not change the principle, 142, 143.\n\n   Value does not reside in commodities, but in services, 143.\n\n   Examples of various kinds of services, all possessed of value,\n   147.\n\n   Limits within which value oscillates, \u2039ib.\u203a;\n\n     other examples, 148, 149.\n\n   The precious metals not a perfect standard of value, as their\n   own value fluctuates, 151, 152.\n\n   Value not an attribute of matter, 153.\n\n   This an error of the Physiocrates and of Adam Smith, and\n   has given rise to the distinction between productive and\n   unproductive labour, 153, 154.\n\n   Value not a thing having independent existence, but a relation,\n   158.\n\n   Value and Labour are not proportional, 159, 160, \u2039note\u203a.\n\n   Measure of value the \u2039quadrature\u203a of Political Economy, 170.\n\n   Fixity cannot be found in a mean term composed of variable\n   elements, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Absolute measure of, a chimera, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Value being supposed to be in the material product, and not in\n   the service, has led to Smith\u2019s error as to unproductive labour,\n   172.\n\n   When value passes from service to product, it undergoes, in\n   product, all the risks and chances to which the service itself\n   is subject, 176.\n\n   Prevailing tendency of value incorporated with a commodity is to\n   fall, 178.\n\n   Value is the measure of the utility of services rendered to the\n   individual, not of those rendered to the masses, 325, 326.\n\n\n W.\n\n \u2039Wages.\u203a Men are always in search of something fixed, 352.\n\n   Hence the great desire for government offices, 353.\n\n   Fixity favoured by two circumstances, 354.\n\n   Illustrations drawn from the principle of fire insurance,\n   354-357.\n\n   Remuneration by wages has the principle of fixity, so much\n   sought after, 357.\n\n   Opinions of the Socialists on this subject controverted, 357,\n   358.\n\n   Wages, their origin, form, and effects, 358.\n\n   Labour may be remunerated either by share of its product or by\n   fixed wages, 359.\n\n   Dependence not caused by form of remuneration, but by precarious\n   situation of labourer, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   No men worse off than fishermen and vine-dressers, though they\n   have the benefits of association, 359, 360.\n\n   Results of labour applied to the chase, fishing, or agriculture\n   very uncertain, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   To obviate this, a fixed unconditional bargain preferred, 360.\n\n   This is not to destroy, but improve, the principle of\n   association, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Risks appreciated by means of experimental statistics, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Remuneration by share of produce characteristic of times of\n   barbarism, 361.\n\n   Fixity of remuneration a step of progress, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Association not thereby dissolved, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Capital and labour both take a share of risk till it can be\n   estimated by experience, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   This state of things gives place to a bargain which ensure unity\n   of direction and fixity of situation, 362.\n\n   The capitalist may take risk, paying fixed wages, or labourer\n   may take risk, paying a fixed interest\u2014still there is\n   association, 362, 363.\n\n   Wages have nothing degrading in them any more than interest, 363.\n\n   The one is the remuneration of present, the other of anterior\n   labour, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Such stipulations are the cause and the manifestation of\n   progress, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Socialist errors on this subject confuted, 364, 365.\n\n   Friendly Societies admirable means of providing against sickness\n   and old age, 368.\n\n   Have conferred immense benefits on the working classes, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   \u2039Caisses de Retraite\u203a, Friendly Accumulation Societies, 371-378.\n\n   Anterior labour, or capital, must necessarily have more security\n   than present labour, 377-379.\n\n   Future of the working classes\u2014tendency to become capitalists,\n   379-383.\n\n   Progress of the working classes between 1750 and 1850, 381.\n\n   Relations of the capitalist and labourer, 383.\n\n   Erroneous notions on this subject most dangerous, 384.\n\n   Falsest theories abroad, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Due to M. de Sismondi and M. Buret, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Labourer\u2019s share of product has a tendency to increase as\n   capital increases, 385.