What Is Property?
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
[1840 / Part 6 of 16]
CHAPTER IV
(continued)
Say -- who reasons with marvellous clearness whenever he assails
taxation, but who is blind to the fact that the proprietor, as well
as the tax-gatherer, steals from the tenant, and in the same manner
-- says in his second letter to Malthus: --
"If the collector of taxes and those who employ him consume
one-sixth of the products, they thereby compel the producers to
feed, clothe, and support 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 on five-sixths of what he produces. I
admit that, if they insist upon it; but I ask if they believe that
the producer would live as well, in case they demanded of him,
instead of one-sixth, two-sixths, or one-third, of their products?
No; but he would still live. Then I ask whether he would still live,
in case they should rob him of two-thirds, . . . then
three-quarters? But I hear no reply."
If the master of the French economists had been less blinded by
his proprietary prejudices, he would have seen that farm-rent has
precisely the same effect.
Take a family of peasants composed of six persons, -- father,
mother, and four children, -- living in the country, and cultivating
a small piece of ground. Let us suppose that by hard labor they
manage, as the saying is, to make both ends meet; that, having
lodged, warmed, clothed, and fed themselves, they are clear of debt,
but have laid up nothing. Taking the years together, they contrive
to live. If the year is prosperous, the father 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
the interest on their own capital. Estimating this capital at only
eight thousand francs at two and a half per cent., there is an
annual interest of two hundred francs to be paid. If, then, these
two hundred francs, instead of being subtracted from the gross
product to be saved and capitalized, are consumed, there is an
annual deficit of two hundred francs in the family assets; so that
at the end of forty years these good people, without suspecting it,
will have eaten up their property and become bankrupt!
This result seems ridiculous -- it is a sad reality.
The conscription comes. What is the conscription? An act of
property exercised over families by the government without warning
-- a robbery of men and money. The peasants do not like to part with
their sons, -- in that I do not think them wrong. It is hard for a
young man of twenty to gain any thing by life in the barracks;
unless he is depraved, he detests it. You can generally judge of a
soldier's morality by his hatred of his uniform. Unfortunate
wretches or worthless scamps, -- such is the make-up of the French
army. This ought not to be the case, -- but so it is. Question a
hundred thousand men, and not one will contradict my assertion. Our
peasant, in redeeming his two conscripted sons, expends four
thousand francs, which he borrows for that purpose; the interest on
this, at five per cent., is two hundred francs; -- a sum equal to
that referred to above. If, up to this time, the production of the
family, constantly balanced by its consumption, has been one
thousand two hundred francs, or two hundred francs per persons -- in
order to pay this interest, either the six laborers must produce as
much as seven, or must consume as little as five. Curtail
consumption they cannot -- how can they curtail necessity? To
produce more is impossible; they can work neither harder nor longer.
Shall they take a middle course, and consume five and a half while
producing six and a half? They would soon find that with the stomach
there is no compromise -- that beyond a certain degree of abstinence
it is impossible to go -- that strict necessity can be curtailed but
little without injury to the health; and, as for increasing the
product, -- there comes a storm, a drought, an epizootic, and all
the hopes of the farmer are dashed. In short, the rent will not be
paid, the interest will accumulate, the farm will be seized, and the
possessor ejected.
Thus a family, which lived in prosperity while it abstained from
exercising the right of property, falls into misery as soon as the
exercise of this right becomes a necessity. Property requires of the
husbandman the double power of enlarging his land, and fertilizing
it by a simple command. While a man is simply possessor of the land,
he finds in it means of subsistence; as soon as he pretends to
proprietorship, it suffices him no longer. Being able to produce
only that which he consumes, the fruit of his labor is his
recompense for his trouble -- nothing is left for the instrument.
Required to pay what he cannot produce, -- such is the condition
of the tenant after the proprietor has retired from social
production in order to 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
equal that of the past, are quite surprised, after paying their
farm-rent, to find themselves poorer by one-tenth than they were the
previous year. In fact, this tenth -- which was formerly produced
and paid by the proprietor-laborer who then took part in the
production, and paid part of the -- public expenses -- now has not
been produced, and has been paid. It must then have been taken from
the producer's consumption. To choke this inexplicable deficit, the
laborer borrows, confident of his intention and ability to return,
-- a confidence which is shaken the following year by a new loan,
plus the interest on the first. From whom does he borrow?
From the proprietor. The proprietor lends his surplus to the
laborer; and this surplus, which he ought to return, becomes --
being lent at interest -- a new source of profit to him. Then debts
increase indefinitely; the proprietor makes advances to the producer
who never returns them; and the latter, constantly robbed and
constantly borrowing from the robbers, ends in bankruptcy, defrauded
of all that he had.
Suppose that the proprietor -- who needs his tenant to furnish him
with an income -- then releases him from his debts. He will thus do
a very benevolent deed, which will procure for him a recommendation
in the curate's prayers; while the poor tenant, overwhelmed by this
unstinted charity, and taught by his catechism to pray for his
benefactors, will promise to redouble his energy, and suffer new
hardships that he may discharge his debt to so kind a master.
