{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_66544/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_66544","id":"gutenberg_66544","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/66544","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Economics","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Russian Literature","Money","Property","Tolstoy, Leo, graf, 1828-1910"],"text":"+-------------------------------------------------+\n|Transcriber\u2019s note:                              |\n|                                                 |\n|Obvious typographic errors have been corrected.  |\n|                                                 |\n+-------------------------------------------------+\n\n\nTOLSTOY\u2019S INTERPRETATION\n\nOF MONEY AND PROPERTY\n\nBy\n\nMILIVOY S. STANOYEVICH, M.L.\n\n(_University of California_)\n\nReprinted from \u201cLiberty\u201d, December, 1916.\n\nLiberty Publishing Co.\nOakland, Cal.\n\n\n\n\nTOLSTOY\u2019S INTERPRETATION OF MONEY AND PROPERTY\n\n\n\n\nA. Interpretation of Money.\n\n\nI\n\nAssuming that our society may exist without positive laws it could\nalso exist without money. The Russian reformer, Leo N. Tolstoy, is\nconsistent with his doctrine of social reform[1]. According to him\nenacted law is violence, private property is evil, and subsequently\n\u201cmoney as a centre around which economic science clusters\u201d[2] cannot be\nanything else, but a medium of oppression[3]. Describing the economic\nnature and offices performed by money, he dissents widely from the\npolitico-economists and disapproves of their teachings on the same\nsubject-matter.\n\nAt the outset of the seventeenth chapter of his notable work, _What\nShall We Do Then_, Tolstoy inquires, What is money? And further on\nhe proceeds: \u201cI have met educated people who asserted that money\nrepresents the labor of him who possesses it. I must confess that\nformerly I in some obscure manner shared this opinion. But I had\nto go to the bottom of what money was, and so to find this out,\nI turned to science. Science says that there is nothing unjust\nand prejudicial about money, that money is a natural condition of\nsocial life--necessary: 1. for convenience of exchange; 2. for\nthe establishment of measures of value; 3. for saving; and 4. for\npayments\u201d[4].\n\nAre these theories true? According to the teaching of economics they\nare; according to Tolstoy they are not. Many writers even those of\nthe earliest time argued that money is a medium of exchange[5].\nThe founders of classical economics, Smith[6], Ricardo[7], Mill[8],\nCarey[9], socialist reformers, Lassalle[10], and Marx[11], all agree\nin the main that money is an exchangeable commodity by means of which\npeople measure the value of other commodities. Professor Fisher\nshortly and precisely defines money as _What is generally acceptable\nin exchange for goods_[12]. More acute determination of the nature of\nmoney is given by Prof. Kinley in his elaborate study on _Money_[13].\nAccording to this author no definition of medium of exchange can be\nframed on the basis of the material of which it is made but on the\nbasis of its services, and its essential services are three fold:\n\nFirst, money is sometimes used to describe all media of exchange--gold,\nsilver, paper, checks, bank drafts or the deposits which they\nrepresent, commercial bills of exchange, and even corporation stocks.\nThese things all effect exchanges; in a way they all relieve the\ndifficulties of barter. But this definition, however, is too inclusive,\nProf. Kinley contends. It is inclusive because all mentioned articles\ndo not attain the character of media of exchange because there is a\ndemand for them for that purpose primarily. The medium of exchange\nincludes money but its content is greater than that of money. All money\ncan be a medium of exchange but all medium of exchange is not money[14].\n\nSecond, at the other extreme is a set of definitions which would\nrestrict money to what may be called commodity money. Those who hold\nthis view insist that money is an article of direct utility with\nspecific value based on its direct services for consumption. They hold\nthat it must have value due to a demand for other than a monetary\nsystem. The implication is that in the absence of this other demand\nthe article would not have any value and therefore could not properly\nserve as a measure of value. This view of the nature of money is\ndefinite and clear-cut, but it is not correct because the article has\nvalue if there is a demand for it, whatever the reason for that demand.\n\nThird, between these two extremes fluctuates the view that all media of\nexchange and payment, whose acceptance the law requires in discharge\nof debts, may properly be called money. This definition confines to\nstandard money, or inconvertible paper, if it were legal tender. Both\nkinds of money circulate without reference to the possibility of\nrecovering their value from the payer if they should fail to pass,\nand their value as money depends entirely on the fact that they are\ngenerally acceptable in exchange[15].\n\nTaking now in view these three standpoints of the nature of money, we\ncould define it in these words: Legal tender, inconvertible paper, and\nall commodities which are used as general circulating and paying media,\nare properly called money.