Quan Niệm Tài Sản trong Xã Hội Phi Quyền Chính theo P. J. Proudhon (1)

What is Property?, by P. J. Proudhon
Hồ Sơ Âm Thanh

Quan Niệm Tài Sản trong Xã Hội Phi Quyền Chính theo P. J. Proudhon 

-
CHAPTER IV.

THAT PROPERTY IS IMPOSSIBLE.   The last resort of proprietors,--the overwhelming argument whose invincible potency reassures them,--is that, in their opinion, equality of conditions is impossible.

"Equality of conditions is a chimera," they cry with a knowing air; "distribute wealth equally to-day--to-morrow this equality will have vanished." To this hackneyed objection, which they repeat everywhere with the most marvellous assurance, they never fail to add the following comment, as a sort of GLORY BE TO THE FATHER: "If all men were equal, nobody would work." This anthem is sung with variations."If all were masters, nobody would obey.""If nobody were rich, who would employ the poor?"And, " If nobody were poor, who would labor for the rich?" But let us have done with invective--we have better arguments at our command. If I show that property itself is impossible--that it is property which is a contradiction, a chimera, a utopia; and if I show it no longer by metaphysics and jurisprudence, but by figures, equations, and calculations,--imagine the fright of the astounded proprietor! And you,reader; what do you think of the retort? Numbers govern the world--mundum regunt numeri.

This proverb applies as aptly to the moral and political, as to the sidereal and molecular,world.

The elements of justice are identical with those of algebra;legislation and government are simply the arts of classifying and balancing powers; all jurisprudence falls within the rules of arithmetic.

This chapter and the next will serve to lay the foundations of this extraordinary doctrine.

Then will be unfolded to the reader's vision an immense and novel career; then shall we commence to see in numerical relations the synthetic unity of philosophy and the sciences;and, filled with admiration and enthusiasm for this profound and majestic simplicity of Nature, we shall shout with the apostle: "Yes,the Eternal has made all things by number, weight, and measure!" We shall understand not only that equality of conditions is possible, but that all else is impossible; that this seeming impossibility which we charge upon it arises from the fact that we always think of it in connection either with the proprietary or the communistic regime,--political systems equally irreconcilable with human nature.

We shall see finally that equality is constantly being realized without our knowledge, even at the very moment when we are pronouncing it in capable of realization; that the time draws near when, without any effort or even wish of ours, we shall have it universally established; that with it, in it, and by it, the natural and true political order must make itself manifest.It has been said, in speaking of the blindness and obstinacy of the passions, that, if man had any thing to gain by denying the truths of arithmetic, he would find some means of unsettling their certainty: here is an opportunity to try this curious experiment.

I attack property,no longer with its own maxims, but with arithmetic.

Let the proprietors prepare to verify my figures; for, if unfortunately for them the figures prove accurate, the proprietors are lost.In proving the impossibility of property, I complete the proof of its injustice.

In fact,--That which is JUST must be USEFUL;That which is useful must be TRUE;That which is true must be POSSIBLE;Therefore, every thing which is impossible is untrue, useless, unjust.Then,--a priori,--we may judge of the justice of any thing by itspossibility; so that if the thing were absolutely impossible, it wouldbe absolutely unjust.PROPERTY IS PHYSICALLY AND MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.DEMONSTRATION.AXIOM.--Property is the Right of Increase claimed by the Proprietor overany thing which he has stamped as his own.This proposition is purely an axiom, because,--1.

It is not a definition, since it does not express all that isincluded in the right of property--the right of sale, of exchange, ofgift; the right to transform, to alter, to consume, to destroy, touse and abuse, &c.

All these rights are so many different powers ofproperty, which we may consider separately; but which we disregard here,that we may devote all our attention to this single one,--the right ofincrease.2.

It is universally admitted.

No one can deny it without denying thefacts, without being instantly belied by universal custom.3.

It is self-evident, since property is always accompanied (eitheractually or potentially) by the fact which this axiom expresses; andthrough this fact, mainly, property manifests, establishes, and assertsitself.4.

Finally, its negation involves a contradiction.

The right of increaseis really an inherent right, so essential a part of property, that, inits absence, property is null and void.OBSERVATIONS.--Increase receives different names according to thething by which it is yielded: if by land, FARM-RENT; if by houses andfurniture, RENT; if by life-investments, REVENUE; if by money, INTEREST;if by exchange, ADVANTAGE, GAIN, PROFIT (three things which must not beconfounded with the wages or legitimate price of labor).Increase--a sort of royal prerogative, of tangible and consumablehomage--is due to the proprietor on account of his nominal andmetaphysical occupancy.

His seal is set upon the thing; that is enoughto prevent any one else from occupying it without HIS permission.This permission to use his things the proprietor may, if he chooses,freely grant.

Commonly he sells it.

This sale is really a stellionateand an extortion; but by the legal fiction of the right of property,this same sale, severely punished, we know not why, in other cases, is asource of profit and value to the proprietor.The amount demanded by the proprietor, in payment for this permission,is expressed in monetary terms by the dividend which the supposedproduct yields in nature.

So that, by the right of increase, theproprietor reaps and does not plough; gleans and does not till; consumesand does not produce; enjoys and does not labor.

Very different from theidols of the Psalmist are the gods of property: the former had hands andfelt not; the latter, on the contrary, _manus habent et palpabunt_._ _The right of increase is conferred in a very mysterious andsupernatural manner.

The inauguration of a proprietor is accompaniedby the awful ceremonies of an ancient initiation.

First, comes theCONSECRATION of the article; a consecration which makes known to allthat they must offer up a suitable sacrifice to the proprietor, wheneverthey wish, by his permission obtained and signed, to use his article.Second, comes the ANATHEMA, which prohibits--except on the conditionsaforesaid--all persons from touching the article, even in theproprietor's absence; and pronounces every violator of propertysacrilegious, infamous, amenable to the secular power, and deserving ofbeing handed over to it.Finally, the DEDICATION, which enables the proprietor or patronsaint--the god chosen to watch over the article--to inhabit it mentally,like a divinity in his sanctuary.

By means of this dedication, thesubstance of the article--so to speak--becomes converted into the personof the proprietor, who is regarded as ever present in its form.This is exactly the doctrine of the writers on jurisprudence."Property," says Toullier, "is a MORAL QUALITY inherent in a thing;AN ACTUAL BOND which fastens it to the proprietor, and which cannot bebroken save by his act." Locke humbly doubted whether God could makematter INTELLIGENT.

Toullier asserts that the proprietor renders itMORAL.

How much does he lack of being a God? These are by no meansexaggerations.PROPERTY IS THE RIGHT OF INCREASE; that is, the power to produce withoutlabor.

Now, to produce without labor is to make something from nothing;in short, to create.

Surely it is no more difficult to do this than tomoralize matter.

The jurists are right, then, in applying to proprietorsthis passage from the Scriptures,--_Ego dixi: Dii estis et filii Excelsiomnes_,--"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of theMost High."PROPERTY IS THE RIGHT OF INCREASE.

To us this axiom shall be like thename of the beast in the Apocalypse,--a name in which is hidden thecomplete explanation of the whole mystery of this beast.

It was knownthat he who should solve the mystery of this name would obtain aknowledge of the whole prophecy, and would succeed in mastering thebeast.

Well! by the most careful interpretation of our axiom we shallkill the sphinx of property.Starting from this eminently characteristic fact--the RIGHT OFINCREASE--we shall pursue the old serpent through his coils; we shallcount the murderous entwinings of this frightful taenia, whose head,with its thousand suckers, is always hidden from the sword of its mostviolent enemies, though abandoning to them immense fragments of itsbody.

It requires something more than courage to subdue this monster.It was written that it should not die until a proletaire, armed with amagic wand, had fought with it.COROLLARIES.--1.

THE AMOUNT OF INCREASE IS PROPORTIONAL TO THE THINGINCREASED.

Whatever be the rate of interest,--whether it rise to three,five, or ten per cent., or fall to one-half, one-fourth, one-tenth,--itdoes not matter; the law of increase remains the same.

The law is asfollows:--All capital--the cash value of which can be estimated--may be consideredas a term in an arithmetical series which progresses in the ratio of onehundred, and the revenue yielded by this capital as the correspondingterm of another arithmetical series which progresses in a ratio equal tothe rate of interest.

Thus, a capital of five hundred francs being thefifth term of the arithmetical progression whose ratio is one hundred,its revenue at three per cent.

will be indicated by the fifth term ofthe arithmetical progression whose ratio is three:--.


 100 .

200 .

300 .

400 .

500..

.

.

  3  ..

6  ..

9  ..

12 ..

15.An acquaintance with this sort of LOGARITHMS--tables of which,calculated to a very high degree, are possessed by proprietors--willgive us the key to the most puzzling problems, and cause us toexperience a series of surprises.By this LOGARITHMIC theory of the right of increase, a piece ofproperty, together with its income, may be defined as A NUMBER WHOSELOGARITHM IS EQUAL TO THE SUM OF ITS UNITS DIVIDED BY ONE HUNDRED, ANDMULTIPLIED BY THE RATE OF INTEREST.

For instance; a house valued at onehundred thousand francs, and leased at five per cent., yields a revenueof five thousand francs, according to the formula 100,000 x 5 / 100 =five thousand.

Vice versa, a piece of land which yields, at two and ahalf per cent., a revenue of three thousand francs is worth one hundredand twenty thousand francs, according to this other formula;3,000 x 100/ 2 1/2 = one hundred and twenty thousand.In the first case, the ratio of the progression which marks the increaseof interest is five; in the second, it is two and a half.OBSERVATION.--The forms of increase known as farm-rent, income, andinterest are paid annually; rent is paid by the week, the month, orthe year; profits and gains are paid at the time of exchange.

Thus, theamount of increase is proportional both to the thing increased, andthe time during which it increases; in other words, usury grows like acancer--_foenus serpit sicut cancer_.2.

THE INCREASE PAID TO THE PROPRIETOR BY THE OCCUPANT IS A DEAD LOSSTO THE LATTER.

For if the proprietor owed, in exchange for the increasewhich he receives, some thing more than the permission which he grants,his right of property would not be perfect--he would not possess_jure optimo, jure perfecto;_ that is, he would not be in reality aproprietor.

Then, all which passes from the hands of the occupant intothose of the proprietor in the name of increase, and as the price ofthe permission to occupy, is a permanent gain for the latter, and a deadloss and annihilation for the former; to whom none of it will return,save in the forms of gift, alms, wages paid for his services, orthe price of merchandise which he has delivered.

In a word, increaseperishes so far as the borrower is concerned; or to use the moreenergetic Latin phrase,--_res perit solventi_.3.

THE RIGHT OF INCREASE OPPRESSES THE PROPRIETOR AS WELL AS THESTRANGER.

The master of a thing, as its proprietor, levies a tax for theuse of his property upon himself as its possessor, equal to that whichhe would receive from a third party; so that capital bears interest inthe hands of the capitalist, as well as in those of the borrower and thecommandite.

If, indeed, rather than accept a rent of five hundred francsfor my apartment, I prefer to occupy and enjoy it, it is clear that Ishall become my own debtor for a rent equal to that which I deny myself.This principle is universally practised in business, and is regarded asan axiom by the economists.

Manufacturers, also, who have the advantageof being proprietors of their floating capital, although they owe nointerest to any one, in calculating their profits subtract from them,not only their running expenses and the wages of their employees, butalso the interest on their capital.

For the same reason, money-lendersretain in their own possession as little money as possible; for, sinceall capital necessarily bears interest, if this interest is supplied byno one, it comes out of the capital, which is to that extent diminished.Thus, by the right of increase, capital eats itself up.

This is,doubtless, the idea that Papinius intended to convey in the phrase, aselegant as it is forcible--_Foenus mordet solidam_.

I beg pardon forusing Latin so frequently in discussing this subject; it is an homagewhich I pay to the most usurious nation that ever existed.FIRST PROPOSITION.Property is impossible, because it demands Something for Nothing.The discussion of this proposition covers the same ground as that of theorigin of farm-rent, which is so much debated by the economists.

WhenI read the writings of the greater part of these men, I cannot avoida feeling of contempt mingled with anger, in view of this mass ofnonsense, in which the detestable vies with the absurd.

It would be arepetition of the story of the elephant in the moon, were it not for theatrocity of the consequences.

To seek a rational and legitimate originof that which is, and ever must be, only robbery, extortion, andplunder--that must be the height of the proprietor's folly; the lastdegree of bedevilment into which minds, otherwise judicious, can bethrown by the perversity of selfishness."A farmer," says Say, "is a wheat manufacturer who, among other toolswhich serve him in modifying the material from which he makes thewheat, employs one large tool, which we call a field.

If he is not theproprietor of the field, if he is only a tenant, he pays the proprietorfor the productive service of this tool.

The tenant is reimbursed bythe purchaser, the latter by another, until the product reaches theconsumer; who redeems the first payment, PLUS all the others, by meansof which the product has at last come into his hands."Let us lay aside the subsequent payments by which the product reachesthe consumer, and, for the present, pay attention only to the first oneof all,--the rent paid to the proprietor by the tenant.