This time he takes precautionary measures; he raises the price of
grains. The manufacturer does the same with his products. The
reaction comes, and, after some fluctuation, the farm-rent -- which
the tenant thought to put upon the manufacturer's shoulders --
becomes nearly balanced. So that, while he is congratulating himself
upon his success, he finds himself again impoverished, but to an
extent somewhat smaller than before. For the rise having been
general, the proprietor suffers with the rest; so that the laborers,
instead of being poorer by one-tenth, lose only nine-hundredths. But
always it is a debt which necessitates a loan, the payment of
interest, economy, and fasting. Fasting for the nine-hundredths
which ought not to be paid, and are paid; fasting for the redemption
of debts; fasting to pay the interest on them. Let the crop fail,
and the fasting becomes starvation. They say, "It is
necessary to work more." That means, obviously, that it
is necessary to produce more. By what conditions is production
effected? By the combined action of labor, capital, and land. As for
the labor, the tenant 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 to him if the extent of the land
which he cultivates always remained the same? He needs to enlarge
his farm.
Will it be said, finally, that he must work harder and to better
advantage? But, in our estimation of farm-rent, we have assumed the
highest possible average of production. Were it not the highest, the
proprietor would increase the farm-rent. Is not this the way in
which the large landed proprietors have gradually raised their
rents, as fast as they have ascertained by the increase in
population and the development of industry how much society can
produce from their property? The proprietor is a foreigner to
society; but, like the vulture, his eyes fixed upon his prey, he
holds himself ready to pounce upon and devour it.
The facts to which we have called attention, in a community of one
thousand persons, are reproduced on a large scale in every nation
and wherever human beings live, but with infinite variations and in
innumerable forms, which it is no part of my intention to describe.
In fine, property -- after having robbed the laborer by usury --
murders him slowly by starvation. Now, without robbery and murder,
property cannot exist; 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 it exists -- 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,
before bidding farewell to the paternal roof, -- the peasant, whose
story we have just told, makes a desperate effort; he leases new
land; he will sow one-third more; and, taking half of this new
product for himself, he will harvest an additional sixth, and
thereby pay his rent. What an evil! To add one-sixth to his
production, the farmer must add, not one-sixth, but two-sixths to
his labor. At such a price, he pays a farm-rent which in God's eyes
he does not owe.
The tenant's example is followed by the manufacturer. The former
tills more land, and dispossesses his neighbors; the latter lowers
the price of his merchandise, and endeavors to monopolize its
manufacture and sale, and to crush out his competitors. To satisfy
property, the laborer must first produce beyond his needs. Then, he
must produce beyond his strength; for, by the withdrawal of laborers
who become proprietors, the one always follows from the other. But
to produce beyond his strength and needs, he must invade the
production of another, and consequently diminish the number of
producers. Thus the proprietor -- after having lessened production
by stepping outside -- lessens it still further by encouraging 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 sees no way of accomplishing this save by increasing his labor:
this also he does. The discontent of the proprietors who have not
received the full amount of their rent; the advantageous offers and
promises made them by other farmers, whom they suppose more
diligent, more industrious, and more reliable; the secret plots and
intrigues, -- all these give rise to a movement for the re-division
of labor, and the elimination of a certain number of producers. Out
of nine hundred, ninety will be ejected, that the production of the
others may be increased one-tenth. But will the total product be
increased? Not in the least: there will be eight hundred and ten
laborers producing as nine hundred, while, to accomplish their
purpose, they would have to produce as one thousand. Now, it having
been proved that farm-rent is proportional to the landed capital
instead of to labor, and that it never diminishes, the debts must
continue as in the past, while the labor has increased. Here, then,
we have a society which is continually decimating itself, and which
would destroy itself, did not the periodical occurrence of failures,
bankruptcies, and political and economical catastrophes re-establish
equilibrium, and distract attention from the real causes of the
universal distress.
The monopoly of land and capital is followed by economical
processes which also result in throwing laborers out of employment.
Interest being a constant burden upon the shoulders of the farmer
and the manufacturer, they exclaim, each speaking for himself, "I
should have the means wherewith to pay my rent and interest, had I
not to pay so many hands." Then those admirable inventions,
intended to assure the easy and speedy performance of labor, become
so many infernal machines which kill laborers by thousands.
"A few years ago, the Countess of Strafford ejected fifteen
thousand persons from her estate, who, as tenants, added to its
value. This act of private administration was repeated in 1820, by
another large Scotch proprietor, towards six hundred tenants and
their families." -- Tissot: on Suicide and Revolt.
The author whom I quote, and who has written eloquent words
concerning the revolutionary spirit which prevails in modern
society, does not say whether he would have disapproved of a revolt
on the part of these exiles. For myself, I avow boldly that in my
eyes it would have been the first of rights, and the holiest of
duties; and all that I desire to-day is that my profession of faith
be understood.
Society devours itself, -- 1. By the violent and periodical
sacrifice of laborers: this we have just seen, and shall see again;
2. By the stoppage of the producer's consumption caused by property.
These two modes of suicide are at first simultaneous; but soon the
first is given additional force by the second, famine uniting with
usury to render labor at once more necessary and more scarce.
By the principles of commerce and political economy, that an
industrial enterprise may be successful, its product must furnish,
-- 1. The interest on the capital employed; 2. Means for the
preservation of this capital; 3. The wages of all the employees and
contractors. Further, as large a profit as possible must be
realized.
The financial shrewdness and rapacity of property is worthy of
admiration. Each different name which increase takes affords the
proprietor 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 derived from manufactures consists of interest on the capital
employed. If one hundred thousand francs have been invested in a
manufacturing enterprise, and in a year's time five thousand francs
have been received therefrom in addition to the expenses, there has
been no profit, but only interest on the capital. Now, the
proprietor is not a man to labor for nothing. Like the lion in the
fable, he gets paid in each of his capacities; so that, after he has
been served, nothing is left for his associates.