\n\nThis is one of the most typical definitions including nearly all others\nsupported by current political economy. Tolstoy as always disagrees\nwith the teaching of economics and he simply says that money is a new\nand terrible form of slavery[16]. His full definition is as follows:\nMoney is a conventional token which gives the right, or more correctly,\nthe possibility, to exploit the labor of other people[17]. To explain\nthis inadequate definition of money more appropriately and in its\nfuller extent, it is necessary to turn our attention to the functions\nof money as they are enunciated by Leo Tolstoy.\n\nOne of many other functions which money performes, according to\nTolstoy, is the representation of labor. There exists a common opinion\nthat money represents wealth, but money is the product of labor, and\nso money represents labor[18]. This opinion, says Tolstoy sneeringly,\nis as correct as that other opinion that every political organization\nis the result of a pact (_contrat social_). Yes, money represents\nlabor[19], there is no doubt about that, but whose, labor of the owner\nof the money, or of the other people? In that rude stage of society,\nTolstoy goes on, when people voluntarily bartered the fruits of their\nproducts, or exchanged them through the medium of money, substantially\nmoney represented their individual labor. That is incontestably true,\nand this was only so long as in society where this exchange took place,\nhas not appeared the violence of one man over another in any form: war,\nslavery, of defence of one\u2019s labor against others. But as soon as any\nviolence was exerted in society, the money at once lost for the owner\nits significance as a representative of labor, and assumed the meaning\nof a right which is not based on labor, but on violence[20]. This is\none of the functions of the medium of exchange in the pages of Tolstoy.\n\nThe second function of money is the representation of the standard\nvalue. \u201cCatallactics\u201d admits this function of money. Tolstoy himself\nshould recognize it in an ideal state of society, in a society where\nextortion has not made its appearance[21]. If people exchanged directly\ncommodity for commodity; if they themselves determined the standards\nof values by sheep, furs, hides, and shells[22], then one could speak\nof money as an instrument of exchange, as an ideal standard of value\nin an ideal state of society. But in such a society there would be no\nmoney as such, as a common standard of values, as it has not existed\nand cannot exist[23]. The standard value of money is determined by law\nand government, and these institutions are based chiefly on deceit[24],\nor represent the organized force[25]. What in recent time receives a\nvalue is not what is more convenient for exchange, but what is demanded\nby government. If gold is demanded gold will be a common denominator,\nif knuckle-bones are demanded, knuckle-bones will have value[26]. If\nthis were not so why has the issue of this medium of exchange always\nbeen the prerogative of the government? In such a state of society in\nwhich we live, the standard of values ceases to have any significance,\nbecause the standard of value of all articles depends on the arbitrary\nwill of the oppressor[27]. By this reason we could speak only on\narbitrary and conventional value of money, not of its intrinsic, nor of\nits standard value.\n\nPassing now to the third function of money, enumerated by Tolstoy,\nwe see that he attributes to it a new contingent service which is\nnot mentioned as such in any political economy. In modern civilised\nsociety, he says, all the governments are in extreme need for money,\nand always in insolvable debt[28]. Wherefore they issue monetary\ntokens in the different countries[29]. These tokens: legal tender,\ninconvertible paper, coin, bills, and other governmental fiats,\nare distributed among the people, in order that later they could\nbe collected as direct, indirect, and land taxes[30]. The debts of\nthe present monetary state grow from year to year in a terrifying\nprogression. Even so grow the budgets[31]. A state which should not\nlevy taxes, for a comparatively short time would go to bankruptcy. The\ntaxes and imposts required from people may be paid in form of cattle,\ncorn, furs, skins, and other natural products, but this \u201cnatural\neconomy\u201d never practices in a civilised state. Governments force people\nto pay those taxes usually in \u201chard\u201d or \u201csoft\u201d cash, because this kind\nof money best suits the purposes of rewarding the military and civil\nofficials, of maintaining the clergy, the courts, the construction of\nprisons, fortresses, cannon[32], and supporting those men who aid in\nthe seizure of the money from the people[33]. So we have the third\nfunction of money as the third method of enslavement[34], by means of\ntribute and taxes[35]. In modern times, since the discovery of America\nand the development of trade and the influx of gold, which is accepted\nas the universal money standard, the monetary tribute becomes, with\nthe enforcement of the political power, the chief instrument of the\nenslavement of men[36], and upon it all the economic relation of men\nare based[37].\n\n\nII\n\nDiscussing money, Tolstoy cannot separate the economic question from\nthe political. To him it appears inevitable that money performes a\nsocial service equivalent to the instrument of extortion. He does not\ntake into consideration those inumerable utilities which circulating\nmedium renders to the community and particularly to the commercial\nworld, facilitating the transfer as well as aggregation of capital.