On what ground,we ask, is the proprietor entitled to this rent?According to Ricardo, MacCulloch, and Mill, farm-rent, properlyspeaking, is simply the EXCESS OF THE PRODUCT OF THE MOST FERTILE LANDOVER THAT OF LANDS OF AN INFERIOR QUALITY; so that farm-rent is notdemanded for the former until the increase of population rendersnecessary the cultivation of the latter.It is difficult to see any sense in this.

How can a right to the land bebased upon a difference in the quality of the land? How can varieties ofsoil engender a principle of legislation and politics? This reasoningis either so subtle, or so stupid, that the more I think of it, the morebewildered I become.

Suppose two pieces of land of equal area; the one,A, capable of supporting ten thousand inhabitants; the other, B, capableof supporting nine thousand only: when, owing to an increase in theirnumber, the inhabitants of A shall be forced to cultivate B, the landedproprietors of A will exact from their tenants in A a rent proportionalto the difference between ten and nine.

So say, I think, Ricardo,MacCulloch, and Mill.

But if A supports as many inhabitants as it cancontain,--that is, if the inhabitants of A, by our hypothesis, have onlyjust enough land to keep them alive,--how can they pay farm-rent?If they had gone no farther than to say that the difference in land hasOCCASIONED farm-rent, instead of CAUSED it, this observation would havetaught us a valuable lesson; namely, that farm-rent grew out of a desirefor equality.

Indeed, if all men have an equal right to the possessionof good land, no one can be forced to cultivate bad land withoutindemnification.

Farm-rent--according to Ricardo, MacCulloch, andMill--would then have been a compensation for loss and hardship.

Thissystem of practical equality is a bad one, no doubt; but it sprang fromgood intentions.

What argument can Ricardo, MacCulloch, and Mill developtherefrom in favor of property? Their theory turns against themselves,and strangles them.Malthus thinks that farm-rent has its source in the power possessed byland of producing more than is necessary to supply the wants of themen who cultivate it.

I would ask Malthus why successful labor shouldentitle the idle to a portion of the products?But the worthy Malthus is mistaken in regard to the fact.

Yes; land hasthe power of producing more than is needed by those who cultivate it, ifby CULTIVATORS is meant tenants only.

The tailor also makes more clothesthan he wears, and the cabinet-maker more furniture than he uses.

But,since the various professions imply and sustain one another, not onlythe farmer, but the followers of all arts and trades--even to the doctorand the school-teacher--are, and ought to be, regarded as CULTIVATORS OFTHE LAND.

Malthus bases farm-rent upon the principle of commerce.Now, the fundamental law of commerce being equivalence of the productsexchanged, any thing which destroys this equivalence violates the law.There is an error in the estimate which needs to be corrected.Buchanan--a commentator on Smith--regarded farm-rent as the result of amonopoly, and maintained that labor alone is productive.

Consequently,he thought that, without this monopoly, products would rise in price;and he found no basis for farm-rent save in the civil law.

This opinionis a corollary of that which makes the civil law the basis of property.But why has the civil law--which ought to be the written expression ofjustice--authorized this monopoly? Whoever says monopoly, necessarilyexcludes justice.

Now, to say that farm-rent is a monopoly sanctioned bythe law, is to say that injustice is based on justice,--a contradictionin terms.Say answers Buchanan, that the proprietor is not a monopolist, because amonopolist "is one who does not increase the utility of the merchandisewhich passes through his hands."How much does the proprietor increase the utility of his tenant'sproducts? Has he ploughed, sowed, reaped, mowed, winnowed, weeded? Theseare the processes by which the tenant and his employees increasethe utility of the material which they consume for the purpose ofreproduction."The landed proprietor increases the utility of products by means of hisimplement, the land.

This implement receives in one state, and returnsin another the materials of which wheat is composed.

The action ofthe land is a chemical process, which so modifies the material that itmultiplies it by destroying it.

The soil is then a producer of utility;and when it [the soil?] asks its pay in the form of profit, or farmrent, for its proprietor, it at the same time gives something to theconsumer in exchange for the amount which the consumer pays it.

It giveshim a produced utility; and it is the production of this utility whichwarrants us in calling land productive, as well as labor."Let us clear up this matter.The blacksmith who manufactures for the farmer implements of husbandry,the wheelwright who makes him a cart, the mason who builds his barn,the carpenter, the basket-maker, &c.,--all of whom contribute toagricultural production by the tools which they provide,--are producersof utility; consequently, they are entitled to a part of the products."Undoubtedly," says Say; "but the land also is an implement whoseservice must be paid for, then...."I admit that the land is an implement; but who made it? Did theproprietor? Did he--by the efficacious virtue of the right of property,by this MORAL QUALITY infused into the soil--endow it with vigor andfertility? Exactly there lies the monopoly of the proprietor; in thefact that, though he did not make the implement, he asks pay for itsuse.

When the Creator shall present himself and claim farm-rent, we willconsider the matter with him; or even when the proprietor--his pretendedrepresentative--shall exhibit his power-of-attorney."The proprietor's service," adds Say, "is easy, I admit."It is a frank confession."But we cannot disregard it.

Without property, one farmer would contendwith another for the possession of a field without a proprietor, and thefield would remain uncultivated...."Then the proprietor's business is to reconcile farmers by robbingthem.

O logic! O justice! O the marvellous wisdom of economists! Theproprietor, if they are right, is like Perrin-Dandin who, when summonedby two travellers to settle a dispute about an oyster, opened it,gobbled it, and said to them:--"The Court awards you each a shell."Could any thing worse be said of property?Will Say tell us why the same farmers, who, if there were noproprietors, would contend with each other for possession of thesoil, do not contend to-day with the proprietors for this possession?Obviously, because they think them legitimate possessors, and becausetheir respect for even an imaginary right exceeds their avarice.

Iproved, in Chapter II., that possession is sufficient, without property,to maintain social order.

Would it be more difficult, then, to reconcilepossessors without masters than tenants controlled by proprietors? Wouldlaboring men, who respect--much to their own detriment--the pretendedrights of the idler, violate the natural rights of the producer and themanufacturer? What! if the husbandman forfeited his right to the land assoon as he ceased to occupy it, would he become more covetous? And wouldthe impossibility of demanding increase, of taxing another's labor, be asource of quarrels and law-suits? The economists use singular logic.But we are not yet through.

Admit that the proprietor is the legitimatemaster of the land."The land is an instrument of production," they say.

That is true.

Butwhen, changing the noun into an adjective, they alter the phrase, thus,"The land is a productive instrument," they make a wicked blunder.According to Quesnay and the early economists, all production comes fromthe land.

Smith, Ricardo, and de Tracy, on the contrary, say that laboris the sole agent of production.

Say, and most of his successors,teach that BOTH land AND labor AND capital are productive.

The latterconstitute the eclectic school of political economy.

The truth is, thatNEITHER land NOR labor NOR capital is productive.

Production resultsfrom the co-operation of these three equally necessary elements, which,taken separately, are equally sterile.Political economy, indeed, treats of the production, distribution,and consumption of wealth or values.

But of what values? Of the valuesproduced by human industry; that is, of the changes made in matterby man, that he may appropriate it to his own use, and not at all ofNature's spontaneous productions.

Man's labor consists in a simplelaying on of hands.

When he has taken that trouble, he has produced avalue.

Until then, the salt of the sea, the water of the springs, thegrass of the fields, and the trees of the forests are to him as if theywere not.

The sea, without the fisherman and his line, supplies no fish.The forest, without the wood-cutter and his axe, furnishes neitherfuel nor timber.

The meadow, without the mower, yields neither haynor aftermath.

Nature is a vast mass of material to be cultivated andconverted into products; but Nature produces nothing for herself: in theeconomical sense, her products, in their relation to man, are not yetproducts.Capital, tools, and machinery are likewise unproductive.

The hammer andthe anvil, without the blacksmith and the iron, do not forge.

The mill,without the miller and the grain, does not grind, &c.

Bring tools andraw material together; place a plough and some seed on fertile soil;enter a smithy, light the fire, and shut up the shop,--you will producenothing.

The following remark was made by an economist who possessedmore good sense than most of his fellows: "Say credits capital with anactive part unwarranted by its nature; left to itself, it is an idletool." (J.

Droz: Political Economy.)Finally, labor and capital together, when unfortunately combined,produce nothing.

Plough a sandy desert, beat the water of the rivers,pass type through a sieve,--you will get neither wheat, nor fish, norbooks.

Your trouble will be as fruitless as was the immense labor of thearmy of Xerxes; who, as Herodotus says, with his three million soldiers,scourged the Hellespont for twenty-four hours, as a punishment forhaving broken and scattered the pontoon bridge which the great king hadthrown across it.Tools and capital, land and labor, considered individually andabstractly, are not, literally speaking, productive.

The proprietor whoasks to be rewarded for the use of a tool, or the productive powerof his land, takes for granted, then, that which is radically false;namely, that capital produces by its own effort,--and, in taking pay forthis imaginary product, he literally receives something for nothing.OBJECTION.--But if the blacksmith, the wheelwright, all manufacturers inshort, have a right to the products in return for the implements whichthey furnish; and if land is an implement of production,--why does notthis implement entitle its proprietor, be his claim real or imaginary,to a portion of the products; as in the case of the manufacturers ofploughs and wagons?REPLY.--Here we touch the heart of the question, the mystery ofproperty; which we must clear up, if we would understand any thing ofthe strange effects of the right of increase.He who manufactures or repairs the farmer's tools receives the priceONCE, either at the time of delivery, or in several payments; and whenthis price is once paid to the manufacturer, the tools which he hasdelivered belong to him no more.

Never does he claim double payment forthe same tool, or the same job of repairs.

If he annually shares in theproducts of the farmer, it is owing to the fact that he annually makessomething for the farmer.The proprietor, on the contrary, does not yield his implement; eternallyhe is paid for it, eternally he keeps it.In fact, the rent received by the proprietor is not intended to defraythe expense of maintaining and repairing the implement; this expense ischarged to the borrower, and does not concern the proprietor except ashe is interested in the preservation of the article.

If he takes it uponhimself to attend to the repairs, he takes care that the money which heexpends for this purpose is repaid.This rent does not represent the product of the implement, since ofitself the implement produces nothing; we have just proved this, and weshall prove it more clearly still by its consequences.Finally, this rent does not represent the participation of theproprietor in the production; since this participation could consist,like that of the blacksmith and the wheelwright, only in the surrenderof the whole or a part of his implement, in which case he would ceaseto be its proprietor, which would involve a contradiction of the idea ofproperty.Then, between the proprietor and his tenant there is no exchange eitherof values or services; then, as our axiom says, farm-rent is realincrease,--an extortion based solely upon fraud and violence on theone hand, and weakness and ignorance upon the other.

PRODUCTS saythe economists, ARE BOUGHT ONLY BY PRODUCTS.

This maxim is property'scondemnation.

The proprietor, producing neither by his own labor nor byhis implement, and receiving products in exchange for nothing, is eithera parasite or a thief.

Then, if property can exist only as a right,property is impossible.COROLLARIES.--1.

The republican constitution of 1793, which definedproperty as "the right to enjoy the fruit of one's labor," was grosslymistaken.

It should have said, "Property is the right to enjoy anddispose at will of another's goods,--the fruit of another's industry andlabor."2.

Every possessor of lands, houses, furniture, machinery, tools, money,&c., who lends a thing for a price exceeding the cost of repairs (therepairs being charged to the lender, and representing products which heexchanges for other products), is guilty of swindling and extortion.

Inshort, all rent received (nominally as damages, but really as paymentfor a loan) is an act of property,--a robbery.HISTORICAL COMMENT.--The tax which a victorious nation levies upon aconquered nation is genuine farm-rent.

The seigniorial rights abolishedby the Revolution of 1789,--tithes, mortmain, statute-labor, &c.,--weredifferent forms of the rights of property; and they who under the titlesof nobles, seigneurs, prebendaries, &c.

enjoyed these rights, wereneither more nor less than proprietors.

To defend property to-day is tocondemn the Revolution.SECOND PROPOSITION.Property is impossible because wherever it exists Production costs morethan it is worth.The preceding proposition was legislative in its nature; this oneis economical.

It serves to prove that property, which originates inviolence, results in waste."Production," says Say, "is exchange on a large scale.

To render theexchange productive the value of the whole amount of service must bebalanced by the value of the product.

If this condition is notcomplied with, the exchange is unequal; the producer gives more than hereceives."Now, value being necessarily based upon utility, it follows that everyuseless product is necessarily valueless,--that it cannot be exchanged;and, consequently, that it cannot be given in payment for productiveservices.Then, though production may equal consumption, it never can exceed it;for there is no real production save where there is a production ofutility, and there is no utility save where there is a possibility ofconsumption.

Thus, so much of every product as is rendered byexcessive abundance inconsumable, becomes useless, valueless,unexchangeable,--consequently, unfit to be given in payment for anything whatever, and is no longer a product.Consumption, on the other hand, to be legitimate,--to be trueconsumption,--must be reproductive of utility; for, if it isunproductive, the products which it destroys are cancelledvalues--things produced at a pure loss; a state of things which causesproducts to depreciate in value.