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
large industrial society, to each of whom is assigned a certain
portion of the general production, by the principle of the division
of labor and functions. Suppose, first, that this society is
composed of but three individuals, -- a cattle-raiser, a tanner, and
a shoemaker. The social industry, then, is that of shoemaking. If I
should ask what ought to be each producer's share of the social
product, the first schoolboy whom I should meet would answer, by a
rule of commerce and association, that it should be one-third. But
it is not our duty here to balance the rights of laborers
conventionally associated: we have to prove that, whether associated
or not, our three workers are obliged to act as if they were; that,
whether they will or no, they are associated by the force of things,
by mathematical necessity.
Three processes are required in the manufacture of shoes, -- the
rearing of 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 worth two on leaving the tanner's pit, and three on
leaving the shoemaker's shop. Each laborer has produced a portion of
the utility; so that, by adding all these portions together, we get
the value of the article. To obtain any quantity whatever of this
article, each producer must pay, then, first for his own labor, and
second for the labor of the other producers. Thus, to obtain as many
shoes as can be made from ten hides, the farmer will give thirty raw
hides, and the tanner twenty tanned hides. For, the shoes that are
made from ten hides are worth thirty raw hides, in consequence of
the extra labor bestowed upon them; just as twenty tanned hides are
worth thirty raw hides, on account of the tanner's labor. But if the
shoemaker demands thirty-three in the farmer'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 the tanner, after
having paid the shoemaker ten for his labor, would have to pay
eleven for that which they had themselves sold for ten, -- which, of
course, would be impossible.
Well, this is precisely what happens whenever an emolument of any
kind is received; be it called revenue, farm-rent, interest, or
profit. In the little community of which we are speaking, if the
shoemaker -- in order to procure tools, buy a stock of leather, and
support himself until he receives something from his investment --
borrows money at interest, it is clear that to pay this interest he
will have to make a profit off the tanner and the farmer. But as
this profit is impossible unless fraud is used, the interest will
fall back upon the shoulders of the unfortunate shoemaker, and ruin
him.
I have imagined a case of unnatural simplicity. There is no human
society but sustains more than three vocations. The most uncivilized
society supports numerous industries; to-day, the number of
industrial functions (I mean by industrial functions all useful
functions) exceeds, perhaps, a thousand. However numerous the
occupations, the economic law remains the same, -- That the
producer may live, his wages must repurchase his product.
The economists cannot be ignorant of this rudimentary principle of
their pretended science: why, then, do they so obstinately defend
property, and inequality of wages, and [There is an error in the
author's calculation here; but the translator, feeling sure that the
reader will understand Proudhon's meaning, prefers not to alter his
figures. -- Translator]. the legitimacy of usury, and the
honesty of profit, -- all of which contradict the economic law, and
make exchange impossible? A contractor pays one hundred thousand
francs for raw material, fifty thousand francs in wages, and then
expects to receive a product of two hundred thousand francs, -- that
is, expects to make a profit on the material and on the labor of his
employees; but if the laborers and the purveyor of the material
cannot, with their combined wages, repurchase that which they have
produced for the contractor, how can they live? I will develop my
question. Here details become necessary.
If the workingman receives for his labor an average of three
francs per day, his employer (in order to gain any thing beyond his
own salary, if only interest on his capital) must sell the day's
labor of his employee, in the form of merchandise, for more than
three francs. The workingman cannot, then, repurchase that which he
has produced for his master. It is thus with all trades whatsoever.
The tailor, the hatter, the cabinet-maker, the blacksmith, the
tanner, the mason, the jeweller, the printer, the clerk, &c.,
even to the farmer and wine-grower, cannot repurchase their
products; since, producing for a master who in one form or another
makes a profit, they are obliged to pay more for their own labor
than they get for it.
In France, twenty millions of laborers, engaged in all the
branches of science, 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 forms of increase, premiums, tithes, interests,
fines, profits, farm-rents, house-rents, revenues, emoluments of
every nature and description, their products are estimated by the
proprietors and employers at twenty-five thousand millions. What
does that signify? That the laborers, who are obliged to repurchase
these products in order to live, must either pay five 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 is false, I summon him to appear; and I promise to
retract all that I have wrongfully 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, the
deficit 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 soon be discovered and suppressed. But, as there is
the same inequality of wages (from that of the scavenger up to that
of the minister of state) as of property, robbery continually
rebounds from the stronger to the weaker; so that, since the laborer
finds his hardships increase as he descends in the social scale, the
lowest class of people are literally stripped naked and eaten alive
by the others.
The laboring people can buy neither the cloth which they weave,
nor the furniture which they manufacture, nor the metal which they
forge, nor the jewels which they cut, nor the prints which they
engrave. They can procure neither the wheat which they plant, nor
the wine which they grow, nor the flesh of the animals which they
raise. They are allowed neither to dwell in the houses which they
build, nor to attend the plays which their labor supports, nor to
enjoy the rest which their body requires. And why? Because the right
of increase does not permit these things to be sold at the
cost-price, which is all that laborers can afford to pay. On the
signs of those magnificent warehouses which he in his poverty
admires, the laborer reads in large letters: "This is thy work,
and thou shalt not have it." Sic vos non vobis!