\n\u201cChremmatistics\u201d teaches us that money is the most general form of\ncapital, capital in the fluid state, so that it can be immediately\nturned to new enterprises and transfered for investment to distant\nplaces. On the other hand, capital in the form of money is the most\nconvenient vehicle of production and distribution of wealth. Tolstoy,\nas a medieval canonist, regards capital and wealth to be shameful\nand criminal things. He absolutely repudiates the theory that in all\nproduction only three factors take part: land, capital and labor.\nHis disconcerting controversy in these matters contains nothing\nfundamentally new in political economy, but it is an odd manner in\nwhich he couches the notion of money in relation to production.\n\nIt seems strange, Tolstoy\u2019s theory runs, that economists do not\nrecognize the natural objects in production of wealth. The power of\nthe sun, water, food, air, and social security, are the requisites of\nproduction as much as the land or capital. Education, knowledge, and\nability to speak are certain agents of production. I could fill a\nwhole volume, says Tolstoy, with such omitted factors, and put them at\nthe basis of science[38]. The division into three factors of production\nis not proper to men. It is improper, arbitrary, and senseless. It does\nnot lie in the essence of things themselves.\n\nBy its division of the factors of production, proceeds our author,\nscience affirms that the natural condition of the laborer is that\nunnatural condition in which he is; just as in the ancient world\nthey affirmed, in dividing people into citizens and slaves, that\nthe unnatural condition of the slaves is a natural property of man.\nThis division, which is accepted by science only in order to justify\nthe existing evil, which is placed by it at the basis of all its\ninvestigations, has had this effect, that science tries in vain to\ngive explanations of existing phenomena, and denying the clearest and\nsimplest answers to questions that present them, it gives answers which\nare devoid of content. The question of economic science is as follows:\nWhat is the cause of this, that some men, who have land and capital,\nare able to enslave those who have not land, and no capital? The answer\nwhich presents itself to common sense is this, that it is due to the\nmoney, which has the power of enslaving people. This is not due to the\nproperty of money, but because some have land and capital, and others\nhave not. We ask, why people who have land and capital enslave those\nwho have none, and we are told: because they have land and capital.\nBut that is precisely what we want to know. The privation of the land\nand of the tools of labor is that very enslavement. The answer is like\nthis: _Facit dormire quia habet virtutem dormitiva_. To simple people\nit is indubitable that the nearest cause of the enslavement of one\nclass of men by another is money[39]. They know that it is possible to\ncause more trouble with a rouble than with a club; it is only political\neconomy that does not want to know it[40].\n\nThese theories on money respecting production do not appear of such\nnature that they could be applied in the other countries besides\nRussia. The Russian enlightened feudalism of the nineteenth century\ngave Tolstoy excellent material and a good reason to attack it with\nall his strength, and he was right. But his assault on political\neconomy for its \u201comission\u201d to treat the natural objects in production\nof wealth, are not justifiable, and could not be admitted. In the first\nplace, any better political economy does not consider these objects at\nlength, because nobody lays claims on them, as Tolstoy himself avowed\nthis fact[41]. The gifts of nature cannot be appropriated by any one.\nThey are inexhaustible and unlimited as compared with the wants of men.\nTherefore they never have a direct value to be taken as factors of\nproductions[42].\n\nIn modern industrial society the essential factors of production, among\nthe others, are money and wealth. Wealth is usually regarded as the\nobject of consumption, and as an agent of production[43]. The idea\nof wealth, however, is often confounded with the idea of money. John\nS. Mill has justly remarked that most people regard money as wealth,\nbecause by that means they provide almost all their necessities. In\nthe same sense is the assertion of the French economist Charles Gide,\nwhen he noted that in all times and in all places except among savages,\nmoney has occupied an exceptional place in the thoughts and desires of\nmen. People regard it, if not as the only wealth, at any rate, as by\nfar the most important form of wealth. They appear to measure the value\nof all other wealth by the quantity of money that can be obtained in\nexchange for it. _Etre riche, c\u2019est avoir soit de l\u2019argent, soit les\nmoyens de s\u2019en procurer[44]._\n\nTolstoy of course has no clear distinction either of wealth, or of\nmoney. He also confuses these notions, as many authors before and\nafter him. To define wealth exactly is verily a difficult task; and to\ndwell upon it impartially is perhaps still more difficult. There are\ntwo theories in \u201cPlutology\u201d regarding the definition of wealth: first,\nthat wealth is all exchangeable and valuable commodities and second,\nthat it is power. Representatives of the first theory are Henry Fawcet\nand John S. Mill, of the second, Hobbes and Carey. Tolstoy is nearer\nto those theorizers who teach that wealth is power, than to those\nwho define it as commodity. Yet, we should err gravely if we assumed\nthat between Tolstoy\u2019s interpretation of wealth and that of other\neconomists exists any conformity. For instance Carey defines wealth\nas the power to command nature. Tolstoy defines it as the power to\ncommand other people who have neither wealth nor \u201cthe signs\u201d of wealth.