Man has the power to destroy, but heconsumes only that which he reproduces.

Under a right system of economy,there is then an equation between production and consumption.These points established, let us suppose a community of one thousandfamilies, enclosed in a territory of a given circumference, and deprivedof foreign intercourse.

Let this community represent the human race,which, scattered over the face of the earth, is really isolated.

Infact, the difference between a community and the human race being onlya numerical one, the economical results will be absolutely the same ineach case.Suppose, then, that these thousand families, devoting themselvesexclusively to wheat-culture, are obliged to pay to one hundredindividuals, chosen from the mass, an annual revenue of ten per cent.

ontheir product.

It is clear that, in such a case, the right of increaseis equivalent to a tax levied in advance upon social production.

Of whatuse is this tax?It cannot be levied to supply the community with provisions, for betweenthat and farm-rent there is nothing in common; nor to pay for servicesand products,--for the proprietors, laboring like the others, havelabored only for themselves.

Finally, this tax is of no use to itsrecipients who, having harvested wheat enough for their own consumption,and not being able in a society without commerce and manufactures toprocure any thing else in exchange for it, thereby lose the advantage oftheir income.In such a society, one-tenth of the product being inconsumable,one-tenth of the labor goes unpaid--production costs more than it isworth.Now, change three hundred of our wheat-producers into artisans of allkinds: one hundred gardeners and wine-growers, sixty shoemakersand tailors, fifty carpenters and blacksmiths, eighty of variousprofessions, and, that nothing may be lacking, seven school-masters,one mayor, one judge, and one priest; each industry furnishes the wholecommunity with its special product.

Now, the total production being onethousand, each laborer's consumption is one; namely, wheat, meat,and grain, 0.7; wine and vegetables, 0.1; shoes and clothing, 0.06;iron-work and furniture, 0.05; sundries, 0.08; instruction, 0.007;administration, 0.002; mass, 0.001, Total 1.But the community owes a revenue of ten per cent.; and it matters littlewhether the farmers alone pay it, or all the laborers are responsiblefor it,--the result is the same.

The farmer raises the price of hisproducts in proportion to his share of the debt; the other laborersfollow his example.

Then, after some fluctuations, equilibrium isestablished, and all pay nearly the same amount of the revenue.

Itwould be a grave error to assume that in a nation none but farmers payfarm-rent--the whole nation pays it.I say, then, that by this tax of ten per cent.

each laborer'sconsumption is reduced as follows: wheat, 0.63; wine and vegetables,0.09; clothing and shoes, 0.054; furniture and iron-work, 0.045; otherproducts, 0.072; schooling, 0.0063; administration, 0.0018; mass,0.0009.

Total 0.9.The laborer has produced 1; he consumes only 0.9.

He loses, then,one-tenth of the price of his labor; his production still costsmore than it is worth.

On the other hand, the tenth received by theproprietors is no less a waste; for, being laborers themselves, they,like the others, possess in the nine-tenths of their product thewherewithal to live: they want for nothing.

Why should they wish theirproportion of bread, wine, meat, clothes, shelter, &c., to be doubled,if they can neither consume nor exchange them? Then farm-rent, withthem as with the rest of the laborers, is a waste, and perishes in theirhands.

Extend the hypothesis, increase the number and variety of theproducts, you still have the same result.Hitherto, we have considered the proprietor as taking part in theproduction, not only (as Say says) by the use of his instrument, but inan effective manner and by the labor of his hands.

Now, it is easy tosee that, under such circumstances, property will never exist.

Whathappens?The proprietor--an essentially libidinous animal, without virtue orshame--is not satisfied with an orderly and disciplined life.

He lovesproperty, because it enables him to do at leisure what he pleases andwhen he pleases.

Having obtained the means of life, he gives himself upto trivialities and indolence; he enjoys, he fritters away his time, hegoes in quest of curiosities and novel sensations.

Property--to enjoyitself--has to abandon ordinary life, and busy itself in luxuriousoccupations and unclean enjoyments.Instead of giving up a farm-rent, which is perishing in their hands,and thus lightening the labor of the community, our hundred proprietorsprefer to rest.

In consequence of this withdrawal,--the absoluteproduction being diminished by one hundred, while the consumptionremains the same,--production and consumption seem to balance.

But,in the first place, since the proprietors no longer labor, theirconsumption is, according to economical principles, unproductive;consequently, the previous condition of the community--when the labor ofone hundred was rewarded by no products--is superseded by one in whichthe products of one hundred are consumed without labor.

The deficitis always the same, whichever the column of the account in which it isexpressed.

Either the maxims of political economy are false, or elseproperty, which contradicts them, is impossible.The economists--regarding all unproductive consumption as an evil, asa robbery of the human race--never fail to exhort proprietors tomoderation, labor, and economy; they preach to them the necessity ofmaking themselves useful, of remunerating production for that which theyreceive from it; they launch the most terrible curses against luxury andlaziness.

Very beautiful morality, surely; it is a pity that it lackscommon sense.

The proprietor who labors, or, as the economists say,WHO MAKES HIMSELF USEFUL, is paid for this labor and utility; is he,therefore, any the less idle as concerns the property which he does notuse, and from which he receives an income? His condition, whatever hemay do, is an unproductive and FELONIOUS one; he cannot cease to wasteand destroy without ceasing to be a proprietor.But this is only the least of the evils which property engenders.Society has to maintain some idle people, whether or no.

It will alwayshave the blind, the maimed, the insane, and the idiotic.

It can easilysupport a few sluggards.

At this point, the impossibilities thicken andbecome complicated.THIRD PROPOSITION.Property is impossible, because, with a given capital, Production isproportional to labor, not to property.To pay a farm-rent of one hundred at the rate of ten per cent.

of theproduct, the product must be one thousand; that the product may be onethousand, a force of one thousand laborers is needed.

It follows,that in granting a furlough, as we have just done, to our one hundredlaborer-proprietors, all of whom had an equal right to lead the lifeof men of income,--we have placed ourselves in a position where we areunable to pay their revenues.

In fact, the productive power, which atfirst was one thousand, being now but nine hundred, the production isalso reduced to nine hundred, one-tenth of which is ninety.

Either,then, ten proprietors out of the one hundred cannot be paid,--providedthe remaining ninety are to get the whole amount of their farm-rent,--orelse all must consent to a decrease of ten per cent.

For it is not forthe laborer, who has been wanting in no particular, who has produced asin the past, to suffer by the withdrawal of the proprietor.

Thelatter must take the consequences of his own idleness.

But, then, theproprietor becomes poorer for the very reason that he wishes to enjoy;by exercising his right, he loses it; so that property seems to decreaseand vanish in proportion as we try to lay hold of it,--the more wepursue it, the more it eludes our grasp.

What sort of a right is thatwhich is governed by numerical relations, and which an arithmeticalcalculation can destroy?The laborer-proprietor received, first, as laborer, 0.9 in wages;second, as proprietor, 1 in farm-rent.

He said to himself, "My farm-rentis sufficient; I have enough and to spare without my labor." And thusit is that the income upon which he calculated gets diminished byone-tenth,--he at the same time not even suspecting the cause of thisdiminution.

By taking part in the production, he was himself the creatorof this tenth which has vanished; and while he thought to labor only forhimself, he unwittingly suffered a loss in exchanging his products, bywhich he was made to pay to himself one-tenth of his own farm-rent.

Likeevery one else, he produced 1, and received but 0.9If, instead of nine hundred laborers, there had been but five hundred,the whole amount of farm-rent would have been reduced to fifty; if therehad been but one hundred, it would have fallen to ten.

We may posit,then, the following axiom as a law of proprietary economy: INCREASE MUSTDIMINISH AS THE NUMBER OF IDLERS AUGMENTS._ _This first result will lead us to another more surprising still.Its effect is to deliver us at one blow from all the evils of property,without abolishing it, without wronging proprietors, and by a highlyconservative process.We have just proved that, if the farm-rent in a community of onethousand laborers is one hundred, that of nine hundred would be ninety,that of eight hundred, eighty, that of one hundred, ten, &c.

So that, ina community where there was but one laborer, the farm-rent would be but0.1; no matter how great the extent and value of the land appropriated.Therefore, WITH A GIVEN LANDED CAPITAL, PRODUCTION IS PROPORTIONAL TOLABOR, NOT TO PROPERTY.Guided by this principle, let us try to ascertain the maximum increaseof all property whatever.What is, essentially, a farm-lease? It is a contract by which theproprietor yields to a tenant possession of his land, in considerationof a portion of that which it yields him, the proprietor.

If, inconsequence of an increase in his household, the tenant becomes tentimes as strong as the proprietor, he will produce ten times asmuch.

Would the proprietor in such a case be justified in raising thefarm-rent tenfold? His right is not, The more you produce, the more Idemand.

It is, The more I sacrifice, the more I demand.

The increasein the tenant's household, the number of hands at his disposal, theresources of his industry,--all these serve to increase production, butbear no relation to the proprietor.

His claims are to be measured by hisown productive capacity, not that of others.

Property is the right ofincrease, not a poll-tax.

How could a man, hardly capable of cultivatingeven a few acres by himself, demand of a community, on the ground of itsuse of ten thousand acres of his property, ten thousand times as muchas he is incapable of producing from one acre? Why should the price of aloan be governed by the skill and strength of the borrower, rather thanby the utility sacrificed by the proprietor? We must recognize, then,this second economical law: INCREASE IS MEASURED BY A FRACTION OF THEPROPRIETORS PRODUCTION.Now, this production, what is it? In other words, What can the lord andmaster of a piece of land justly claim to have sacrificed in lending itto a tenant?The productive capacity of a proprietor, like that of any laborer, beingone, the product which he sacrifices in surrendering his land is alsoone.

If, then, the rate of increase is ten per cent., the maximumincrease is 0.1.But we have seen that, whenever a proprietor withdraws from production,the amount of products is lessened by 1.

Then the increase which accruesto him, being equal to 0.1 while he remains among the laborers, will beequal after his withdrawal, by the law of the decrease of farm-rent,to 0.09.

Thus we are led to this final formula: THE MAXIMUM INCOME OFA PROPRIETOR IS EQUAL TO THE SQUARE ROOT OF THE PRODUCT OF ONE LABORER(some number being agreed upon to express this product).

THE DIMINUTIONWHICH THIS INCOME SUFFERS, IF THE PROPRIETOR IS IDLE, IS EQUAL TO AFRACTION WHOSE NUMERATOR IS 1, AND WHOSE DENOMINATOR IS THE NUMBER WHICHEXPRESSES THE PRODUCT.Thus the maximum income of an idle proprietor, or of one who labors inhis own behalf outside of the community, figured at ten per cent.

on anaverage production of one thousand francs per laborer, would be ninetyfrancs.

If, then, there are in France one million proprietors with anincome of one thousand francs each, which they consume unproductively,instead of the one thousand millions which are paid them annually, theyare entitled in strict justice, and by the most accurate calculation, toninety millions only.It is something of a reduction, to take nine hundred and ten millionsfrom the burdens which weigh so heavily upon the laboring class!Nevertheless, the account is not finished, and the laborer is stillignorant of the full extent of his rights.What is the right of increase when confined within just limits? Arecognition of the right of occupancy.

But since all have an equal rightof occupancy, every man is by the same title a proprietor.

Every man hasa right to an income equal to a fraction of his product.

If, then,the laborer is obliged by the right of property to pay a rent to theproprietor, the proprietor is obliged by the same right to pay the sameamount of rent to the laborer; and, since their rights balance eachother, the difference between them is zero._Scholium_.--If farm-rent is only a fraction of the supposed product ofthe proprietor, whatever the amount and value of the property, the sameis true in the case of a large number of small and distinct proprietors.For, although one man may use the property of each separately, he cannotuse the property of all at the same time.To sum up.

The right of increase, which can exist only within verynarrow limits, defined by the laws of production, is annihilated bythe right of occupancy.

Now, without the right of increase, there is noproperty.

Then property is impossible.FOURTH PROPOSITION.Property is impossible, because it is Homicide.If the right of increase could be subjected to the laws of reason andjustice, it would be reduced to an indemnity or reward whose MAXIMUMnever could exceed, for a single laborer, a certain fraction of thatwhich he is capable of producing.

This we have just shown.

But whyshould the right of increase--let us not fear to call it by its rightname, the right of robbery--be governed by reason, with which it hasnothing in common? The proprietor is not content with the increaseallotted him by good sense and the nature of things: he demands tentimes, a hundred times, a thousand times, a million times as much.

Byhis own labor, his property would yield him a product equal only toone; and he demands of society, no longer a right proportional to hisproductive capacity, but a per capita tax.

He taxes his fellows inproportion to their strength, their number, and their industry.

A sonis born to a farmer.

"Good!" says the proprietor; "one more chancefor increase!" By what process has farm-rent been thus changed intoa poll-tax? Why have our jurists and our theologians failed, with alltheir shrewdness, to check the extension of the right of increase?The proprietor, having estimated from his own productive capacity thenumber of laborers which his property will accommodate, divides itinto as many portions, and says: "Each one shall yield me revenue."To increase his income, he has only to divide his property.