Every manufacturer who employs one thousand laborers, and gains
from them 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 property starves it. And why? Because the workers are
forced by the insufficiency of their wages to monopolize labor; and
because, before being destroyed by dearth, they destroy each other
by competition. Let us pursue this truth no further.
If the laborer's wages will not purchase his product, it follows
that the product is not made for the producer. For whom, then, is it
intended? For the richer consumer; that is, for only a fraction of
society. But when the whole society labors, it produces for the
whole society. If, then, only a part of society consumes, sooner or
later a part of society will be idle. Now, idleness is death, as
well for the laborer as for the proprietor. This conclusion is
inevitable.
The most distressing spectacle imaginable is the sight of
producers resisting and struggling against this mathematical
necessity, this power of figures to which their prejudices blind
them.
If one hundred thousand printers can furnish reading-matter enough
for thirty-four millions of men, and if the price of books is so
high that only one-third of that number can afford to buy them, it
is clear that these one hundred thousand printers will produce three
times as much as the booksellers can sell. That the products of the
laborers may never exceed the demands of the consumers, the laborers
must either rest two days out of three, or, separating into three
groups, relieve each other three times a week, month, or quarter;
that is, during two-thirds of their life they must not live. But
industry, under the influence of property, does not proceed with
such regularity. It endeavors to produce a great deal in a short
time, because the greater the amount of products, and the shorter
the time of production, the less each product costs. As soon as a
demand begins to be felt, the factories fill up, and everybody goes
to work. Then business is lively, and both governors and governed
rejoice. But the more they work to-day, the more idle will they be
hereafter; the more they laugh, the more they shall weep. Under the
rule of property, the flowers of industry are woven into none but
funeral wreaths. The laborer digs his own grave.
If the factory stops running, the manufacturer has to pay interest
on his capital the same as before. He naturally tries, then, to
continue production by lessening expenses. Then comes the lowering
of wages; the introduction of machinery; the employment of women and
children to do the work of men; bad workmen, and wretched work. They
still produce, because the decreased cost creates a larger market;
but they do not produce long, because, the cheapness being due to
the quantity and rapidity of production, the productive power tends
more than ever to outstrip consumption. It is when laborers, whose
wages are scarcely sufficient to support them from one day to
another, are thrown out of work, that the consequences of the
principle of property become most frightful. They have not been able
to economize, they have made no savings, they have accumulated no
capital whatever to support them even one day more. Today the
factory is closed. To-morrow the people starve in 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. In consequence of the cessation of business, and the
extreme cheapness of merchandise, the manufacturer finds it
impossible to pay the interest on his borrowed capital; whereupon
his frightened creditors hasten to withdraw their funds. Production
is suspended, and labor comes to a standstill. Then people are
astonished to see capital desert commerce, and throw itself upon the
Stock Exchange; and I once heard M. Blanqui bitterly lamenting the
blind ignorance of capitalists. The cause of this movement of
capital is very simple; but for that very reason an economist could
not understand it, or rather must not explain it. The cause lies
solely in competition.
I mean by competition, not only the rivalry between two parties
engaged in the same business, but the general and simultaneous
effort of all kinds of business to get ahead of each other. This
effort is to-day so strong, that the price of merchandise scarcely
covers the cost of production and distribution; so that, the wages
of all laborers being lessened, 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 accord branded with the name of usury, whenever it was paid for
the use of money, but which they did not dare to condemn in the
forms of house-rent, farm-rent, or profit: as if the nature of the
thing lent could ever warrant a charge for the lending; that is,
robbery.
In proportion to the increase received by the capitalist will be
the frequency and intensity of commercial crises, -- the first being
given, we always can determine the two others; and vice versa.
Do you wish to know the regulator of a society? Ascertain the amount
of active capital; that is, the capital bearing interest, and the
legal rate of this interest. The course of events will be a series
of overturns, whose number and violence will be proportional to the
activity of capital.
In 1839, the number of failures in Paris alone was one thousand
and sixty-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 business is greater than the number of declared failures. By
this flood, we may judge of the waterspout's power of suction.
The decimation of society is now imperceptible and permanent, now
periodical and violent; it depends upon the course which property
takes. In a country where the property is pretty evenly distributed,
and where little business is done, -- the rights and claims of each
being balanced by those of others, -- the power of invasion is
destroyed. There -- it may be truly said -- property does not exist,
since the right of increase is scarcely exercised at all. The
condition of the laborers -- as regards security of life -- is
almost the same as if absolute equality prevailed among them. They
are deprived of all the advantages of full and free association, but
their existence is not endangered in the least. With the exception
of a few isolated victims of the right of property -- of this
misfortune whose primary cause no one perceives -- the society
appears to rest calmly in the bosom of this sort of equality. But
have a care; it is balanced on the edge of a sword: at the slightest
shock, it will 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 of competition and over-production, the price of
manufactured goods does not rise, -- so that the condition of the
peasant varies but little, and depends mainly on the seasons. The
devouring action of property bears, then, principally upon business.
We commonly say commercial crises, not agricultural
crises; because, while the farmer is eaten up slowly by the
right 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 on the 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
for them; therefore it is impossible.
APPENDIX TO THE FIFTH PROPOSITION.
I. Certain reformers, and even the most of the publicists -- who,
though belonging to no particular school, busy themselves in
devising means for the amelioration of the lot of the poorer and
more numerous class -- lay much stress now-a-days on a better
organization of labor. The disciples of Fourier, especially, never
stop shouting, "On to the phalanx!" declaiming in
the same breath against the foolishness and absurdity of other
sects. They consist of half-a-dozen incomparable geniuses who have
discovered that five and four make nine; take two away, and nine
remain, -- and who weep over the blindness of France, who
refuses to believe in this astonishing arithmetic.