\n\u201cOnly in the Pentateuch, wealth is the highest good and reward\u201d[45]. In\neveryday life wealth is evil, deception and cause of enslavement. To\nbe honest and at the same time to work for Mammon, is something quite\nimpossible[46]. This ethical principle may be true. But our theorist\nforgets that questions of what people ought to do, and questions\nof what it will profit men and nations to do, belong to different\ncategories of sciences. He forgets that ethical ideas should not be\nread into the conceptions of wealth and money when they are employed in\ntheir everyday sense. Prof. S. Chapman[47] justly says \u201cIf our aim is\nto indicate what people ought to want instead of what they do want, we\nhad better speak of ethical wealth and ethical value\u201d.\n\nTolstoy was very near to those reform writers who taught that political\neconomy must be regarded as a part of moral philosophy. But he was\nnot the first social reformer who has introduced the moral elements\ninto the study of economic phenomena. As it is known Aristotle\u2019s\ninterpretations of money are written in the _Nichomachean Ethics_.\nThe political economy of Plato and Xenophon rests on moral bases[48].\nMedieval scholastics and theologians raised many problems which were in\nconnection with the searching inquire as to what constitutes a _just\nprice_, and this inquiry belonged to the ethics of political economy.\nAdam Smith and John S. Mill adopted the double role to be economists\nand at the same time ethical teachers[49]. French economists Rossi, De\nLaveley, and Le Play, introduced ethical principle in the science of\nwealth as well.\n\nThere are several such examples of \u201cethical interpretation\u201d of\neconomics among the most illustrious thinkers. They may be exculpated\nfor their disagreements only on the ground that they lived in times\nwhen social science was in incumbent stage, when scientific ideas\nwere intermingled from one sphere of science into another. Good,\ngentle Tolstoy, may also be pardoned for his \u201cblunders of expression\u201d\nbecause he made them in his fanatic love of truth, and truth although\nit is truth, does not always seem true, says a French proverb. To\ntreat the delicate and intricate complexity of money and wealth, and\nnever mislead, one should be a higher-man, a superman. But supermen\nare not yet born in this sordid earth as fitly objected a well-known\nphilosopher.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] \u201cIf Tolstoy\u2019s teaching is not systematic, two facts may be urged in\nextenuation: his doctrines, so far as he expounds them, are consistent\nin themselves\u201d--says T. S. Knowlson in his biographical and critical\nstudy on _Leo Tolstoy_, ch. VII, p. 143. [London, 1904].\n\n[2] See J. W. Harper, _Money and Social Problem_, ch. V, sec. I, p. 98.\n\n[3] _What Shall We Do Then_, ch. XIX, p. 127. [Wiener\u2019s ed. 1904].\n\n[4] _Loc. cit._, ch. XVII, p. 100.\n\n[5] Cf. for instance, Plato, _Laws_, ch. XI, and Aristotle\u2019s\n_Politics_, bk. I, ch. 9; _Nicomachean Ethics_, by Aristotle, bk. V,\nch. 5.--Roman authors defined money as a \u201cjust medium and measure\nof commutable things\u201d _Moneta est justum medium, et mensura rerum\ncommutabilium_, quoted in H. C. Black, _Dictionary of Law_, p. 785.\n[1891].\n\n[6] _Wealth of Nations_, bk. II, ch. II.\n\n[7] _Principles of Political Economy and Taxation_, ch. XXI.\n\n[8] _Principles of Political Economy_, bk. III, ch. VII.\n\n[9] _Principles of Social Science_, vol. II, ch. XXX, 1.\n\n[10] _Die Philosophie Heracleitos des Dunkeln_, vol. I, p. 22. [1845].\n\n[11] _Capital_, English ed. part I, ch. III.\n\n[12] _The Purchasing Power of Money_, ch. II, ces. 1. [New York, 1911].\n\n[13] D. Kinley, _Money_, a Study of the Theory of the Medium of\nExchange, ch. V, 6. [New York, 1913].\n\n[14] Some excellent hints as to the money-commodity, compare H. White,\n_Money and Banking_, bk. I, ch. I. [New York, 1908].\n\n[15] Valuable suggestions on standard money, see W. A. Scott, _Money\nand Banking_, ch. I, sec. I.--J. L. Laughlin, _The Principles of\nMoney_, ch. III.--J. B. Clark, _The Ultimate Standard of Value_,\nin _Yale Review_, Nov. 1892, vol. 1, p. 258-74.--The same subject\nis well treated by C. Manger in an article entitled \u201cGeld\u201d in the\n_Handwoerterbuch der Staatswissenschaften_, bd. IV. [1900], and\nL. Nasse, \u201cDas Geld und Muenzwesen\u201d in Schoenberg, _Handbuch der\nPolitischen Oekonomie_, bd. I. [1896].\n\n[16] _What Shall We Do Then_, ch. XXI, p. 164. [Wiener\u2019s ed.]\n\n[17] _Id. Ibid._ ch. XXII, p. 161.\n\n[18] _What Shall We Do Then_, ch. XXI, p. 158.\n\n[19] _Op. cit._, p. 160.\n\n[20] _Loc. cit._ ch. XXI, p. 159.\n\n[21] _Id. Ib._ ch. XIX, p. 126.\n\n[22] _Op. cit._ ch. XVIII, p. 122.\n\n[23] _Id. ib._ ch. XIX, p. 126.\n\n[24] _Patriotism and Government._ Complete Works, vol. XXIII, p. 538.\n[Wiener\u2019s ed. 1904].\n\n[25] _The Slavery of Our Times._ Comp. Works, vol. XXIV, p. 128.