Insteadof reckoning the interest due him on his labor, he reckons it on hiscapital; and, by this substitution, the same property, which in thehands of its owner is capable of yielding only one, is worth to himten, a hundred, a thousand, a million.

Consequently, he has only to holdhimself in readiness to register the names of the laborers who apply tohim--his task consists in drafting leases and receipts.Not satisfied with the lightness of his duties, the proprietor does notintend to bear even the deficit resulting from his idleness; he throwsit upon the shoulders of the producer, of whom he always demands thesame reward.

When the farm-rent of a piece of land is once raised to itshighest point, the proprietor never lowers it; high prices, the scarcityof labor, the disadvantages of the season, even pestilence itself, haveno effect upon him--why should he suffer from hard times when he doesnot labor?Here commences a new series of phenomena.Say--who reasons with marvellous clearness whenever he assails taxation,but who is blind to the fact that the proprietor, as well as thetax-gatherer, steals from the tenant, and in the same manner--says inhis second letter to Malthus:--"If the collector of taxes and those who employ him consume one-sixthof the products, they thereby compel the producers to feed, clothe, andsupport themselves on five-sixths of what they produce.

They admit this,but say at the same time that it is possible for each one to live onfive-sixths of what he produces."I admit that, if they insist upon it; but I ask if they believe that theproducer would live as well, in case they demanded of him, instead ofone-sixth, two-sixths, or one-third, of their products? No; but he wouldstill live.

Then I ask whether he would still live, in case they shouldrob him of two-thirds,...

then three-quarters? But I hear no reply."If the master of the French economists had been less blinded by hisproprietary prejudices, he would have seen that farm-rent has preciselythe same effect.Take a family of peasants composed of six persons,--father, mother, andfour children,--living in the country, and cultivating a small piece ofground.

Let us suppose that by hard labor they manage, as the saying is,to make both ends meet; that, having lodged, warmed, clothed, and fedthemselves, they are clear of debt, but have laid up nothing.

Taking theyears together, they contrive to live.

If the year is prosperous, thefather drinks a little more wine, the daughters buy themselves a dress,the sons a hat; they eat a little cheese, and, occasionally, some meat.I say that these people are on the road to wreck and ruin.For, by the third corollary of our axiom, they owe to themselves theinterest on their own capital.

Estimating this capital at only eightthousand francs at two and a half per cent., there is an annual interestof two hundred francs to be paid.

If, then, these two hundred francs,instead of being subtracted from the gross product to be saved andcapitalized, are consumed, there is an annual deficit of two hundredfrancs in the family assets; so that at the end of forty years thesegood people, without suspecting it, will have eaten up their propertyand become bankrupt!This result seems ridiculous--it is a sad reality.The conscription comes.

What is the conscription? An act of propertyexercised over families by the government without warning--a robberyof men and money.

The peasants do not like to part with their sons,--inthat I do not think them wrong.

It is hard for a young man of twentyto gain any thing by life in the barracks; unless he is depraved, hedetests it.

You can generally judge of a soldier's morality by hishatred of his uniform.

Unfortunate wretches or worthless scamps,--suchis the make-up of the French army.

This ought not to be the case,--butso it is.

Question a hundred thousand men, and not one will contradictmy assertion.Our peasant, in redeeming his two conscripted sons, expends fourthousand francs, which he borrows for that purpose; the interest onthis, at five per cent., is two hundred francs;--a sum equal to thatreferred to above.

If, up to this time, the production of the family,constantly balanced by its consumption, has been one thousand twohundred francs, or two hundred francs per persons--in order to pay thisinterest, either the six laborers must produce as much as seven, or mustconsume as little as five.Curtail consumption they cannot--how can they curtail necessity? Toproduce more is impossible; they can work neither harder nor longer.Shall they take a middle course, and consume five and a half whileproducing six and a half? They would soon find that with the stomachthere is no compromise--that beyond a certain degree of abstinence itis impossible to go--that strict necessity can be curtailed but littlewithout injury to the health; and, as for increasing the product,--therecomes a storm, a drought, an epizootic, and all the hopes of the farmerare dashed.

In short, the rent will not be paid, the interest willaccumulate, the farm will be seized, and the possessor ejected.Thus a family, which lived in prosperity while it abstained fromexercising the right of property, falls into misery as soon as theexercise of this right becomes a necessity.

Property requires of thehusbandman the double power of enlarging his land, and fertilizing it bya simple command.

While a man is simply possessor of the land, he findsin it means of subsistence; as soon as he pretends to proprietorship,it suffices him no longer.

Being able to produce only that whichhe consumes, the fruit of his labor is his recompense for histrouble--nothing is left for the instrument.Required to pay what he cannot produce,--such is the condition of thetenant after the proprietor has retired from social production in orderto speculate upon the labor of others by new methods.Let us now return to our first hypothesis.The nine hundred laborers, sure that their future production will equalthat of the past, are quite surprised, after paying their farm-rent, tofind themselves poorer by one-tenth than they were the previous year.In fact, this tenth--which was formerly produced and paid by theproprietor-laborer who then took part in the production, and paid partof the--public expenses--now has not been produced, and has been paid.It must then have been taken from the producer's consumption.

Tochoke this inexplicable deficit, the laborer borrows, confident ofhis intention and ability to return,--a confidence which is shaken thefollowing year by a new loan, PLUS the interest on the first.

From whomdoes he borrow? From the proprietor.

The proprietor lends his surplus tothe laborer; and this surplus, which he ought to return, becomes--beinglent at interest--a new source of profit to him.

Then debts increaseindefinitely; the proprietor makes advances to the producer who neverreturns them; and the latter, constantly robbed and constantly borrowingfrom the robbers, ends in bankruptcy, defrauded of all that he had.Suppose that the proprietor--who needs his tenant to furnish him withan income--then releases him from his debts.

He will thus do a verybenevolent deed, which will procure for him a recommendation in thecurate's prayers; while the poor tenant, overwhelmed by this unstintedcharity, and taught by his catechism to pray for his benefactors, willpromise to redouble his energy, and suffer new hardships that he maydischarge his debt to so kind a master.This time he takes precautionary measures; he raises the price ofgrains.

The manufacturer does the same with his products.

The reactioncomes, and, after some fluctuation, the farm-rent--which the tenantthought to put upon the manufacturer's shoulders--becomes nearlybalanced.

So that, while he is congratulating himself upon his success,he finds himself again impoverished, but to an extent somewhat smallerthan before.

For the rise having been general, the proprietor sufferswith the rest; so that the laborers, instead of being poorer byone-tenth, lose only nine-hundredths.

But always it is a debt whichnecessitates a loan, the payment of interest, economy, and fasting.Fasting for the nine-hundredths which ought not to be paid, and arepaid; fasting for the redemption of debts; fasting to pay the intereston them.

Let the crop fail, and the fasting becomes starvation.

Theysay, "IT IS NECESSARY TO WORK MORE." That means, obviously, that IT ISNECESSARY TO PRODUCE MORE.

By what conditions is production effected? Bythe combined action of labor, capital, and land.

As for the labor, thetenant undertakes to furnish it; but capital is formed only by economy.Now, if the tenant could accumulate any thing, he would pay his debts.But granting that he has plenty of capital, of what use would it be tohim if the extent of the land which he cultivates always remained thesame? He needs to enlarge his farm.Will it be said, finally, that he must work harder and to betteradvantage? But, in our estimation of farm-rent, we have assumed thehighest possible average of production.

Were it not the highest, theproprietor would increase the farm-rent.

Is not this the way in whichthe large landed proprietors have gradually raised their rents, asfast as they have ascertained by the increase in population andthe development of industry how much society can produce from theirproperty? The proprietor is a foreigner to society; but, like thevulture, his eyes fixed upon his prey, he holds himself ready to pounceupon and devour it.The facts to which we have called attention, in a community of onethousand persons, are reproduced on a large scale in every nationand wherever human beings live, but with infinite variations and ininnumerable forms, which it is no part of my intention to describe.In fine, property--after having robbed the laborer by usury--murders himslowly by starvation.

Now, without robbery and murder, property cannotexist; with robbery and murder, it soon dies for want of support.Therefore it is impossible.FIFTH PROPOSITION.Property is impossible, because, if it exists, Society devours itself.When the ass is too heavily loaded, he lies down; man always moves on.Upon this indomitable courage, the proprietor--well knowing that itexists--bases his hopes of speculation.

The free laborer produces ten;for me, thinks the proprietor, he will produce twelve.Indeed,--before consenting to the confiscation of his fields, beforebidding farewell to the paternal roof,--the peasant, whose story we havejust told, makes a desperate effort; he leases new land; he will sowone-third more; and, taking half of this new product for himself, hewill harvest an additional sixth, and thereby pay his rent.

What anevil! To add one-sixth to his production, the farmer must add, notone-sixth, but two-sixths to his labor.

At such a price, he pays afarm-rent which in God's eyes he does not owe.The tenant's example is followed by the manufacturer.

The former tillsmore land, and dispossesses his neighbors; the latter lowers the priceof his merchandise, and endeavors to monopolize its manufacture andsale, and to crush out his competitors.

To satisfy property, the laborermust first produce beyond his needs.

Then, he must produce beyond hisstrength; for, by the withdrawal of laborers who become proprietors, theone always follows from the other.

But to produce beyond his strengthand needs, he must invade the production of another, and consequentlydiminish the number of producers.

Thus the proprietor--after havinglessened production by stepping outside--lessens it still further byencouraging the monopoly of labor.

Let us calculate it.The laborer's deficit, after paying his rent, being, as we have seen,one-tenth, he tries to increase his production by this amount.

He seesno way of accomplishing this save by increasing his labor: this also hedoes.

The discontent of the proprietors who have not received the fullamount of their rent; the advantageous offers and promises made them byother farmers, whom they suppose more diligent, more industrious, andmore reliable; the secret plots and intrigues,--all these give rise to amovement for the re-division of labor, and the elimination of a certainnumber of producers.

Out of nine hundred, ninety will be ejected, thatthe production of the others may be increased one-tenth.

But willthe total product be increased? Not in the least: there will be eighthundred and ten laborers producing as nine hundred, while, to accomplishtheir purpose, they would have to produce as one thousand.

Now, ithaving been proved that farm-rent is proportional to the landed capitalinstead of to labor, and that it never diminishes, the debts mustcontinue as in the past, while the labor has increased.

Here, then, wehave a society which is continually decimating itself, and whichwould destroy itself, did not the periodical occurrence of failures,bankruptcies, and political and economical catastrophes re-establishequilibrium, and distract attention from the real causes of theuniversal distress.The monopoly of land and capital is followed by economical processeswhich also result in throwing laborers out of employment.

Interest beinga constant burden upon the shoulders of the farmer and the manufacturer,they exclaim, each speaking for himself, "I should have the meanswherewith to pay my rent and interest, had I not to pay so many hands."Then those admirable inventions, intended to assure the easy and speedyperformance of labor, become so many infernal machines which killlaborers by thousands."A few years ago, the Countess of Strafford ejected fifteen thousandpersons from her estate, who, as tenants, added to its value.

This actof private administration was repeated in 1820, by another large Scotchproprietor, towards six hundred tenants and their families."--Tissot: onSuicide and Revolt._ _The author whom I quote, and who has written eloquent wordsconcerning the revolutionary spirit which prevails in modern society,does not say whether he would have disapproved of a revolt on the partof these exiles.

For myself, I avow boldly that in my eyes it wouldhave been the first of rights, and the holiest of duties; and all that Idesire to-day is that my profession of faith be understood.Society devours itself,--1.

By the violent and periodical sacrificeof laborers: this we have just seen, and shall see again; 2.

By thestoppage of the producer's consumption caused by property.

These twomodes of suicide are at first simultaneous; but soon the first is givenadditional force by the second, famine uniting with usury to renderlabor at once more necessary and more scarce.By the principles of commerce and political economy, that an industrialenterprise may be successful, its product must furnish,--1.

The intereston the capital employed; 2.

Means for the preservation of this capital;3.

The wages of all the employees and contractors.

Further, as large aprofit as possible must be realized.The financial shrewdness and rapacity of property is worthy ofadmiration.

Each different name which increase takes affords theproprietor an opportunity to receive it,--1.

In the form of interest; 2.In the form of profit.

For, it says, a part of the income derivedfrom manufactures consists of interest on the capital employed.

Ifone hundred thousand francs have been invested in a manufacturingenterprise, and in a year's time five thousand francs have been receivedtherefrom in addition to the expenses, there has been no profit, butonly interest on the capital.

Now, the proprietor is not a man to laborfor nothing.

Like the lion in the fable, he gets paid in each of hiscapacities; so that, after he has been served, nothing is left for hisassociates..

.

.

_Ego primam tollo, nominor quia leo..

.

.

 Secundam quia sum fortis tribuctis mihi..

.

.

 Tum quia plus valeo, me sequetur tertia..

.

.

 Malo adficietur, si quis quartam tetigerit._I know nothing prettier than this fable..

.

.

 "I am the contractor.

I take the first share..

.

.

  I am the laborer, I take the second..

.

.

  I am the capitalist, I take the third..

.

.