Fourier, having to multiply a whole number by a fraction, never
failed, they say, to obtain a product much greater than the
multiplicand. He affirmed that under his system of harmony the
mercury would solidify when the temperature was above zero. He might
as well have said that the Harmonians would make burning ice. I once
asked an intelligent phalansterian what he thought of such physics.
"I do not know," he answered; "but I believe."
And yet the same man disbelieved in the doctrine of the Real
Presence.
In fact, the Fourierists proclaim themselves, on the one hand,
defenders of property, of the right of increase, which they have
thus formulated: To each according to his capital, his labor,
and his skill. On the other hand, they wish the workingman to
come into the enjoyment of all the wealth of society; that is, --
abridging the expression, -- into the undivided enjoyment of his own
product. Is not this like saying to the workingman, "Labor, you
shall have three francs per day; you shall live on fifty-five sous;
you shall give the rest to the proprietor, and thus you 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 in my 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 never meet its expenses? Without the abolition of
property, the organization of labor is neither more nor less than a
delusion. If production should be quadrupled, -- a thing which does
not seem to me at all impossible, -- it would be labor lost: if the
additional product was not consumed, it would be of no value, and
the proprietor would decline to receive it as interest; if it was
consumed, all the disadvantages of property would reappear. It must
be confessed that the theory of passional attraction is gravely at
fault in this particular, and that Fourier, when he tried to
harmonize the passion for property, -- a bad passion,
whatever he may say to the contrary, -- blocked his own
chariot-wheels.
The absurdity of the phalansterian economy is so gross, that many
people suspect Fourier, in spite of all the homage paid by him to
proprietors, of having been a secret enemy of property. This opinion
might be supported by plausible arguments; still it is not mine.
Charlatanism was too important a part for such a man to play, and
sincerity too insignificant a one. I would rather think Fourier
ignorant (which is generally admitted) than disingenuous. As for his
disciples, before they can formulate any opinion of their own, they
must declare once for all, unequivocally and with no mental
reservation, whether they mean to maintain property or not, and what
they mean by their famous motto, -- "To each according to his
capital, his labor, and his skill."
II. But, some half-converted proprietor will observe, "Would
it not be possible, by suppressing the bank, incomes, farm-rent,
house-rent, usury of all kinds, and finally property itself, to
proportion products to capacities? That was St. Simon's idea; it was
also Fourier's; it is the desire of the human conscience; and no
decent person would dare maintain that a minister of state should
live no better than a peasant."
O Midas! your ears are long! What! will you never understand that
disparity of wages and the right of increase are one and the same?
Certainly, St. Simon, Fourier, and their respective flocks committed
a serious blunder in attempting to unite, the one, inequality and
communism; the other, inequality and property: but you, a man of
figures, a man of economy, -- you, who know by heart your logarithmic
tables, -- 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 remind me of
that great constitution-framer, poor Pinheiro-Ferreira, the Sieyès
of the nineteenth century, who, dividing the citizens of a nation
into twelve classes, -- or, if you prefer, into twelve grades, --
assigned to some a salary of one hundred thousand francs each; to
others, eighty thousand; then twenty-five thousand, fifteen
thousand, ten thousand, &c., down to one thousand five hundred,
and one thousand francs, the minimum allowance of a citizen.
Pinheiro loved distinctions, and could no more conceive of a State
without great dignitaries than of an army without drum-majors; and
as he also loved, or thought he loved, liberty, equality, and
fraternity, he combined the good and the evil of our old society in
an eclectic philosophy which he embodied in a constitution.
Excellent Pinheiro! Liberty even to passive submission, fraternity
even to identity of language, equality even in the jury-box and at
the guillotine, -- such was his ideal republic. Unappreciated
genius, of whom the present century was unworthy, but whom the
future will avenge!
Listen, proprietor. Inequality of talent exists in fact; in right
it is not admissible, it goes for nothing, it is not thought of. One
Newton in a century is equal to thirty millions of men; the
psychologist admires the rarity of so fine a genius, the legislator
sees only the rarity of the function. Now, rarity of function
bestows no privilege upon the functionary; and that for several
reasons, all equally forcible.
1. Rarity of genius was not, in the Creator's design, a motive to
compel society to go down on its knees before the man of superior
talents, but a providential means for the performance of all
functions to the greatest advantage of all.
2. Talent is a creation of society rather than a gift of Nature;
it is an accumulated capital, of which the receiver is only the
guardian. Without society, -- without the education and powerful
assistance which it furnishes, -- the finest nature would be
inferior to the most ordinary capacities in the very respect in
which it ought to shine. The more extensive a man's knowledge, the
more luxuriant his imagination, the more versatile his talent, --
the more costly has his education been, the more remarkable and
numerous were his teachers and his models, and the greater is his
debt. The farmer produces from the time that he leaves his cradle
until he enters his grave: the fruits of art and science are 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 of development being equal, inequality of talent is
simply speciality of talent.
4. Inequality of wages, like the right of increase, is
economically impossible. Take the most favorable case, -- that where
each laborer has furnished his maximum production; that there may be
an equitable distribution of products, the share of each must be
equal to the quotient of the total production divided by the number
of laborers. This done, what remains wherewith to pay the higher
wages? Nothing whatever.