\n\n[26] _What Shall We Do Then_, ch. XVIII, p. 122.\n\n[27] _Id. Ibid._ ch. XIX, p. 127.\n\n[28] _Loc. cit._ ch. XVIII, p. 121.\n\n[29] _Op. cit._ ch. XX, p. 145.\n\n[30] _Loc. cit._ ch. XX, p. 145.\n\n[31] _Id. Ibid._ ch. XVIII, p. 121.\n\n[32] _The Kingdom of God is Within You_, ch. IX, p. 237.\n\n[33] _The Slavery of Our Times_, ch. X, p. 41.\n\n[34] The first method of the enslavement of men is by means of personal\nviolence, according to Tolstoy, and second is by depriving people of\ntheir land. [Cf. _What Shall We Do Then_, ch. XX, p. 142-43].\n\n[35] _What Shall We Do Then_, ch. XX. p. 144.\n\n[36] _Id. Ibid._ ch. XVIII, p. 111.\n\n[37] For the sound discussion on function of money, which is avowedly\nopposite to Tolstoy\u2019s theory, see W. S. Jevons, _Money and the\nMechanism of Exchange_, ch. III.--J. L. Laughlin, _The Principles\nof Money_, ch. I.--F. A. Walker, _Money_, ch. I. [1883].--E. B.\nBawerk, _Positive Theorie des Capitals_, bch. II, abt. II-III.\n[1902].--C. Jannet, _Capital_, ch. II-III. For a different and\nsounder interpretation of taxes and taxation, see the excellent book,\n_Introduction to Public Finance_, by Prof. C. C. Plehn. N. York, 1896.\n\n[38] _What Shall We Do Then_, ch. XVII, p. 102.\n\n[39] _Loc. cit._ ch. XVII, p. 109.\n\n[40] _Id. Ibid._ ch. XVIII, p. 124.\n\n[41] _Op. cit._ ch. XVIII, p. 117.\n\n[42] Cf. W. Roscher, _System der Volkswirtschaft_, bd. I, kap. I, 31.\n[1906]. J. S. Mill, _Political Economy_, bk. I, ch. I, sec. 1.\n\n[43] Cf. A. Marschal, _Principles of Economics_, bk. IV, ch. VII, sec.\n1. p. 300. [London, 1898].\n\n[44] _Cours d\u2019Economie Politique_, p. 310. [Paris, 1911].\n\n[45] Cp. _The Complete Works_, vol. XIV, p. 109. [Wiener\u2019s ed. 1905].\n\n[46] _Id. Ibid._ p. 288.\n\n[47] _Political Economy_, ch. II, p. 60. [London, 1912].\n\n[48] Cf. _Histoire de L\u2019Economie Politique en Europe_, par J. A.\nBlanqui, ch. III.--See also _Des Raports de L\u2019Economie Politique et de\nla Morale_, par M. H. Baudrillard, lec. II. [Paris, 1883].\n\n[49] See J. N. Keynes, _The Scope and Method of Political Economy_, ch.\nII, sec. 1, p. 62. [London, 1897].\n\n\n\n\nB. Interpretation of Property.\n\n\nI\n\nWhen two Greek law-givers, Lycurgus and Solon, imposed their laws\nupon the Greek nation, they both had the same purpose--to establish\nthe equal right of all men to the use of land and other properties.\nPlutarch, speaking of Lycurgus, observes that at that time \u201csome were\nso poor that they had no inch of land, and others, of whom there were\nbut few, so wealthy that they possessed all\u201d. Lycurgus persuaded the\ncitizens to restore the land to common use, and they did so. Solon had\nno other end in giving laws to the Athenians but to set up justice\namong all his fellow-citizens. He says that ambition of the rich\nknows no bounds, that they respect neither sacred property nor public\ntreasure, plundering all in defiance of the holy laws of justice. \u201cI\nhad commanded the wealthiest and most powerful to refrain from harming\nthe weak,\u201d says he further, \u201cI had protected great and humble with\na double buckler, equally strong both sides, without giving more to\none than to the other. My advice has been disdained. Today they are\npunished for it\u201d[50].\n\nTaken as a whole this doctrine of Lycurgus and Solon is not in\naccordance with Tolstoy\u2019s teaching on laws and property. But\nnevertheless it shows clearly that law and property are two indivisible\ncivil institutions which can not exist separately[51]. Tolstoy is in\nopposition to both of them, law and property, because they offend\nagainst humanity, especially against the commandment not to resist evil\nby force.\n\nUnder the term of property here must be understood private or\nindividual property. The notion of property, however, is not clear\neither in ancient or modern writers. In the course of human evolution\nproperty has many times changed its form and its substance, its meaning\nand its scope. In the societies that preceded ours, property embodied\nitself in a form of oppression which has been definitely abolished\nonce for all. As it is known slavery was one of the forms of private\nproperty[52]. In Greece and Rome there were public slaves, _i.e._\nslaves of the city, and slaves of the state; but most of the slaves\nwere simply a part of the patrimony of the citizens. Masters had the\nright to use them for cultivation of land, or to give them away as\npresents, or to sell them, or to leave them to their heirs. They had\nthe legal right of imprisoning and fettering the slaves, or separating\nthem from their wives, or forbidding them to marry. The slaves were\npart of the master\u2019s private ownership, and he disposed of them as he\npleased. In the Roman laws, and also in the laws of Athens, we find\nthat a father could sell his son. This was because the father might\ndispose of all the property of the family, and the son might be looked\nupon as property, since his labor was a source of income[53]. The\nbest Greek and Roman philosophers saw nothing unlawful in that. Their\nconceptions of the respective rights and duties of masters and slaves\nwould not clash in the least with the ideas even now in equatorial\nAfrica, and some other European colonies elsewhere.