  I am the proprietor, I take the whole."In four lines, Phaedrus has summed up all the forms of property.I say that this interest, all the more then this profit, is impossible.What are laborers in relation to each other? So many members of a largeindustrial society, to each of whom is assigned a certain portion ofthe general production, by the principle of the division of labor andfunctions.

Suppose, first, that this society is composed of but threeindividuals,--a cattle-raiser, a tanner, and a shoemaker.

The socialindustry, then, is that of shoemaking.

If I should ask what ought to beeach producer's share of the social product, the first schoolboy whom Ishould meet would answer, by a rule of commerce and association, that itshould be one-third.

But it is not our duty here to balance the rightsof laborers conventionally associated: we have to prove that, whetherassociated or not, our three workers are obliged to act as if theywere; that, whether they will or no, they are associated by the force ofthings, by mathematical necessity.Three processes are required in the manufacture of shoes,--the rearingof cattle, the preparation of their hides, and the cutting and sewing.If the hide, on leaving the farmer's stable, is worth one, it is worthtwo on leaving the tanner's pit, and three on leaving the shoemaker'sshop.

Each laborer has produced a portion of the utility; so that, byadding all these portions together, we get the value of the article.

Toobtain any quantity whatever of this article, each producer must pay,then, first for his own labor, and second for the labor of the otherproducers.

Thus, to obtain as many shoes as can be made from ten hides,the farmer will give thirty raw hides, and the tanner twenty tannedhides.

For, the shoes that are made from ten hides are worth thirty rawhides, in consequence of the extra labor bestowed upon them; justas twenty tanned hides are worth thirty raw hides, on account ofthe tanner's labor.

But if the shoemaker demands thirty-three in thefarmer's product, or twenty-two in the tanner's, for ten in his own,there will be no exchange; for, if there were, the farmer and thetanner, after having paid the shoemaker ten for his labor, would have topay eleven for that which they had themselves sold for ten,--which, ofcourse, would be impossible.

[18]Well, this is precisely what happens whenever an emolument of any kindis received; be it called revenue, farm-rent, interest, or profit.

Inthe little community of which we are speaking, if the shoemaker--inorder to procure tools, buy a stock of leather, and support himselfuntil he receives something from his investment--borrows money atinterest, it is clear that to pay this interest he will have to make aprofit off the tanner and the farmer.

But as this profit is impossibleunless fraud is used, the interest will fall back upon the shoulders ofthe unfortunate shoemaker, and ruin him.I have imagined a case of unnatural simplicity.

There is no humansociety but sustains more than three vocations.

The most uncivilizedsociety supports numerous industries; to-day, the number of industrialfunctions (I mean by industrial functions all useful functions) exceeds,perhaps, a thousand.

However numerous the occupations, the economic lawremains the same,--THAT THE PRODUCER MAY LIVE, HIS WAGES MUST REPURCHASEHIS PRODUCT._ _The economists cannot be ignorant of this rudimentary principleof their pretended science: why, then, do they so obstinately defendproperty, and inequality of wages, and the legitimacy of usury, and thehonesty of profit,--all of which contradict the economic law, and makeexchange impossible? A contractor pays one hundred thousand francsfor raw material, fifty thousand francs in wages, and then expects toreceive a product of two hundred thousand francs,--that is, expects tomake a profit on the material and on the labor of his employees; butif the laborers and the purveyor of the material cannot, with theircombined wages, repurchase that which they have produced for thecontractor, how can they live? I will develop my question.

Here detailsbecome necessary.If the workingman receives for his labor an average of three francs perday, his employer (in order to gain any thing beyond his own salary, ifonly interest on his capital) must sell the day's labor of his employee,in the form of merchandise, for more than three francs.

The workingmancannot, then, repurchase that which he has produced for his master.It is thus with all trades whatsoever.

The tailor, the hatter, thecabinet-maker, the blacksmith, the tanner, the mason, the jeweller,the printer, the clerk, &c., even to the farmer and wine-grower, cannotrepurchase their products; since, producing for a master who in one formor another makes a profit, they are obliged to pay more for their ownlabor than they get for it.In France, twenty millions of laborers, engaged in all the branches ofscience, art, and industry, produce every thing which is useful to man.Their annual wages amount, it is estimated to twenty thousand millions;but, in consequence of the right of property, and the multifarious formsof increase, premiums, tithes, interests, fines, profits, farm-rents,house-rents, revenues, emoluments of every nature and description, theirproducts are estimated by the proprietors and employers at twenty-fivethousand millions.

What does that signify? That the laborers, who areobliged to repurchase these products in order to live, must either payfive for that which they produced for four, or fast one day in five.If there is an economist in France able to show that this calculation isfalse, I summon him to appear; and I promise to retract all that I havewrongfully and wickedly uttered in my attacks upon property.Let us now look at the results of this profit.If the wages of the workingmen were the same in all pursuits, thedeficit caused by the proprietor's tax would be felt equally everywhere;but also the cause of the evil would be so apparent, that it would soonbe discovered and suppressed.

But, as there is the same inequality ofwages (from that of the scavenger up to that of the minister of state)as of property, robbery continually rebounds from the stronger to theweaker; so that, since the laborer finds his hardships increase as hedescends in the social scale, the lowest class of people are literallystripped naked and eaten alive by the others.The laboring people can buy neither the cloth which they weave, nor thefurniture which they manufacture, nor the metal which they forge, northe jewels which they cut, nor the prints which they engrave.

They canprocure neither the wheat which they plant, nor the wine which theygrow, nor the flesh of the animals which they raise.

They are allowedneither to dwell in the houses which they build, nor to attend theplays which their labor supports, nor to enjoy the rest which their bodyrequires.

And why? Because the right of increase does not permit thesethings to be sold at the cost-price, which is all that laborers canafford to pay.

On the signs of those magnificent warehouses which he inhis poverty admires, the laborer reads in large letters: "This is thywork, and thou shalt not have it." _Sic vos non vobis_!Every manufacturer who employs one thousand laborers, and gains fromthem daily one sou each, is slowly pushing them into a state of misery.Every man who makes a profit has entered into a conspiracy with famine.But the whole nation has not even this labor, by means of which propertystarves it.

And why? Because the workers are forced by the insufficiencyof their wages to monopolize labor; and because, before being destroyedby dearth, they destroy each other by competition.

Let us pursue thistruth no further.If the laborer's wages will not purchase his product, it followsthat the product is not made for the producer.

For whom, then, is itintended? For the richer consumer; that is, for only a fraction ofsociety.

But when the whole society labors, it produces for the wholesociety.

If, then, only a part of society consumes, sooner or later apart of society will be idle.

Now, idleness is death, as well for thelaborer as for the proprietor.This conclusion is inevitable.The most distressing spectacle imaginable is the sight of producersresisting and struggling against this mathematical necessity, this powerof figures to which their prejudices blind them.If one hundred thousand printers can furnish reading-matter enough forthirty-four millions of men, and if the price of books is so high thatonly one-third of that number can afford to buy them, it is clear thatthese one hundred thousand printers will produce three times as much asthe booksellers can sell.

That the products of the laborers may neverexceed the demands of the consumers, the laborers must either rest twodays out of three, or, separating into three groups, relieve each otherthree times a week, month, or quarter; that is, during two-thirds oftheir life they must not live.

But industry, under the influence ofproperty, does not proceed with such regularity.

It endeavors toproduce a great deal in a short time, because the greater the amount ofproducts, and the shorter the time of production, the less each productcosts.

As soon as a demand begins to be felt, the factories fill up, andeverybody goes to work.

Then business is lively, and both governors andgoverned rejoice.

But the more they work to-day, the more idle will theybe hereafter; the more they laugh, the more they shall weep.

Underthe rule of property, the flowers of industry are woven into none butfuneral wreaths.

The laborer digs his own grave.If the factory stops running, the manufacturer has to pay interest onhis capital the same as before.

He naturally tries, then, to continueproduction by lessening expenses.

Then comes the lowering of wages; theintroduction of machinery; the employment of women and children to dothe work of men; bad workmen, and wretched work.

They still produce,because the decreased cost creates a larger market; but they do notproduce long, because, the cheapness being due to the quantity andrapidity of production, the productive power tends more than ever tooutstrip consumption.

It is when laborers, whose wages are scarcelysufficient to support them from one day to another, are thrown out ofwork, that the consequences of the principle of property become mostfrightful.

They have not been able to economize, they have made nosavings, they have accumulated no capital whatever to support them evenone day more.

Today the factory is closed.

To-morrow the people starvein the streets.

Day after tomorrow they will either die in the hospital,or eat in the jail.And still new misfortunes come to complicate this terrible situation.

Inconsequence of the cessation of business, and the extreme cheapness ofmerchandise, the manufacturer finds it impossible to pay the intereston his borrowed capital; whereupon his frightened creditors hasten towithdraw their funds.

Production is suspended, and labor comes to astandstill.

Then people are astonished to see capital desert commerce,and throw itself upon the Stock Exchange; and I once heard M.

Blanquibitterly lamenting the blind ignorance of capitalists.

The cause ofthis movement of capital is very simple; but for that very reason aneconomist could not understand it, or rather must not explain it.

Thecause lies solely in COMPETITION.I mean by competition, not only the rivalry between two parties engagedin the same business, but the general and simultaneous effort of allkinds of business to get ahead of each other.

This effort is to-dayso strong, that the price of merchandise scarcely covers the cost ofproduction and distribution; so that, the wages of all laborers beinglessened, nothing remains, not even interest for the capitalists.The primary cause of commercial and industrial stagnations is, then,interest on capital,--that interest which the ancients with one accordbranded with the name of usury, whenever it was paid for the useof money, but which they did not dare to condemn in the forms ofhouse-rent, farm-rent, or profit: as if the nature of the thing lentcould ever warrant a charge for the lending; that is, robbery.In proportion to the increase received by the capitalist will be thefrequency and intensity of commercial crises,--the first being given, wealways can determine the two others; and vice versa.

Do you wish to knowthe regulator of a society? Ascertain the amount of active capital; thatis, the capital bearing interest, and the legal rate of this interest.The course of events will be a series of overturns, whose number andviolence will be proportional to the activity of capital.In 1839, the number of failures in Paris alone was one thousand andsixty-four.

This proportion was kept up in the early months of 1840;and, as I write these lines, the crisis is not yet ended.

It is said,further, that the number of houses which have wound up their businessis greater than the number of declared failures.

By this flood, we mayjudge of the waterspout's power of suction.The decimation of society is now imperceptible and permanent, nowperiodical and violent; it depends upon the course which property takes.In a country where the property is pretty evenly distributed, and wherelittle business is done,--the rights and claims of each being balancedby those of others,--the power of invasion is destroyed.

There--it maybe truly said--property does not exist, since the right of increase isscarcely exercised at all.

The condition of the laborers--as regardssecurity of life--is almost the same as if absolute equality prevailedamong them.

They are deprived of all the advantages of full and freeassociation, but their existence is not endangered in the least.

Withthe exception of a few isolated victims of the right of property--ofthis misfortune whose primary cause no one perceives--the societyappears to rest calmly in the bosom of this sort of equality.

But have acare; it is balanced on the edge of a sword: at the slightest shock, itwill fall and meet with death!Ordinarily, the whirlpool of property localizes itself.

On the one hand,farm-rent stops at a certain point; on the other, in consequence ofcompetition and over-production, the price of manufactured goods doesnot rise,--so that the condition of the peasant varies but little, anddepends mainly on the seasons.

The devouring action of property bears,then, principally upon business.

We commonly say COMMERCIAL CRISES, notAGRICULTURAL CRISES; because, while the farmer is eaten up slowly by theright of increase, the manufacturer is swallowed at a single mouthful.This leads to the cessation of business, the destruction of fortunes,and the inactivity of the working people; who die one after another onthe highways, and in the hospitals, prisons, and galleys.To sum up this proposition:--Property sells products to the laborer for more than it pays him forthem; therefore it is impossible.APPENDIX TO THE FIFTH PROPOSITION.I.

Certain reformers, and even the most of the publicists--who, thoughbelonging to no particular school, busy themselves in devising means forthe amelioration of the lot of the poorer and more numerous class--laymuch stress now-a-days on a better organization of labor.

The disciplesof Fourier, especially, never stop shouting, "ON TO THE PHALANX!"declaiming in the same breath against the foolishness and absurdity ofother sects.They consist of half-a-dozen incomparable geniuses who have discoveredthat FIVE AND FOUR MAKE NINE; TAKE TWO AWAY, AND NINE REMAIN,--andwho weep over the blindness of France, who refuses to believe in thisastonishing arithmetic.[1][1] Fourier, having to multiply a whole number by a fraction,never failed, they say, to obtain a product much greater than themultiplicand.

He affirmed that under his system of harmony the mercurywould solidify when the temperature was above zero.

He might as wellhave said that the Harmonians would make burning ice.

I once asked anintelligent phalansterian what he thought of such physics.

"I do notknow," he answered; "but I believe." And yet the same man disbelieved inthe doctrine of the Real Presence.In fact, the Fourierists proclaim themselves, on the one hand, defendersof property, of the right of increase, which they have thus formulated:TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS CAPITAL, HIS LABOR, AND HIS SKILL.