Will it be said that all laborers should be taxed? But, then,
their consumption will not be equal to their production, their wages
will not pay for their productive service, they will not be able to
repurchase their product, and we shall once more be afflicted with
all the calamities of property. I do not speak of the injustice done
to the defrauded laborer, of rivalry, of excited ambition, and
burning hatred, -- these may all be important considerations, but
they do not hit the point.
On the one hand, each laborer's task being short and easy, and the
means for its successful accomplishment being equal in all cases,
how could there be large and small producers? On the other hand, all
functions being equal, either on account of the actual equivalence
of talents and capacities, or on account of social co-operation, how
could a functionary claim a salary proportional to the worth of his
genius?
But, what do I say? In equality wages are always proportional to
talents. What is the economical meaning of wages? The reproductive
consumption of the laborer. The very act by which the laborer
produces constitutes, then, this consumption, exactly equal to his
production, of which we are speaking. When the astronomer produces
observations, the poet verses, or the savant experiments,
they consume instruments, books, travels, &c., &c.; now, if
society supplies this consumption, what more can the astronomer, the
savant, or the poet demand? We must conclude, then, that in
equality, and only in equality, St. Simon's adage -- To each
according to his capacity to each capacity according to its results
-- finds its full and complete application.
III. The great evil -- the horrible and ever-present evil --
arising from property, is that, while property exists, population,
however reduced, is, and always must be, over-abundant. Complaints
have been made in all ages of the excess of population; in all ages
property has been embarrassed by the presence of pauperism, not
perceiving that it caused it. Further, -- nothing is more curious
than the diversity of the plans proposed for its extermination.
Their atrocity is equalled only by their absurdity.
The ancients made a practice of abandoning their children. The
wholesale and retail slaughter of slaves, civil and foreign wars,
also lent their aid. In Rome (where property held full sway), these
three means were employed so effectively, and for so long a time,
that finally the empire found itself without inhabitants. When the
barbarians arrived, nobody was to be found; the fields were no
longer cultivated; grass grew in the streets of the Italian cities.
In China, from time immemorial, upon famine alone has devolved the
task of sweeping away the poor. The people living almost exclusively
upon rice, if an accident causes the crop to fail, in a few days
hunger kills the inhabitants by myriads; and the Chinese historian
records in the annals 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 until another famine leads to the same
result. Such appears to have been, in all ages, the Confucian
economy.
I borrow the following facts from a modern economist: --
"Since the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, England has
been preyed upon by pauperism. At that time beggars were punished by
law." Nevertheless, she had not one-fourth as large a
population as she has to-day.
"Edward prohibits alms-giving, on pain of imprisonment. . . .
The laws of 1547 and 1656 prescribe a like punishment, in case of a
second offence. Elizabeth orders that each parish shall support its
own paupers. But what is a pauper? Charles II. decides that an undisputed
residence of forty days constitutes a settlement in a parish; but,
if disputed, the new-comer is forced to pack off. James II. modifies
this decision, which is again modified by William. In the midst of
trials, reports, and modifications, pauperism increases, and the
workingman languishes and dies.
"The poor-tax in 1774 exceeded forty millions of francs; in
1783-4-5, it averaged fifty-three millions; 1813, more than a
hundred and eighty-seven millions five hundred thousand francs;
1816, two hundred and fifty millions; in 1817, it is estimated at
three hundred and seventeen millions.
"In 1821, the number of paupers enrolled upon the parish
lists was estimated at four millions, nearly one-third of the
population.
"France. In 1544, Francis I. establishes a compulsory
tax in behalf of the poor. In 1566 and 1586, the same principle is
applied to the whole kingdom.
"Under Louis XIV., forty thousand paupers infested the
capital [as many in proportion as to-day]. Mendicity was punished
severely. In 1740, the Parliament of Paris re-establishes within its
own jurisdiction the compulsory assessment.
"The Constituent Assembly, frightened at the extent of the
evil and the difficulty 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. `In that way,' said he, `I shall protect the rich from
the importunity of beggars, and shall relieve them of the disgusting
sight of abject poverty.' " O wonderful man!
From these facts, which I might multiply still farther, two things
are to be inferred, -- the one, that pauperism is independent of
population; the other, that all attempts hitherto made at its
extermination have proved abortive.
Catholicism founds hospitals and convents, and commands charity;
that is, she encourages mendicity. That is the extent of her insight
as voiced 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 and murder.
The modern economists -- thinking that pauperism is caused by the
excess of population, exclusively -- have devoted themselves to
devising checks. Some wish to prohibit the poor from marrying; thus,
-- having denounced religious celibacy, -- they propose compulsory
celibacy, which will inevitably become licentious celibacy.
Others do not approve this method, which they deem too violent;
and which, they say, deprives the poor man of the only pleasure
which he knows in this world. They would simply recommend him to
be prudent. This opinion is held by Malthus, Sismondi, Say,
Droz, Duchatel, &c. But if the poor are to be prudent,
the rich must set the example. Why should the marriageable age of
the latter be fixed at eighteen years, while that of the former is
postponed until thirty?