\n\nBetween these old institutions of slavery and modern capitalistic\nsystems, Tolstoy was not able to find any great differences. To him the\ninstitution of slavery existed even in his time only in other form than\nit was in Greece, India, and Rome. And the reason why this slavery\nexisted lies in the institution of private property. If it be true,\nTolstoy suggests, that property has its origin only in labor, why so\nmany combats, revolutions, and wars? Why so many luxuries, robberies,\nand debaucheries? Are these vices not originated in personal or\nprivate property? Is it true that property and money represent labor?\nBy no means, answers our philosopher. Property may be represented by\nmoney, and _vice versa_, but money has in our time completely lost\nthat desirable significance as a representative of labor; such a\nsignificance it has only exceptionally, for as a general rule it has\nbecome a right or a possibility for exploiting the labor of others.\nMoney is a new form of slavery, which differs from the old only in\nbeing impersonal, and in freeing people from the human relations of the\nslave[54].\n\nIn a revolutionary article, _To the Working People_, written in\n1902, three years before the Russian Revolution, Tolstoy attempted\nto open the eyes of the people stating that they were deprived of\nthe land which they formerly possessed and were forced to come to\nthe cities, as wage-workers, or practically, as slaves. The working\npeople in manufacturing cities are in complete slavish dependence on\ntheir masters. These slaves may be liberated from the chains in which\nthey are fettered in no way, except by the abolition of private and\ncapitalistic property, that is, giving the land to the people who work,\nand not to the people who live by the unearned increment. He adds\nthat rural laborers have nothing to do with socialistic doctrinaires\nwho propose the diminution of hours of work and raising of wages, by\nstrikes, unions, and childish processions with flags on the first of\nMay. They need not send into parliaments the representatives who fight\nthere \u201cabout words, with words, and for words\u201d, as sometimes Lassalle\nreproached the \u201cbourgeois\u201d representatives. The working men who leave\nthe land and live by factory labor must find some other means to rid\nthemselves of the slavery. They should ask and demand of their masters\nand rulers the right to settle on the land, and to work there. In\ndemanding this, they will not be demanding something not their own, not\nbelonging to them, but the restitution of their most unquestionable and\ninalienable right, which is inherent in every living being, to live on\nthe land and get their sustenance from it, without asking permission\nfrom anyone else to do so. To be sure, masters and rulers will not give\nthe people the land which they demand. Governments are in power to\nprevent this claim. But governments have no power without police and\narmy, and who are the constituents of this army and police? People,\nworkingmen. When these laborers refuse to serve the unchristian and\nbrutal commands of the governments, then people can divide and take as\nmuch land as they need for cultivation and their living.\n\nShould it not be robbery to take the possessions of people who\naccumulated them for hundreds and thousands of years? Yes, but how\ndid these upper classes accumulate their property and riches? Tolstoy\nreplies on this question together with his teacher Proudhon: They\nheaped up their properties by theft from other people. _La propri\u00e9t\u00e9\nc\u2019est le vol_, said Proudhon[55]. _Sobstvenost est koren zla_ (Property\nis the root of evil), continues his disciple, by the same axiomatic\nlanguage as the master[56].\n\nIs this statement categorical? From the standpoint of Proudhon and\nTolstoy it is, but from the point of view of economists this doctrine\nis at fault. The Russian iconoclast, Tolstoy, like the American\nadvocate of Single Tax, George, maintains that the land question may\nbe solved simply by restoration of the land to the people who work on\nit. This is, undoubtedly, the best, the easiest, and quickest way to\nmake private property common and equitable, but what do history and\neconomics say of this _quaestio vexata_.\n\n\nII\n\nIt is not needful here to go with historians and jurists far beyond the\nGreek and Roman lawyers in this inquiry. Let us begin the discussion\nwith Plato and Aristotle. We know already that Plato in his _Republic_\nis a communist. He permits no citizen to have any property of his own\nbeyond what is absolutely necessary. The land is divided into equal\nparts among all the citizens, in order that all may be interested in\nthe defence of the country[57]. This communism of Plato was vigorously\ncombated by Aristotle in a brief passage of _The Politics_, which\ncontains many of the best arguments since used on that side of the\ncontroversy[58]. However, Aristotle was not an exclusive individualist.\nHe wants in a state, _Private property and common use_. In Plato\u2019s\njudgment, the state should be governed in the reverse way, _Common\nproperty and private use_. In Greek history we find a constant struggle\nabout these questions of inequality among people and private dominion\nof land. But the ideas of communism and social possessions among\nancient nations are prevalent. The learned historian, Theo. Mommsen, in\nhis _Roemische Geschichte_ stated that in the earliest times the arable\nland was cultivated in common, and it was not till later that land\ncame to be distributed among the burgesses as their own property[59].