On the otherhand, they wish the workingman to come into the enjoyment of allthe wealth of society; that is,--abridging the expression,--into theundivided enjoyment of his own product.

Is not this like saying to theworkingman, "Labor, you shall have three francs per day; you shall liveon fifty-five sous; you shall give the rest to the proprietor, and thusyou will consume three francs"?If the above speech is not an exact epitome of Charles Fourier's system,I will subscribe to the whole phalansterian folly with a pen dipped inmy own blood.Of what use is it to reform industry and agriculture,--of what use,indeed, to labor at all,--if property is maintained, and labor can nevermeet its expenses? Without the abolition of property, the organizationof labor is neither more nor less than a delusion.

If production shouldbe quadrupled,--a thing which does not seem to me at all impossible,--itwould be labor lost: if the additional product was not consumed, itwould be of no value, and the proprietor would decline to receive it asinterest; if it was consumed, all the disadvantages of property wouldreappear.

It must be confessed that the theory of passional attractionis gravely at fault in this particular, and that Fourier, when he triedto harmonize the PASSION for property,--a bad passion, whatever he maysay to the contrary,--blocked his own chariot-wheels.The absurdity of the phalansterian economy is so gross, that many peoplesuspect Fourier, in spite of all the homage paid by him to proprietors,of having been a secret enemy of property.

This opinion might besupported by plausible arguments; still it is not mine.

Charlatanismwas too important a part for such a man to play, and sincerity tooinsignificant a one.

I would rather think Fourier ignorant (which isgenerally admitted) than disingenuous.

As for his disciples, before theycan formulate any opinion of their own, they must declare once forall, unequivocally and with no mental reservation, whether they mean tomaintain property or not, and what they mean by their famous motto,--"Toeach according to his capital, his labor, and his skill."II.

But, some half-converted proprietor will observe, "Would it not bepossible, by suppressing the bank, incomes, farm-rent, house-rent, usuryof all kinds, and finally property itself, to proportion products tocapacities? That was St.

Simon's idea; it was also Fourier's; it is thedesire of the human conscience; and no decent person would dare maintainthat a minister of state should live no better than a peasant."O Midas! your ears are long! What! will you never understand thatdisparity of wages and the right of increase are one and the same?Certainly, St.

Simon, Fourier, and their respective flocks committeda serious blunder in attempting to unite, the one, inequality andcommunism; the other, inequality and property: but you, a man offigures, a man of economy,--you, who know by heart your LOGARITHMICtables,--how can you make so stupid a mistake?Does not political economy itself teach you that the product of a man,whatever be his individual capacity, is never worth more than his labor,and that a man's labor is worth no more than his consumption? You remindme of that great constitution-framer, poor Pinheiro-Ferreira, the Sieyesof the nineteenth century, who, dividing the citizens of a nation intotwelve classes,--or, if you prefer, into twelve grades,--assigned tosome a salary of one hundred thousand francs each; to others, eightythousand; then twenty-five thousand, fifteen thousand, ten thousand,&c., down to one thousand five hundred, and one thousand francs, theminimum allowance of a citizen.

Pinheiro loved distinctions, and couldno more conceive of a State without great dignitaries than of an armywithout drum-majors; and as he also loved, or thought he loved, liberty,equality, and fraternity, he combined the good and the evil of our oldsociety in an eclectic philosophy which he embodied in a constitution.Excellent Pinheiro! Liberty even to passive submission, fraternityeven to identity of language, equality even in the jury-box and at theguillotine,--such was his ideal republic.

Unappreciated genius, of whomthe present century was unworthy, but whom the future will avenge!Listen, proprietor.

Inequality of talent exists in fact; in right it isnot admissible, it goes for nothing, it is not thought of.

One Newton ina century is equal to thirty millions of men; the psychologist admiresthe rarity of so fine a genius, the legislator sees only the rarityof the function.

Now, rarity of function bestows no privilege upon thefunctionary; and that for several reasons, all equally forcible.1.

Rarity of genius was not, in the Creator's design, a motive to compelsociety to go down on its knees before the man of superior talents,but a providential means for the performance of all functions to thegreatest advantage of all.2.

Talent is a creation of society rather than a gift of Nature; itis an accumulated capital, of which the receiver is only the guardian.Without society,--without the education and powerful assistance whichit furnishes,--the finest nature would be inferior to the most ordinarycapacities in the very respect in which it ought to shine.

The moreextensive a man's knowledge, the more luxuriant his imagination, themore versatile his talent,--the more costly has his education been, themore remarkable and numerous were his teachers and his models, and thegreater is his debt.

The farmer produces from the time that he leaveshis cradle until he enters his grave: the fruits of art and scienceare late and scarce; frequently the tree dies before the fruit ripens.Society, in cultivating talent, makes a sacrifice to hope.3.

Capacities have no common standard of comparison: the conditions ofdevelopment being equal, inequality of talent is simply speciality oftalent.4.

Inequality of wages, like the right of increase, is economicallyimpossible.

Take the most favorable case,--that where each laborerhas furnished his maximum production; that there may be an equitabledistribution of products, the share of each must be equal to thequotient of the total production divided by the number of laborers.

Thisdone, what remains wherewith to pay the higher wages? Nothing whatever.Will it be said that all laborers should be taxed? But, then, theirconsumption will not be equal to their production, their wages will notpay for their productive service, they will not be able to repurchasetheir product, and we shall once more be afflicted with all thecalamities of property.

I do not speak of the injustice done tothe defrauded laborer, of rivalry, of excited ambition, and burninghatred,--these may all be important considerations, but they do not hitthe point.On the one hand, each laborer's task being short and easy, and the meansfor its successful accomplishment being equal in all cases, how couldthere be large and small producers? On the other hand, all functionsbeing equal, either on account of the actual equivalence of talentsand capacities, or on account of social co-operation, how could afunctionary claim a salary proportional to the worth of his genius?But, what do I say? In equality wages are always proportional totalents.

What is the economical meaning of wages? The reproductiveconsumption of the laborer.

The very act by which the laborer producesconstitutes, then, this consumption, exactly equal to his production,of which we are speaking.

When the astronomer produces observations, thepoet verses, or the savant experiments, they consume instruments, books,travels, &c., &c.; now, if society supplies this consumption, what morecan the astronomer, the savant, or the poet demand? We must conclude,then, that in equality, and only in equality, St.

Simon's adage--TOEACH ACCORDING TO HIS CAPACITY TO EACH CAPACITY ACCORDING TO ITSRESULTS--finds its full and complete application.III.

The great evil--the horrible and ever-present evil--arising fromproperty, is that, while property exists, population, however reduced,is, and always must be, over-abundant.

Complaints have been made inall ages of the excess of population; in all ages property has beenembarrassed by the presence of pauperism, not perceiving that it causedit.

Further,--nothing is more curious than the diversity of the plansproposed for its extermination.

Their atrocity is equalled only by theirabsurdity.The ancients made a practice of abandoning their children.

The wholesaleand retail slaughter of slaves, civil and foreign wars, also lent theiraid.

In Rome (where property held full sway), these three means wereemployed so effectively, and for so long a time, that finally the empirefound itself without inhabitants.

When the barbarians arrived, nobodywas to be found; the fields were no longer cultivated; grass grew in thestreets of the Italian cities.In China, from time immemorial, upon famine alone has devolved the taskof sweeping away the poor.

The people living almost exclusively uponrice, if an accident causes the crop to fail, in a few days hunger killsthe inhabitants by myriads; and the Chinese historian records in theannals of the empire, that in such a year of such an emperor twenty,thirty, fifty, one hundred thousand inhabitants died of starvation.Then they bury the dead, and recommence the production of children untilanother famine leads to the same result.

Such appears to have been, inall ages, the Confucian economy.I borrow the following facts from a modern economist:--"Since the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, England has beenpreyed upon by pauperism.

At that time beggars were punished by law."Nevertheless, she had not one-fourth as large a population as she hasto-day."Edward prohibits alms-giving, on pain of imprisonment....

The laws of1547 and 1656 prescribe a like punishment, in case of a second offence.Elizabeth orders that each parish shall support its own paupers.

Butwhat is a pauper? Charles II.ecides that an UNDISPUTED residence offorty days constitutes a settlement in a parish; but, if disputed, thenew-comer is forced to pack off.

James II. odifies this decision,which is again modified by William.

In the midst of trials, reports, andmodifications, pauperism increases, and the workingman languishes anddies."The poor-tax in 1774 exceeded forty millions of francs; in 1783-4-5,it averaged fifty-three millions; 1813, more than a hundred andeighty-seven millions five hundred thousand francs; 1816, two hundredand fifty millions; in 1817, it is estimated at three hundred andseventeen millions."In 1821, the number of paupers enrolled upon the parish lists wasestimated at four millions, nearly one-third of the population."FRANCE.

In 1544, Francis I.establishes a compulsory tax in behalf ofthe poor.

In 1566 and 1586, the same principle is applied to the wholekingdom."Under Louis XIV., forty thousand paupers infested the capital [as manyin proportion as to-day].

Mendicity was punished severely.

In 1740,the Parliament of Paris re-establishes within its own jurisdiction thecompulsory assessment."The Constituent Assembly, frightened at the extent of the evil and thedifficulty of curing it, ordains the _statu quo_."The Convention proclaims assistance of the poor to be a NATIONAL DEBT.Its law remains unexecuted."Napoleon also wishes to remedy the evil: his idea is imprisonment.

'Inthat way,' said he, 'I shall protect the rich from the importunityof beggars, and shall relieve them of the disgusting sight of abjectpoverty.'" O wonderful man!From these facts, which I might multiply still farther, two things areto be inferred,--the one, that pauperism is independent of population;the other, that all attempts hitherto made at its extermination haveproved abortive.Catholicism founds hospitals and convents, and commands charity; thatis, she encourages mendicity.

That is the extent of her insight asvoiced by her priests.The secular power of Christian nations now orders taxes on the rich,now banishment and imprisonment for the poor; that is, on the one hand,violation of the right of property, and, on the other, civil death andmurder.The modern economists--thinking that pauperism is caused by the excessof population, exclusively--have devoted themselves to devising checks.Some wish to prohibit the poor from marrying; thus,--having denouncedreligious celibacy,--they propose compulsory celibacy, which willinevitably become licentious celibacy.Others do not approve this method, which they deem too violent; andwhich, they say, deprives the poor man of THE ONLY PLEASURE WHICH HEKNOWS IN THIS WORLD.

They would simply recommend him to be PRUDENT.

Thisopinion is held by Malthus, Sismondi, Say, Droz, Duchatel, &c.

But ifthe poor are to be PRUDENT, the rich must set the example.

Why shouldthe marriageable age of the latter be fixed at eighteen years, whilethat of the former is postponed until thirty?Again, they would do well to explain clearly what they mean by thismatrimonial prudence which they so urgently recommend to the laborer;for here equivocation is especially dangerous, and I suspect thatthe economists are not thoroughly understood.

"Some half-enlightenedecclesiastics are alarmed when they hear prudence in marriage advised;they fear that the divine injunction--INCREASE AND MULTIPLY--is to beset aside.

To be logical, they must anathematize bachelors." (J.

Droz:Political Economy.)M.

Droz is too honest a man, and too little of a theologian, to see whythese casuists are so alarmed; and this chaste ignorance is the verybest evidence of the purity of his heart.

Religion never has encouragedearly marriages; and the kind of PRUDENCE which it condemns is thatdescribed in this Latin sentence from Sanchez,--_An licet ob metumliberorum semen extra vas ejicere_?Destutt de Tracy seems to dislike prudence in either form.

He says: "Iconfess that I no more share the desire of the moralists to diminishand restrain our pleasures, than that of the politicians to increaseour procreative powers, and accelerate reproduction." He believes, then,that we should love and marry when and as we please.

Widespread miseryresults from love and marriage, but this our philosopher does not heed.True to the dogma of the necessity of evil, to evil he looks for thesolution of all problems.

He adds: "The multiplication of men continuingin all classes of society, the surplus members of the upper classes aresupported by the lower classes, and those of the latter are destroyedby poverty." This philosophy has few avowed partisans; but it has overevery other the indisputable advantage of demonstration in practice.

Notlong since France heard it advocated in the Chamber of Deputies, in thecourse of the discussion on the electoral reform,--POVERTY WILL ALWAYSEXIST.

That is the political aphorism with which the minister of stateground to powder the arguments of M.

Arago.

POVERTY WILL ALWAYS EXIST!Yes, so long as property does.The Fourierists--INVENTORS of so many marvellous contrivances--couldnot, in this field, belie their character.

They invented four methods ofchecking increase of population at will.1.

THE VIGOR OF WOMEN.

On this point they are contradicted byexperience; for, although vigorous women may be less likely to conceive,nevertheless they give birth to the healthiest children; so that theadvantage of maternity is on their side.2.

INTEGRAL EXERCISE, or the equal development of all the physicalpowers.

If this development is equal, how is the power of reproductionlessened?3.

THE GASTRONOMIC REGIME; or, in plain English, the philosophy of thebelly.