\n\n   When exchange takes place between capital, or anterior labour,\n   and present labour, it is not on the footing of their duration\n   or intensity, but of their value, 387.\n\n   Anterior labour has a general tendency to become depreciated,\n   388, 389.\n\n   Presence of capital always beneficial to labourer, 390.\n\n   Groundless outcry against tyranny of capital, 391, 392.\n\n \u2039Wants\u203a, efforts, and satisfactions, constitute the domain of\n Political Economy, 69-74.\n\n   Wants of man, enumeration of, 75-77.\n\n   Moral and material, 77.\n\n   Not a fixed quantity, but progressive and expansive, 79, 80.\n\n   Rousseau recognises their elasticity, 81.\n\n   In isolation, wants exceed powers; in the social state, powers\n   exceed wants, 98.\n\n   Man has more wants than any other living being, 99.\n\n \u2039War.\u203a Principal thing which imparts to nations their distinctive\n character is the manner in which they provide for their\n subsistence, 454.\n\n   Labour, although little noticed by historians, held as important\n   a place among the ancients as it does with us, 457.\n\n   War, spoliation, marked difference in the character of a nation\n   which lives by, 458.\n\n   It presupposes production, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Spoliation in the shape of war has its root in selfishness, 459.\n\n   Personal interest gives rise to harmony, but there are\n   disturbing causes, 460.\n\n   Labour is in itself a good, independent of its results, but we\n   do not desire it for its own sake, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Man, being placed between two evils, want and labour, seeks to\n   get rid of both, 461.\n\n   Spoliation then presents itself as a solution of the problem,\n   \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   War a waste of human power, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   And the spoliator does not get quit of labour, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Checks production by the insecurity it creates, 462.\n\n   Contrasts between the producer and spoliator, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   War has been a widespread evil, 462, 463.\n\n   Interrupts human progress, 463.\n\n   How the warlike spirit is propagated, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   How war ends, 464.\n\n \u2039Water\u203a has utility without possessing value, 138;\n\n   but if brought from a distance by another, the service has\n   value, 138, 139.\n\n \u2039Wealth\u203a, natural and social, 73;\n\n   actual or relative, 180.\n\n   Relative wealth is measured by value, not utility, 181.\n\n   Ricardo gave to the word Wealth the sense of utility; Say, that\n   of value, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Effective wealth, the aggregate utilities which labour, aided by\n   natural agents, places within our reach, 192.\n\n   Relative wealth, proportional share of each in the general\n   riches, determined by value, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n   Morality of, 193, 194.\n\n   Motive which leads to acquisition of, natural, and consequently\n   moral, 193.\n\n   Desire to better our circumstances also moral, \u2039ib.\u203a;\n\n     but if we seek to become rich by injustice, this immoral, \u2039ib.\u203a\n\n\n Y.\n\n \u2039Youth of France\u203a, address to, 33.\n\n\n\n\n EDINBURGH: PRINTED BY OLIVER AND BOYD.\n\n\n\n\n TRANSCRIBER\u2019S ENDNOTE\n\nThe words \"\u00c9galitaires\" and \"Egalitaires\" are both retained as\nprinted.\n\nPage 64: \"instals\" was changed to \"installs\".\n\nPage 68: \"Keppler\" changed to \"Kepler\", to agree with the\ncorresponding index entry.\n\nPage 108: \"appearence\" to \"appearance\".\n\nPage 215: \"that times comes,\" to \"that time comes,\".\n\nPage 264: \"Proudon\" changed to \"Proudhon\".\n\nPage 266: added full stop after \"encountered the same difficulty\".\n\nPage 272: added full stop after \"into the high regions of the\natmosphere\".\n\nPage 276: added colon after \"pay for two kinds of labour\".\n\nPage 284: added full stop after \"in the case of agricultural\nproducts\".\n\nPage 385: added full stop after \"or in the product\".\n\nPage 488: Chapter number \"XXL\" to \"XXI\".\n\nPage 493: \"concide\" to \"coincide\".\n\nPage 500: \"sort of gravitation:\" to \"sort of gravitation;\".\n\nPage 513: beginning double quote mark added to second paragraph of\nthe long quotation in footnote 116.\n\nPage 521: \"Lammennais\" to \"Lamennais\".","title":"Harmonies of Political Economy: Translated from the Third French Edition, with a Notice of the Life and Writings of the Author","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":231973}