\nMommsen\u2019s thesis is based on the quotations of Cicero[60], Dionysius\nof Halicarnassus, and Plutarch. In later time it is supported by the\nhistorian, P. Viollet[61], economist E. de Laveley[62], sociologists\nCh. Letourneau[63], Sir Henry Main[64], and almost all socialist\nwriters[65].\n\nDuring the Middle Ages the idea of common ownership was theoretically\nmaintained by church Fathers and their followers, on the basis of\nChrist\u2019s teaching which perpetually sympathized with the poor. St.\nFathers regarded community of goods as the ideal order of society,\nprivate property as a necessary evil, trade as an occupation hardly\ncompatible with the character of a devout Christian, and the receipt\nof interest for the use of money as altogether sinful. They said that\nindividual property is contrary to the Divine Law, therefore _Omnia\ndebent esse communia_. These principles could never be applied with\nlogical severity. Ecclesiastics theoretically preached equality of men,\nand in practice they were the wealthiest class among other classes.\nRoderigo Borgia, later Pope Alexander VI, was one of the richest men of\nhis time[66]. The luxury, immorality and privileged wealth of clergy\ncaused the Reformation, but the Reformation could not restrain the\nclergy from acquiring immense private possessions. Communism of the\nMiddle Ages was then a pure utopia, as it is today.\n\nIn the philosophy of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries the institution\nof private property was justified by many jurisconsults, reformers,\nand philosophers who, based their teachings on human nature. Among\nthese are significant theories of Grotius, Locke, Hobbes, Thiers[67],\nand Coulanges[68]. In opposition to these writers we find, throughout\nthe French Revolution and later on, the writers who assailed private\nproperty as pernicious. Rousseau expressed himself with all his fervid\neloquence upon this theme, and he found a large public to sympathize\nwith his declamations. Rousseau was the inspirer of those revolutionary\nwriters, inferior in genius but equally daring, who helped to diffuse\nhis doctrines. Mirabeau and Robespierre were also Rousseau\u2019s adherents.\nEven the socialists, though they have dropped some of his first\nprinciples and have adopted some of the conclusions of modern science,\nhave inherited no small portion of his spirit[69].\n\nIn America we find many of Rousseau\u2019s followers who were inspired\nby philosophers of the French Revolution. Among these followers is\nHenry George[70], and in Russia, Tolstoy. The difference between these\ntwo reformers is that George would put the rent of real property\nin the hand of government for better and more righteous taxation\nthan is now the case. Tolstoy, meanwhile, is against all taxation,\nbecause it can only be collected by force, and all force is forbidden\nby Christ. George is for nationalization of land, Tolstoy for full\ncommunalization, against all government and all state ownership[71].\n\nTolstoy is, indubitably, influenced by Rousseau, Proudhon, and\nanarcho-communistic writers of the nineteenth century. His teaching\nof property has many elements of chimerical schemes, sometimes\nconfounded with mediaeval communism and Christian primitive utopias,\nsometimes with anarchistic principles which reject both private and\nsocial property. The labor question is solved by Tolstoy simply in the\ndestruction of private ownership and in the distribution of land to\nthe people who work manually. Mental labor and intellectual production\nare ignored and disdained. In many books printed during Tolstoy\u2019s life\nwe find \u201cno rights reserved\u201d. Literary property, accordingly, is the\ncommon property of mankind. Ideas and facts are free to all men. There\nare no patents and copyrights of mental exertions _cum privilegio_.\nThe author of a work has no right of property in the book he has made;\nhe took the common stock and worked it over, and one man has just as\ngood a right to it as another. If the author is allowed to be the owner\nof his works, the public are deprived of their rights. The immaterial\nproperty in writing is in the same degree a robbery as it is material.\n\nFinally, literary labor does not belong to this question. According to\nTolstoy\u2019s interpretation, inventions, arts, literature, and science,\nare privileged only to the higher classes. The class of people\nexclusively occupied with physical labor nowhere read books, neither\nhave the masses learned from books to plough, to make _kvas_, to weave,\nto make shoes, to build huts, to sing songs, or even to pray.\n\nOf this Tolstoy\u2019s criticism of literature, science, and private\nproperty, were cogent objections. He was called an utopian, a sophist,\nan inconsistent author who speaks one thing and works something else.\nSome called him charlatan, destroyer of sacred institutions, and a\nman who did not know what he was preaching. These epithets remind one\nof that which Jean Bodin gave to Machiavelli calling him a \u201cbutt of\ninvective\u201d, and \u201cwretched man\u201d, or of those names which Voltaire gave\nRousseau honoring him as a \u201cPunchinello of letters\u201d, \u201cthe fanfaron\nof ink\u201d, \u201carch-madman\u201d, \u201cscoundrel\u201d, \u201cmountebank\u201d, and other choice\nepithets.