The Fourierists say, that abundance of rich food renderswomen sterile; just as too much sap--while enhancing the beauty offlowers--destroys their reproductive capacity.

But the analogy is afalse one.

Flowers become sterile when the stamens--or male organs--arechanged into petals, as may be seen by inspecting a rose; and whenthrough excessive dampness the pollen loses its fertilizing power.Then,--in order that the gastronomic regime may produce the resultsclaimed for it,--not only must the females be fattened, but the malesmust be rendered impotent.4.

PHANEROGAMIC MORALITY, or public concubinage.

I know not why thephalansterians use Greek words to convey ideas which can be expressed soclearly in French.

This method--like the preceding one--is copied fromcivilized customs.

Fourier, himself, cites the example of prostitutesas a proof.

Now we have no certain knowledge yet of the facts which hequotes.

So states Parent Duchatelet in his work on "Prostitution."From all the information which I have been able to gather, I find thatall the remedies for pauperism and fecundity--sanctioned by universalpractice, philosophy, political economy, and the latest reformers--maybe summed up in the following list: masturbation, onanism, [19]sodomy, tribadie, polyandry, [20] prostitution, castration, continence,abortion, and infanticide.

[21]All these methods being proved inadequate, there remains proscription.Unfortunately, proscription, while decreasing the number of the poor,increases their proportion.

If the interest charged by the proprietorupon the product is equal only to one-twentieth of the product (by lawit is equal to one-twentieth of the capital), it follows that twentylaborers produce for nineteen only; because there is one among them,called proprietor, who eats the share of two.

Suppose that the twentiethlaborer--the poor one--is killed: the production of the following yearwill be diminished one-twentieth; consequently the nineteenth will haveto yield his portion, and perish.

For, since it is not one-twentiethof the product of nineteen which must be paid to the proprietor, butone-twentieth of the product of twenty (see third proposition), eachsurviving laborer must sacrifice one-twentieth PLUS one four-hundredthof his product; in other words, one man out of nineteen must be killed.Therefore, while property exists, the more poor people we kill, the morethere are born in proportion.Malthus, who proved so clearly that population increases in geometricalprogression, while production increases only in arithmeticalprogression, did not notice this PAUPERIZING power of property.

Had heobserved this, he would have understood that, before trying to checkreproduction, the right of increase should be abolished; because,wherever that right is tolerated, there are always too many inhabitants,whatever the extent or fertility of the soil.It will be asked, perhaps, how I would maintain a balance betweenpopulation and production; for sooner or later this problem must besolved.

The reader will pardon me, if I do not give my method here.

For,in my opinion, it is useless to say a thing unless we prove it.

Now, toexplain my method fully would require no less than a formal treatise.It is a thing so simple and so vast, so common and so extraordinary,so true and so misunderstood, so sacred and so profane, that to name itwithout developing and proving it would serve only to excite contemptand incredulity.

One thing at a time.

Let us establish equality, andthis remedy will soon appear; for truths follow each other, just ascrimes and errors do.SIXTH PROPOSITION.Property is impossible, because it is the Mother of Tyranny.What is government? Government is public economy, the supremeadministrative power over public works and national possessions.Now, the nation is like a vast society in which all the citizens arestockholders.

Each one has a deliberative voice in the assembly; and,if the shares are equal, has one vote at his disposal.

But, under theregime of property, there is great inequality between the shares ofthe stockholders; therefore, one may have several hundred votes, whileanother has only one.

If, for example, I enjoy an income of one million;that is, if I am the proprietor of a fortune of thirty or forty millionswell invested, and if this fortune constitutes 1/30000 of the nationalcapital,--it is clear that the public administration of my propertywould form 1/30000 of the duties of the government; and, if the nationhad a population of thirty-four millions, that I should have as manyvotes as one thousand one hundred and thirty-three simple stockholders.Thus, when M.

Arago demands the right of suffrage for all members of theNational Guard, he is perfectly right; since every citizen is enrolledfor at least one national share, which entitles him to one vote.

But theillustrious orator ought at the same time to demand that each electorshall have as many votes as he has shares; as is the case in commercialassociations.

For to do otherwise is to pretend that the nation has aright to dispose of the property of individuals without consulting them;which is contrary to the right of property.

In a country where propertyexists, equality of electoral rights is a violation of property.Now, if each citizen's sovereignty must and ought to be proportional tohis property, it follows that the small stock holders are at the mercyof the larger ones; who will, as soon as they choose, make slaves ofthe former, marry them at pleasure, take from them their wives,castrate their sons, prostitute their daughters, throw the aged to thesharks,--and finally will be forced to serve themselves in the same way,unless they prefer to tax themselves for the support of their servants.In such a condition is Great Britain to-day.

John Bull--caring littlefor liberty, equality, or dignity--prefers to serve and beg.

But you,bonhomme Jacques?Property is incompatible with political and civil equality; thenproperty is impossible.HISTORICAL COMMENTS.--1.

When the vote of the third estate was doubledby the States-General of 1789, property was grossly violated.

Thenobility and the clergy possessed three-fourths of the soil of France;they should have controlled three-fourths of the votes in the nationalrepresentation.

To double the vote of the third estate was just, it issaid, since the people paid nearly all the taxes.

This argument wouldbe sound, if there were nothing to be voted upon but taxes.

But it was aquestion at that time of reforming the government and the constitution;consequently, the doubling of the vote of the third estate was ausurpation, and an attack on property.2.

If the present representatives of the radical opposition shouldcome into power, they would work a reform by which every National Guardshould be an elector, and every elector eligible for office,--an attackon property.They would lower the rate of interest on public funds,--an attack onproperty.They would, in the interest of the public, pass laws to regulate theexportation of cattle and wheat,--an attack on property.They would alter the assessment of taxes,--an attack on property.They would educate the people gratuitously,--a conspiracy againstproperty.They would organize labor; that is, they would guarantee labor to theworkingman, and give him a share in the profits,--the abolition ofproperty.Now, these same radicals are zealous defenders of property,--a radicalproof that they know not what they do, nor what they wish.3.

Since property is the grand cause of privilege and despotism, theform of the republican oath should be changed.

Instead of, "I swearhatred to royalty," henceforth the new member of a secret society shouldsay, "I swear hatred to property."SEVENTH PROPOSITION._Property is impossible, because, in consuming its Receipts, it losesthem; in hoarding them, it nullifies them; and in using them as Capital,it turns them against Production_.I.

If, with the economists, we consider the laborer as a living machine,we must regard the wages paid to him as the amount necessary to supportthis machine, and keep it in repair.

The head of a manufacturingestablishment--who employs laborers at three, five, ten, andfifteen francs per day, and who charges twenty francs for hissuperintendence--does not regard his disbursements as losses, becausehe knows they will return to him in the form of products.

Consequently,LABOR and REPRODUCTIVE CONSUMPTION are identical.What is the proprietor? He is a machine which does not work; or, whichworking for its own pleasure, and only when it sees fit, producesnothing.What is it to consume as a proprietor? It is to consume withoutworking, to consume without reproducing.

For, once more, that which theproprietor consumes as a laborer comes back to him; he does not give hislabor in exchange for his property, since, if he did, he would therebycease to be a proprietor.

In consuming as a laborer, the proprietorgains, or at least does not lose, since he recovers that which heconsumes; in consuming as a proprietor, he impoverishes himself.

Toenjoy property, then, it is necessary to destroy it; to be a realproprietor, one must cease to be a proprietor.The laborer who consumes his wages is a machine which destroys andreproduces; the proprietor who consumes his income is a bottomlessgulf,--sand which we water, a stone which we sow.

So true is this,that the proprietor--neither wishing nor knowing how to produce, andperceiving that as fast as he uses his property he destroys it forever--has taken the precaution to make some one produce in his place.That is what political economy, speaking in the name of eternal justice,calls PRODUCING BY HIS CAPITAL,--PRODUCING BY HIS TOOLS.

And that iswhat ought to be called PRODUCING BY A SLAVE--PRODUCING AS A THIEF ANDAS A TYRANT.

He, the proprietor, produce!...

The robber might say, aswell: "I produce."The consumption of the proprietor has been styled luxury, in oppositionto USEFUL consumption.

From what has just been said, we see that greatluxury can prevail in a nation which is not rich,--that poverty evenincreases with luxury, and vice versa.

The economists (so much creditmust be given them, at least) have caused such a horror of luxury,that to-day a very large number of proprietors--not to say almostall--ashamed of their idleness--labor, economize, and capitalize.

Theyhave jumped from the frying-pan into the fire.I cannot repeat it too often: the proprietor who thinks to deservehis income by working, and who receives wages for his labor, is afunctionary who gets paid twice; that is the only difference between anidle proprietor and a laboring proprietor.

By his labor, the proprietorproduces his wages only--not his income.

And since his condition enableshim to engage in the most lucrative pursuits, it may be said that theproprietor's labor harms society more than it helps it.

Whatever theproprietor does, the consumption of his income is an actual loss, whichhis salaried functions neither repair nor justify; and which wouldannihilate property, were it not continually replenished by outsideproduction.II.

Then, the proprietor who consumes annihilates the product: he doesmuch worse if he lays it up.

The things which he lays by pass intoanother world; nothing more is seen of them, not even the _caputmortuum_,--the smoke.

If we had some means of transportation by whichto travel to the moon, and if the proprietors should be seized with asudden fancy to carry their savings thither, at the end of a certaintime our terraqueous planet would be transported by them to itssatellite!The proprietor who lays up products will neither allow others to enjoythem, nor enjoy them himself; for him there is neither possession norproperty.

Like the miser, he broods over his treasures: he does not usethem.

He may feast his eyes upon them; he may lie down with them; hemay sleep with them in his arms: all very fine, but coins do notbreed coins.

No real property without enjoyment; no enjoyment withoutconsumption; no consumption without loss of property,--such is theinflexible necessity to which God's judgment compels the proprietor tobend.

A curse upon property!III.

The proprietor who, instead of consuming his income, uses it ascapital, turns it against production, and thereby makes it impossiblefor him to exercise his right.

For the more he increases the amount ofinterest to be paid upon it, the more he is compelled to diminish wages.Now, the more he diminishes wages,--that is, the less he devotes tothe maintenance and repair of the machines,--the more he diminishesthe quantity of labor; and with the quantity of labor the quantity ofproduct, and with the quantity of product the very source of his income.This is clearly shown by the following example:--Take an estate consisting of arable land, meadows, and vineyards,containing the dwellings of the owner and the tenant; and worth,together with the farming implements, one hundred thousand francs, therate of increase being three per cent.

If, instead of consuming hisrevenue, the proprietor uses it, not in enlarging but in beautifying hisestate, can he annually demand of his tenant an additional ninety francson account of the three thousand francs which he has thus added tohis capital? Certainly not; for on such conditions the tenant, thoughproducing no more than before, would soon be obliged to labor fornothing,--what do I say? to actually suffer loss in order to hold hislease.In fact, revenue can increase only as productive soil increases: itis useless to build walls of marble, and work with plows of gold.

But,since it is impossible to go on acquiring for ever, to add estate toestate, to CONTINUE ONE'S POSSESSIONS, as the Latins said; and since,moreover, the proprietor always has means wherewith to capitalize,--itfollows that the exercise of his right finally becomes impossible.Well, in spite of this impossibility, property capitalizes, and incapitalizing increases its revenue; and, without stopping to look at theparticular cases which occur in commerce, manufacturing operations,and banking, I will cite a graver fact,--one which directly affects allcitizens.

I mean the indefinite increase of the budget.The taxes increase every year.

It would be difficult to tell in whichdepartment of the government the expenses increase; for who can boastof any knowledge as to the budget? On this point, the ablest financierscontinually disagree.

What is to be thought, I ask, of the science ofgovernment, when its professors cannot understand one another's figures?Whatever be the immediate causes of this growth of the budget, it iscertain that taxation increases at a rate which causes everybody todespair.

Everybody sees it, everybody acknowledges it; but nobodyseems to understand the primary cause.[1] Now, I say that it cannot beotherwise,--that it is necessary and inevitable.[1] "The financial situation of the English government was shown upin the House of Lords during the session of January 23.

It is notan encouraging one.

For several years the expenses have exceeded thereceipts, and the Minister has been able to re-establish the balanceonly by loans renewed annually.

The combined deficits of the years 1838and 1839 amount to forty-seven million five hundred thousand francs.

In1840, the excess of expenses over receipts is expected to be twenty-twomillion five hundred thousand francs.

Attention was called to thesefigures by Lord Ripon.

Lord Melbourne replied: 'The noble earl unhappilywas right in declaring that the public expenses continually increase,and with him I must say that there is no room for hope that they can bediminished or met in any way.'"--National: January 26, 1840.A nation is the tenant of a rich proprietor called the GOVERNMENT,to whom it pays, for the use of the soil, a farm-rent called a tax.Whenever the government makes war, loses or gains a battle, changes theoutfit of its army, erects a monu-ment, digs a canal, opens a road,or builds a railway, it borrows money, on which the tax-payers payinterest; that is, the government, without adding to its productivecapacity, increases its active capital,--in a word, capitalizes afterthe manner of the proprietor of whom I have just spoken.Now, when a governmental loan is once contracted, and the interest isonce stipulated, the budget cannot be reduced.