Again, they would do well to explain clearly what they mean by
this matrimonial prudence which they so urgently recommend to the
laborer; for here equivocation is especially dangerous, and I
suspect that the economists are not thoroughly understood. "Some
half-enlightened ecclesiastics are alarmed when they hear prudence
in marriage advised; they fear that the divine injunction -- increase
and multiply -- is to be set 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 why these casuists are so alarmed; and this chaste ignorance is
the very best evidence of the purity of his heart. Religion never
has encouraged early marriages; and the kind of prudence
which it condemns is that described in this Latin sentence from
Sanchez, -- An licet ob metum liberorum semen extra vas ejicere?
Destutt de Tracy seems to dislike prudence in either form. He
says: "I confess that I no more share the desire of the
moralists to diminish and restrain our pleasures, than that of the
politicians to increase our procreative powers, and accelerate
reproduction." He believes, then, that we should love and marry
when and as we please. Widespread misery results 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 the solution of all
problems. He adds: "The multiplication of men continuing in all
classes of society, the surplus members of the upper classes are
supported by the lower classes, and those of the latter are
destroyed by poverty." This philosophy has few avowed
partisans; but it has over every other the indisputable advantage of
demonstration in practice. Not long since France heard it advocated
in the Chamber of Deputies, in the course of the discussion on the
electoral reform, -- Poverty will always exist. That is the
political aphorism with which the minister of state ground 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 -- could not, in this field, belie their character.
They invented four methods of checking increase of population at
will.
1. The vigor of women. On this point they are contradicted
by experience; for, although vigorous women may be less likely to
conceive, nevertheless they give birth to the healthiest children;
so that the advantage of maternity is on their side.
2. Integral exercise, or the equal development of all the
physical powers. If this development is equal, how is the power of
reproduction lessened?
3. The gastronomic regime; or, in plain English, the
philosophy of the belly. The Fourierists say, that abundance of rich
food renders women sterile; just as too much sap -- while enhancing
the beauty of flowers -- destroys their reproductive capacity. But
the analogy is a false one. Flowers become sterile when the stamens
-- or male organs -- are changed into petals, as may be seen by
inspecting a rose; and when through excessive dampness the pollen
loses its fertilizing power. Then, -- in order that the gastronomic
régime may produce the results claimed for it, -- not
only must the females be fattened, but the males must be rendered
impotent.
4. Phanerogamic morality, or public concubinage. I know
not why the phalansterians use Greek words to convey ideas which can
be expressed so clearly in French. This method -- like the preceding
one -- is copied from civilized customs. Fourier, himself, cites the
example of prostitutes as a proof. Now we have no certain knowledge
yet of the facts which he quotes. So states Parent Duchatelet in his
work on "Prostitution."
From all the information which I have been able to gather, I find
that all the remedies for pauperism and fecundity -- sanctioned by
universal practice, philosophy, political economy, and the latest
reformers -- may be summed up in the following list: masturbation,
onanism,[1] sodomy, tribadie, polyandry,[2] prostitution,
castration, continence, abortion, and infanticide.[3]
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
proprietor upon the product is equal only to one-twentieth of the
product (by law it is equal to one-twentieth of the capital), it
follows that twenty laborers produce for nineteen only; because
there is one among them, called proprietor, who eats the share of
two. Suppose that the twentieth laborer -- the poor one -- is
killed: the production of the following year will be diminished
one-twentieth; consequently the nineteenth will have to yield his
portion, and [1] Hoc inter se differunt onanismus et
manuspratio, nempe quod hæc a solitario exercetur, ille autem
a duobus reciprocatur, masculo scilicet et faemina. Porro foedam
hanc onanismi venerem ludentes uxoria mariti habent nunc omnigm
suavissimam [2] Polyandry, -- plurality of husbands. [3]
Infanticide has just been publicly advocated in England, in a
pamphlet written by a disciple of Malthus. He proposes an annual
massacre of the innocents in all families containing more
children than the law allows; and he asks that a magnificent
cemetery, adorned with statues, groves, fountains, and flowers, be
set apart as a special burying-place for the superfluous children.
Mothers would resort to this delightful spot to dream of the
happiness of these little angels, and would return, quite comforted,
to give birth to others, to be buried in their turn perish. For,
since it is not one-twentieth of the product of nineteen which must
be paid to the proprietor, but one-twentieth of the product of
twenty (see third proposition), each surviving laborer must
sacrifice one-twentieth plus one four-hundredth of his
product; in other words, one man out of nineteen must be killed.
Therefore, while property exists, the more poor people we kill, the
more there are born in proportion.
Malthus, who proved so clearly that population increases in
geometrical progression, while production increases only in
arithmetical progression, did not notice this pauperizing
power of property. Had he observed this, he would have understood
that, before trying to check reproduction, 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 between
population and production; for sooner or later this problem must be
solved. 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, to explain 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 it without developing and proving it would
serve only to excite contempt and incredulity. One thing at a time.
Let us establish equality, and this remedy will soon appear; for
truths follow each other, just as crimes and errors do.
Property is impossible, because it is the Mother of Tyranny.
What is government? Government is public economy, the supreme
administrative power over public works and national possessions.
Now, the nation is like a vast society in which all the, citizens
are stockholders. Each one has a deliberative voice in the assembly;
and, if the shares are equal, has one vote at his disposal. But,
under the régime of property, there is great
inequality between the shares of the stockholders; therefore, one
may have several hundred votes, while another 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 millions well invested,
and if this fortune constitutes 1/30000 of the national capital, --
it is clear that the public administration of my property would form
1/30000 of the duties of the government; and, if the nation had a
population of thirty-four millions, that I should have as many votes
as one thousand one hundred and thirty-three simple stockholders.