\n\nSuch criticism might be valuable and apropos to a certain sort of\nnewspapers, but not to serious investigators and critics. Throwing\nthis kind of adjectives at an author, does not mean that he is really\nwrong. Indeed, Tolstoy\u2019s doctrine of abolishing individual ownership\nconstitutes no valid grounds for criticism of the historic right of\nprivate property in land. Most of his great expectations would not\nbe realized. The problems of wealth distribution, land, and money,\nare much deeper and more complex than he presumed. They cannot be\nexplained solely by a theory, nor solved by refusing to serve in\nmilitary and state obligations. They are the inheritance of the present\ngeneration from a long past, the resultant of a complex of forces,\nmaterial and spiritual, political, economic, moral, and social. They\ncan only be unraveled by a most minute and careful study of historical\nrecords, interpreted by the aid of the best results of the thought\nof economists, sociologists, and politicians. And yet, in many ways,\nTolstoy aided the solution of these problems. He helped to accelerate\nit by the example he set of earnestness, altruism, and intense devotion\nto ideals which he made the creed of future society.\n\n[Illustration: Line]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[50] See these quotations on Solon and Lycurgus in _Property_, by Ch.\nLetourneau, ch. XIV, sec. V, 6.\n\n[51] That property was created by law it is proved by Montesquieu and\nBentham. In the _Spirit of Laws_, Montesquieu argues that civil law\nis Paladium of property, and as the people acquired by political laws\nliberty, so they acquired by the civil laws property. [_The Spirit of\nLaws_, book XXVI, ch. 15].--In _The Principles of Civil Code_, by J.\nBentham, we find the same idea expressed in these words: \u201cProperty is\nentirely the creature of law.... Property and law are born and must die\ntogether. Before the laws, there was no property; take away the laws,\nall property ceases\u201d. [_The Principles of the Civil Code_, pt. I, ch.\nVIII].\n\n[52] _Cf._ Ch. Letourneau, _Property_, ch. XIV and XV. See also\nAristotle\u2019s _Politics_, bk. I, ch. VIII.\n\n[53] _Cf._ F. de Coulange, _Cit\u00e9 Antique_, English by W. Small, 1901,\nbook II, ch. VIII, p. 120.\n\n[54] _What Shall We Do Then_, ch. XXI. p. 163.\n\n[55] _Cf._ _Qu\u2019est ce que la Propri\u00e9t\u00e9_, 1840, English translation by\nB. Tucker, 1876, First Memoir, ch. I.\n\n[56] _What Shall We Do Then_, ch. 39. Wiener\u2019s ed. p. 318.\n\n[57] Plato\u2019s view on property is expressed in _The Republic_, bk.\nIII, IV, V and VIII. Then in _The Laws_, bk. III, where he speaks of\ndistribution of land and equalizing of property. In the same work, he\nfurther on says that property does not belong to the individual but to\nthe whole family, and property and family alike belong to the State,\n_The Laws_, b. XI.\n\n[58] \u201cI do not think\u201d, says Aristotle, \u201cthat property ought to be\ncommon\u201d. [_The Politics_, bk. VII, ch. 10]. On the other place he\nargues that there are two things which principally inspire mankind\nwith care and affection, namely, the sense of what is one\u2019s own, and\nexclusive possession. [_The Politics_, bk. II, ch. IV]\n\n[59] In aeltester Zeit das Ackerland gemeinschaftlich, wahrscheinlich\nnach den einzelnen Geschlechtsgenossenschaften bestellt und erst\nder Ertrag unter die einzelnen dem Geschlecht angehoerigen Haeuser\nvertheilt ward ... erst spaeter das Land unter die Buerger zu\nSondereigenthum aufgetheilt ward. [_Roemische Geschichte_, 2te Auflage,\n1856, bd. I, st. 171-72.]\n\n[60] Tum [zur Zeit des Romulus] erat res in pecore et locorum\npossessionibus, ex quo pecuniosi et locupletos vocabantur.--[Numa]\nprimum agros, quos bello Romulus ceperat, divisit viritim civibus.\n[Cited by Mommsen from _De Republica_, 2, 9, 14.]\n\n[61] _Du Caractere Collectif des Premieres Propri\u00e9t\u00e9s Immobilieres_,\n1872.\n\n[62] _De la Propri\u00e9t\u00e9 et de ses Formese Primitives_, 1874. [English tr.\n1878].\n\n[63] _L\u2019Evolution de la Propri\u00e9t\u00e9_, 1888. [English translation, 1892].\n\n[64] _Ancient Law_, ch. VIII. London, 1861.\n\n[65] Especially P. Lafargue, _The Evolution of Property_, 1908.\n\n[66] On this Pope, Professor P. Villari says: \u201cOne of his strongest\npassions was an insatiable greed for gold ... he accumulated the\nimmense fortune that served to raise him to the papacy\u201d.... See _Storia\ndi Girolamo Savonarola e de\u2019 suvi tempi_, 1859. English by Ll. Villari,\n1909, ch. IX, 152.\n\n[67] _The Rights of Property_, by A. Thiers, London, 1848.\n\n[68] _The Origin of Property in Land_, by F. de Coulanges. English\ntranslation, London, 1891.\n\n[69] On the private property during the French Revolution see _Le\nSocialisme et la Revolution Francaise_, par Dr. A. Lichtenberg, Paris,\n1899, ch. VII, 1. Another valuable book on this subject is _The French\nRevolution and Modern French Socialism_, by Dr. J. B. Peixotto, New\nYork, 1901, ch. I, 4; ch. III, 3; and ch. VI, 2.\n\n[70] See _Progress and Property_, by H. George, 1879, bk. VII-VIII.\nTolstoy mentioned George in several of his political articles, and\nwrote _Two Letters on Henry George_, 1893. In Wiener\u2019s translations of\nthe Complete Works of Count Tolstoy, these _Two Letters_ are published\nin volume XXIII, pp. 396-401.\n\n[71] A parallel drawn between George\u2019s and Tolstoy\u2019s theory of property\nmay be found in C. B. Fillebrown, _The A B C of Taxation_, App. B. pp.\n168-170. [New York, 1909].","title":"Tolstoy's interpretation of money and property","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":6950}