For, to accomplish that,either the capitalists must relinquish their interest, which wouldinvolve an abandonment of property; or the government must go intobankruptcy, which would be a fraudulent denial of the politicalprinciple; or it must pay the debt, which would require another loan;or it must reduce expenses, which is impossible, since the loanwas contracted for the sole reason that the ordinary receiptswere insufficient; or the money expended by the government must bereproductive, which requires an increase of productive capacity,--acondition excluded by our hypothesis; or, finally, the tax-payers mustsubmit to a new tax in order to pay the debt,--an impossible thing.

For,if this new tax were levied upon all citizens alike, half, or even more,of the citizens would be unable to pay it; if the rich had to bear thewhole, it would be a forced contribution,--an invasion of property.Long financial experience has shown that the method of loans, thoughexceedingly dangerous, is much surer, more convenient, and less costlythan any other method; consequently the government borrows,--that is,goes on capitalizing,--and increases the budget.Then, a budget, instead of ever diminishing, must necessarily andcontinually increase.

It is astonishing that the economists, with alltheir learning, have failed to perceive a fact so simple and so evident.If they have perceived it, why have they neglected to condemn it?HISTORICAL COMMENT.--Much interest is felt at present in a financialoperation which is expected to result in a reduction of the budget.It is proposed to change the present rate of increase, five per cent.Laying aside the politico-legal question to deal only with the financialquestion,--is it not true that, when five per cent.

is changed to fourper cent., it will then be necessary, for the same reasons, to changefour to three; then three to two, then two to one, and finally to sweepaway increase altogether? But that would be the advent of equality ofconditions and the abolition of property.

Now it seems to me, that anintelligent nation should voluntarily meet an inevitable revolutionhalf way, instead of suffering itself to be dragged after the car ofinflexible necessity.EIGHTH PROPOSITION.Property is impossible, because its power of Accumulation is infinite,and is exercised only over finite quantities.If men, living in equality, should grant to one of their number theexclusive right of property; and this sole proprietor should lend onehundred francs to the human race at compound interest, payable to hisdescendants twenty-four generations hence,--at the end of six hundredyears this sum of one hundred francs, at five per cent., would amount to107,854,010,777,600 francs; two thousand six hundred and ninety-sixand one-third times the capital of France (supposing her capital to be40,000,000,000), or more than twenty times the value of the terrestrialglobe!Suppose that a man, in the reign of St.

Louis, had borrowed one hundredfrancs, and had refused,--he and his heirs after him,--to return it.Even though it were known that the said heirs were not the rightfulpossessors, and that prescription had been interrupted always at theright moment,--nevertheless, by our laws, the last heir would be obligedto return the one hundred francs with interest, and interest on theinterest; which in all would amount, as we have seen, to nearly onehundred and eight thousand billions.Every day, fortunes are growing in our midst much more rapidly thanthis.

The preceding example supposed the interest equal to one-twentiethof the capital,--it often equals one-tenth, one-fifth, one-half of thecapital; and sometimes the capital itself.The Fourierists--irreconcilable enemies of equality, whose partisansthey regard as SHARKS--intend, by quadrupling production, to satisfyall the demands of capital, labor, and skill.

But, should productionbe multiplied by four, ten, or even one hundred, property wouldsoon absorb, by its power of accumulation and the effects of itscapitalization, both products and capital, and the land, and even thelaborers.

Is the phalanstery to be prohibited from capitalizing andlending at interest? Let it explain, then, what it means by property.I will carry these calculations no farther.

They are capable of infinitevariation, upon which it would be puerile for me to insist.

I only askby what standard judges, called upon to decide a suit for possession,fix the interest? And, developing the question, I ask,--Did the legislator, in introducing into the Republic the principleof property, weigh all the consequences? Did he know the law of thepossible? If he knew it, why is it not in the Code? Why is so muchlatitude allowed to the proprietor in accumulating property andcharging interest,--to the judge in recognizing and fixing the domain ofproperty,--to the State in its power to levy new taxes continually? Atwhat point is the nation justified in repudiating the budget, the tenanthis farm-rent, and the manufacturer the interest on his capital? Howfar may the idler take advantage of the laborer? Where does the rightof spoliation begin, and where does it end? When may the producer sayto the proprietor, "I owe you nothing more"? When is property satisfied?When must it cease to steal?If the legislator did know the law of the possible, and disregarded it,what must be thought of his justice? If he did not know it, what mustbe thought of his wisdom? Either wicked or foolish, how can we recognizehis authority?If our charters and our codes are based upon an absurd hypothesis,what is taught in the law-schools? What does a judgment of the Courtof Appeal amount to? About what do our Chambers deliberate? What isPOLITICS? What is our definition of a STATESMAN? What is the meaning ofJURISPRUDENCE? Should we not rather say JURISIGNORANCE?If all our institutions are based upon an error in calculation, does itnot follow that these institutions are so many shams? And if the entiresocial structure is built upon this absolute impossibility of property,is it not true that the government under which we live is a chimera, andour present society a utopia?NINTH PROPOSITION.Property is impossible, because it is powerless against Property.I.

By the third corollary of our axiom, interest tells against theproprietor as well as the stranger.

This economical principle isuniversally admitted.

Nothing simpler at first blush; yet, nothing moreabsurd, more contradictory in terms, or more absolutely impossible.The manufacturer, it is said, pays himself the rent on his house andcapital.

HE PAYS HIMSELF; that is, he gets paid by the public who buyhis products.

For, suppose the manufacturer, who seems to make thisprofit on his property, wishes also to make it on his merchandise, canhe then pay himself one franc for that which cost him ninety centimes,and make money by the operation? No: such a transaction would transferthe merchant's money from his right hand to his left, but without anyprofit whatever.Now, that which is true of a single individual trading with himself istrue also of the whole business world.

Form a chain of ten, fifteen,twenty producers; as many as you wish.

If the producer A makes aprofit out of the producer B.

B's loss must, according to economicalprinciples, be made up by C, C's by D; and so on through to Z.But by whom will Z be paid for the loss caused him by the profit chargedby A in the beginning? BY THE CONSUMER, replies Say.

Contemptibleequivocation! Is this consumer any other, then, than A, B.

C, D, &c.,or Z? By whom will Z be paid? If he is paid by A, no one makes a profit;consequently, there is no property.

If, on the contrary, Z bears theburden himself, he ceases to be a member of society; since it refuseshim the right of property and profit, which it grants to the otherassociates.Since, then, a nation, like universal humanity, is a vast industrialassociation which cannot act outside of itself, it is clear that no mancan enrich himself without impoverishing another.

For, in order that theright of property, the right of increase, may be respected in thecase of A, it must be denied to Z; thus we see how equality of rights,separated from equality of conditions, may be a truth.

The iniquity ofpolitical economy in this respect is flagrant.

"When I, a manufacturer,purchase the labor of a workingman, I do not include his wages in thenet product of my business; on the contrary, I deduct them.

But theworkingman includes them in his net product....

"(Say: PoliticalEconomy.)That means that all which the workingman gains is NET PRODUCT; but thatonly that part of the manufacturer's gains is NET PRODUCT, which remainsafter deducting his wages.

But why is the right of profit confined tothe manufacturer? Why is this right, which is at bottom the right ofproperty itself, denied to the workingman? In the terms of economicalscience, the workingman is capital.

Now, all capital, beyond the costof its maintenance and repair, must bear interest.

This the proprietortakes care to get, both for his capital and for himself.

Why is theworkingman prohibited from charging a like interest for his capital,which is himself?Property, then, is inequality of rights; for, if it were not inequalityof rights, it would be equality of goods,--in other words, it would notexist.

Now, the charter guarantees to all equality of rights.

Then, bythe charter, property is impossible.II.

Is A, the proprietor of an estate, entitled by the fact of hisproprietorship to take possession of the field belonging to B.

hisneighbor? "No," reply the proprietors; "but what has that to do withthe right of property?" That I shall show you by a series of similarpropositions.Has C, a hatter, the right to force D, his neighbor and also a hatter,to close his shop, and cease his business? Not the least in the world.But C wishes to make a profit of one franc on every hat, while D iscontent with fifty centimes.

It is evident that D's moderation isinjurious to C's extravagant claims.

Has the latter a right to prevent Dfrom selling? Certainly not.Since D is at liberty to sell his hats fifty centimes cheaper than C ifhe chooses, C in his turn is free to reduce his price one franc.

Now, Dis poor, while C is rich; so that at the end of two or three years D isruined by this intolerable competition, and C has complete control ofthe market.

Can the proprietor D get any redress from the proprietor C?Can he bring a suit against him to recover his business and property?No; for D could have done the same thing, had he been the richer of thetwo.On the same ground, the large proprietor A may say to the smallproprietor B: "Sell me your field, otherwise you shall not sell yourwheat,"--and that without doing him the least wrong, or giving himground for complaint.

So that A can devour B if he likes, for the veryreason that A is stronger than B.

Consequently, it is not the right ofproperty which enables A and C to rob B and D, but the right of might.By the right of property, neither the two neighbors A and B, nor the twomerchants C and D, could harm each other.

They could neither dispossessnor destroy one another, nor gain at one another's expense.

The power ofinvasion lies in superior strength.But it is superior strength also which enables the manufacturerto reduce the wages of his employees, and the rich merchant andwell-stocked proprietor to sell their products for what they please.

Themanufacturer says to the laborer, "You are as free to go elsewherewith your services as I am to receive them.

I offer you so much." Themerchant says to the customer, "Take it or leave it; you are master ofyour money, as I am of my goods.

I want so much." Who will yield? Theweaker.Therefore, without force, property is powerless against property, sincewithout force it has no power to increase; therefore, without force,property is null and void.HISTORICAL COMMENT.--The struggle between colonial and native sugarsfurnishes us a striking example of this impossibility of property.

Leavethese two industries to themselves, and the native manufacturer willbe ruined by the colonist.

To maintain the beet-root, the cane must betaxed: to protect the property of the one, it is necessary to injure theproperty of the other.

The most remarkable feature of this business isprecisely that to which the least attention is paid; namely, that, inone way or another, property has to be violated.

Impose on each industrya proportional tax, so as to preserve a balance in the market, and youcreate a MAXIMUM PRICE,--you attack property in two ways.

On the onehand, your tax interferes with the liberty of trade; on the other, itdoes not recognize equality of proprietors.

Indemnify the beet-root, youviolate the property of the tax-payer.

Cultivate the two varieties ofsugar at the nation's expense, just as different varieties of tobaccoare cultivated,--you abolish one species of property.

This last coursewould be the simpler and better one; but, to induce the nations to adoptit, requires such a co-operation of able minds and generous hearts as isat present out of the question.Competition, sometimes called liberty of trade,--in a word, propertyin exchange,--will be for a long time the basis of our commerciallegislation; which, from the economical point of view, embraces allcivil laws and all government.

Now, what is competition? A duel in aclosed field, where arms are the test of right."Who is the liar,--the accused or the accuser?" said our barbarousancestors.

"Let them fight it out," replied the still more barbarousjudge; "the stronger is right."Which of us two shall sell spices to our neighbor? "Let each offer themfor sale," cries the economist; "the sharper, or the more cunning, isthe more honest man, and the better merchant."Such is the exact spirit of the Code Napoleon.TENTH PROPOSITION.Property is impossible, because it is the Negation of equality.The development of this proposition will be the resume of the precedingones.1.

It is a principle of economical justice, that PRODUCTS ARE BOUGHTONLY BY PRODUCTS.

Property, being capable of defence only on the groundthat it produces utility, is, since it produces nothing, for evercondemned.2.

It is an economical law, that LABOR MUST BE BALANCED BY PRODUCT.

Itis a fact that, with property, production costs more than it is worth.3.

Another economical law: THE CAPITAL BEING GIVEN, PRODUCTION ISMEASURED, NOT BY THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL, BUT BY PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY.Property, requiring income to be always proportional to capital withoutregard to labor, does not recognize this relation of equality betweeneffect and cause.4 and 5.

Like the insect which spins its silk, the laborer neverproduces for himself alone.

Property, demanding a double product andunable to obtain it, robs the laborer, and kills him.6.

Nature has given to every man but one mind, one heart, one will.Property, granting to one individual a plurality of votes, supposes himto have a plurality of minds.7.

All consumption which is not reproductive of utility is destruction.Property, whether it consumes or hoards or capitalizes, is productive ofINUTILITY,--the cause of sterility and death.8.

The satisfaction of a natural right always gives rise to an equation;in other words, the right to a thing is necessarily balanced by thepossession of the thing.

Thus, between the right to liberty and thecondition of a free man there is a balance, an equation; between theright to be a father and paternity, an equation; between the right tosecurity and the social guarantee, an equation.

But between the rightof increase and the receipt of this increase there is never an equation;for every new increase carries with it the right to another, the latterto a third, and so on for ever.

Property, never being able to accomplishits object, is a right against Nature and against reason.9.

Finally, property is not self-existent.

An extraneous cause--eitherFORCE or FRAUD--is necessary to its life and action.

In otherwords, property is not equal to property: it is a negation--adelusion--NOTHING.