Thus, when M. Arago demands the right of suffrage for all members
of the National Guard, he is perfectly right; since every citizen is
enrolled for at least one national share, which entitles him to one
vote. But the illustrious orator ought at the same time to demand
that each elector shall have as many votes as he has shares; as is
the case in commercial associations. For to do otherwise is to
pretend that the nation has a right to dispose of the property of
individuals without consulting them; which is contrary to the right
of property. In a country where property exists, equality of
electoral rights is a violation of property.
Now, if each citizen's sovereignty must and ought to be
proportional to his property, it follows that the small stock
holders are at the mercy of the larger ones; who will, as soon as
they choose, make slaves of the former, marry them at pleasure, take
from them their wives, castrate their sons, prostitute their
daughters, throw the aged to the sharks, -- 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 little for
liberty, equality, or dignity -- prefers to serve and beg. But you,
bonhomme Jacques?
Property is incompatible with political and civil equality; then
property is impossible.
Historical Comments. -- 1. When the vote of the third
estate was doubled by the States-General of 1789, property was
grossly violated. The nobility and the clergy possessed
three-fourths of the soil of France; they should have controlled
three-fourths of the votes in the national representation. To double
the vote of the third estate was just, it is said, since the people
paid nearly all the taxes. This argument would be sound, if there
were nothing to be voted upon but taxes. But it was a question at
that time of reforming the government and the constitution;
consequently, the doubling of the vote of the third estate was a
usurpation, and an attack on property.
2. If the present representatives of the radical opposition should
come into power, they would work a reform by which every National
Guard should be an elector, and every elector eligible for office,
-- an attack on property.
They would lower the rate of interest on public funds, -- an
attack on property.
They would, in the interest of the public, pass laws to regulate
the exportation 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
against property.
They would organize labor; that is, they would guarantee labor to
the workingman, and give him a share in the profits, -- the
abolition of property.
Now, these same radicals are zealous defenders of property, -- a
radical proof that they know not what they do, nor what they wish.
3. Since property is the grand cause of privilege and despotism,
the form of the republican oath should be changed. Instead of, "I
swear hatred to royalty," henceforth the new member of a secret
society should say, "I swear hatred to property."
SEVENTH PROPOSITION. Property is impossible, because, in
consuming its Receipts, it loses them; 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 support this machine, and keep it in repair. The head
of a manufacturing establishment -- who employs laborers at three,
five, ten, and fifteen francs per day, and who charges twenty francs
for his superintendence -- does not regard his disbursements as
losses, because he 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,
which working for its own pleasure, and only when it sees fit,
produces nothing.
What is it to consume as a proprietor? It is to consume without
working, to consume without reproducing. For, once more, that which
the proprietor consumes as a laborer comes back to him; he does not
give his labor in exchange for his property, since, if he did, he
would thereby cease to be a proprietor. In consuming as a laborer,
the proprietor gains, or at least does not lose, since he recovers
that which he consumes; in consuming as a proprietor, he
impoverishes himself. To enjoy property, then, it is necessary to
destroy it; to be a real proprietor, one must cease to be a
proprietor.
The laborer who consumes his wages is a machine which destroys and
reproduces; the proprietor who consumes his income is a bottomless
gulf, -- sand which we water, a stone which we sow. So true is this,
that the proprietor -- neither wishing nor knowing how to produce,
and perceiving that as fast as he uses his property he destroys it
for ever -- 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 is what ought to be called producing by
a slave -- producing as a thief and as a tyrant. He, the
proprietor, produce! . . . The robber might say, as well: "I
produce."
The consumption of the proprietor has been styled luxury, in
opposition to useful consumption. From what has just been
said, we see that great luxury can prevail in a nation which is not
rich, -- that poverty even increases with luxury, and vice versâ.
The economists (so much credit must be given them, at least) have
caused such a horror of luxury, that to-day a very large number of
proprietors -- not to say almost all -- ashamed of their idleness --
labor, economize, and capitalize. They have jumped from the
frying-pan into the fire.
I cannot repeat it too often: the proprietor who thinks to deserve
his income by working, and who receives wages for his labor, is a
functionary who gets paid twice; that is the only difference between
an idle proprietor and a laboring proprietor. By his labor, the
proprietor produces his wages only -- not his income. And since his
condition enables him to engage in the most lucrative pursuits, it
may be said that the proprietor's labor harms society more than it
helps it. Whatever the proprietor does, the consumption of his
income is an actual loss, which his salaried functions neither
repair nor justify; and which would annihilate property, were it not
continually replenished by outside production.
II. Then, the proprietor who consumes annihilates the product: he
does much worse if he lays it up. The things which he lays by pass
into another world; nothing more is seen of them, not even the caput
mortuum, -- the smoke. If we had some means of transportation by
which to travel to the moon, and if the proprietors should be seized
with a sudden fancy to carry their savings thither, at the end of a
certain time our terraqueous planet would be transported by them to
its satellite!
The proprietor who lays up products will neither allow others to
enjoy them, nor enjoy them himself; for him there is neither
possession nor property. Like the miser, he broods over his
treasures: he does not use them. He may feast his eyes upon them; he
may lie down with them; he may sleep with them in his arms: all very
fine, but coins do not breed coins. No real property without
enjoyment; no enjoyment without consumption; no consumption without
loss of property, -- such is the inflexible necessity to which God's
judgment compels the proprietor to bend. A curse upon property !
