What Is Property?
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
[1840 / Part 9 of 16]
CHAPTER V
(continued)
Objection – But if the blacksmith, the wheelwright,
all manufacturers in short, have a right to the products in return
for the implements which they furnish; and if land is an implement
of production, -- why does not this implement entitle its
proprietor, be his claim real or imaginary, to a portion of the
products; as in the case of the manufacturers of ploughs and wagons?
Reply. -- Here we touch the heart of the question, the
mystery of property; which we must clear up, if we would understand
any thing of the strange effects of the right of increase.
He who manufactures or repairs the farmer's tools receives the
price once, either at the time of delivery, or in several
payments; and when this price is once paid to the manufacturer, the
tools which he has delivered belong to him no more. Never does he
claim double payment for the same tool, or the same job of repairs.
If he annually shares in the products of the farmer, it is owing to
the fact that he annually makes something for the farmer.
The proprietor, on the contrary, does not yield his implement;
eternally he is paid for it, eternally he keeps it.
In fact, the rent received by the proprietor is not intended to
defray the expense of maintaining and repairing the implement; this
expense is charged to the borrower, and does not concern the
proprietor except as he is interested in the preservation of the
article. If he takes it upon himself to attend to the repairs, he
takes care that the money which he expends for this purpose is
repaid.
This rent does not represent the product of the implement, since
of itself the implement produces nothing; we have just proved this,
and we shall prove it more clearly still by its consequences.
Finally, this rent does not represent the participation of the
proprietor in the production; since this participation could
consist, like that of the blacksmith and the wheelwright, only in
the surrender of the whole or a part of his implement, in which case
he would cease to be its proprietor, which would involve a
contradiction of the idea of property.
Then, between the proprietor and his tenant there is no exchange
either of values or services; then, as our axiom says, farm-rent is
real increase, -- an extortion based solely upon fraud and violence
on the one hand, and weakness and ignorance upon the other. Products
say the economists, are bought only by products. This maxim
is property's condemnation. The proprietor, producing neither by his
own labor nor by his implement, and receiving products in exchange
for nothing, is either a parasite or a thief. Then, if property can
exist only as a right, property is impossible.
Corollaries. -- 1. The republican constitution of 1793,
which defined property as "the right to enjoy the fruit of
one's labor," was grossly mistaken. It should have said, "Property
is the right to enjoy and dispose at will of another's goods, -- the
fruit of another's industry and labor."
2. Every possessor of lands, houses, furniture, machinery, tools,
money, &c., who lends a thing for a price exceeding the cost of
repairs (the repairs being charged to the lender, and representing
products which he exchanges for other products), is guilty of
swindling and extortion. In short, all rent received (nominally as
damages, but really as payment for a loan) is an act of property, --
a robbery.
Historical Comment. -- The tax which a victorious nation
levies upon a conquered nation is genuine farm-rent. The seigniorial
rights abolished by the Revolution of 1789, -- tithes, mortmain,
statute-labor, &c., -- were different forms of the rights of
property; and they who under the titles of nobles, seigneurs,
prebendaries, &c. enjoyed these rights, were neither more nor
less than proprietors. To defend property to-day is to condemn the
Revolution.
SECOND PROPOSITION. Property is impossible because wherever it
exists Production costs more than it is worth.
The preceding proposition was legislative in its nature; this one
is economical. It serves to prove that property, which originates in
violence, results in waste.
"Production," says Say, "is exchange on a large
scale. To render the exchange productive the value of the whole
amount of service must be balanced by the value of the product. If
this condition is not complied with, the exchange is unequal; the
producer gives more than he receives."
Now, value being necessarily based upon utility, it follows that
every useless product is necessarily valueless, -- that it cannot be
exchanged; and, consequently, that it cannot be given in payment for
productive services.
Then, though production may equal consumption, it never can exceed
it; for there is no real production save where there is a production
of utility, and there is no utility save where there is a
possibility of consumption. Thus, so much of every product as is
rendered by excessive abundance inconsumable, becomes useless,
valueless, unexchangeable, -- consequently, unfit to be given in
payment for any thing whatever, and is no longer a product.
Consumption, on the other hand, to be legitimate, -- to be true
consumption, -- must be reproductive of utility; for, if it is
unproductive, the products which it destroys are cancelled values --
things produced at a pure loss; a state of things which causes
products to depreciate in value. Man has the power to destroy, but
he consumes 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
thousand families, enclosed in a territory of a given circumference,
and deprived of foreign intercourse. Let this community represent
the human race, which, scattered over the face of the earth, is
really isolated. In fact, the difference between a community and the
human race being only a numerical one, the economical results will
be absolutely the same in each case.
Suppose, then, that these thousand families, devoting themselves
exclusively to wheat-culture, are obliged to pay to one hundred
individuals, chosen from the mass, an annual revenue of ten per
cent. on their product. It is clear that, in such a case, the right
of increase is equivalent to a tax levied in advance upon social
production. Of what use is this tax?
It cannot be levied to supply the community with provisions, for
between that and farm-rent there is nothing in common; nor to pay
for services and products, -- for the proprietors, laboring like the
others, have labored only for themselves. Finally, this tax is of no
use to its recipients who, having harvested wheat enough for their
own consumption, and not being able in a society without commerce
and manufactures to procure any thing else in exchange for it,
thereby lose the advantage of their income.
In such a society, one-tenth of the product being inconsumable,
one-tenth of the labor goes unpaid -- production costs more than it
is worth.
Now, change three hundred of our wheat-producers into artisans of
all kinds: one hundred gardeners and wine-growers, sixty shoemakers
and tailors, fifty carpenters and blacksmiths, eighty of various
professions, and, that nothing may be lacking, seven school-masters,
one mayor, one judge, and one priest; each industry furnishes the
whole community with its special product. Now, the total production
being one thousand, 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
little whether the farmers alone pay it, or all the laborers are
responsible for it, -- the result is the same. The farmer raises the
price of his products in proportion to his share of the debt; the
other laborers follow his example. Then, after some fluctuations,
equilibrium is established, and all pay nearly the same amount of
the revenue. It would be a grave error to assume that in a nation
none but farmers pay farm-rent -- the whole nation pays it.
I say, then, that by this tax of ten per cent. each laborer's
consumption is reduced as follows: wheat, 0.63; wine and vegetables,
0.09; clothing and shoes, 0.054; furniture and iron-work, 0.045;
other products, 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 costs more
than it is worth. On the other hand, the tenth received by the
proprietors is no less a waste; for, being laborers themselves,
they, like the others, possess in the nine-tenths of their product
the wherewithal to live: they want for nothing. Why should they wish
their proportion of bread, wine, meat, clothes, shelter, &c., to
be doubled, if they can neither consume nor exchange them? Then
farm-rent, with them as with the rest of the laborers, is a waste,
and perishes in their hands. Extend the hypothesis, increase the
number and variety of the products, you still have the same result.
Hitherto, we have considered the proprietor as taking part in the
production, not only (as Say says) by the use of his instrument, but
in an effective manner and by the labor of his hands. Now, it is
easy to see that, under such circumstances, property will never
exist. What happens?
The proprietor -- an essentially libidinous animal, without virtue
or shame -- is not satisfied with an orderly and disciplined life.
He loves property, because it enables him to do at leisure what he
pleases and when he pleases. Having obtained the means of life, he
gives himself up to trivialities and indolence; he enjoys, he
fritters away his time, he goes in quest of curiosities and novel
sensations. Property -- to enjoy itself -- has to abandon ordinary
life, and busy itself in luxurious occupations 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
proprietors prefer to rest. In consequence of this withdrawal, --
the absolute production being diminished by one hundred, while the
consumption remains the same, -- production and consumption seem to
balance. But, in the first place, since the proprietors no longer
labor, their consumption is, according to economical principles,
unproductive; consequently, the previous condition of the community
-- when the labor of one hundred was rewarded by no products -- is
superseded by one in which the products of one hundred are consumed
without labor. The deficit is always the same, whichever the column
of the account in which it is expressed. Either the maxims of
political economy are false, or else property, which contradicts
them, is impossible.
The economists -- regarding all unproductive consumption as an
evil, as a robbery of the human race -- never fail to exhort
proprietors to moderation, labor, and economy; they preach to them
the necessity of making themselves useful, of remunerating
production for that which they receive from it; they launch the most
terrible curses against luxury and laziness. Very beautiful
morality, surely; it is a pity that it lacks common 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
not use, and from which he receives an income? His condition,
whatever he may do, is an unproductive and felonious one; he
cannot cease to waste and 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
always have the blind, the maimed, the insane, and the idiotic. It
can easily support a few sluggards. At this point, the
impossibilities thicken and become complicated.
THIRD PROPOSITION. Property is impossible, because, with a
given capital, Production is proportional to labor, not to property.
To pay a farm-rent of one hundred at the rate of ten per cent. of
the product, the product must be one thousand; that the product may
be one thousand, a force of one thousand laborers is needed. It
follows, that in granting a furlough, as we have just done, to our
one hundred laborer-proprietors, all of whom had an equal right to
lead the life of men of income, -- we have placed ourselves in a
position where we are unable to pay their revenues. In fact, the
productive power, which at first was one thousand, being now but
nine hundred, the production is also reduced to nine hundred,
one-tenth of which is ninety. Either, then, ten proprietors out of
the one hundred cannot be paid, -- provided the remaining ninety are
to get the whole amount of their farm-rent, -- or else all must
consent to a decrease of ten per cent. For it is not for the
laborer, who has been wanting in no particular, who has produced as
in the past, to suffer by the withdrawal of the proprietor. The
latter must take the consequences of his own idleness. But, then,
the proprietor becomes poorer for the very reason that he wishes to
enjoy; by exercising his right, he loses it; so that property seems
to decrease and vanish in proportion as we try to lay hold of it, --
the more we pursue it, the more it eludes our grasp. What sort of a
right is that which is governed by numerical relations, and which an
arithmetical calculation 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-rent is sufficient; I have enough and to spare without my
labor." And thus it is that the income upon which he calculated
gets diminished by one-tenth, -- he at the same time not even
suspecting the cause of this diminution. By taking part in the
production, he was himself the creator of this tenth which has
vanished; and while he thought to labor only for himself, he
unwittingly suffered a loss in exchanging his products, by which he
was made to pay to himself one-tenth of his own farm-rent. Like
every one else, he produced 1, and received but 0.9
If, instead of nine hundred laborers, there had been but five
hundred, the whole amount of farm-rent would have been reduced to
fifty; if there had been but one hundred, it would have fallen to
ten. We may posit, then, the following axiom as a law of proprietary
economy: Increase must diminish 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 highly conservative process.
We have just proved that, if the farm-rent in a community of one
thousand laborers is one hundred, that of nine hundred would be
ninety, that of eight hundred, eighty, that of one hundred, ten, &c.
So that, in a community where there was but one laborer, the
farm-rent would be but 0.1; no matter how great the extent and value
of the land appropriated. Therefore, with a given landed
capital, production is proportional to labor, not to property.
Guided by this principle, let us try to ascertain the maximum
increase of all property whatever.
What is, essentially, a farm-lease? It is a contract by which the
proprietor yields to a tenant possession of his land, in
consideration of a portion of that which it yields him, the
proprietor. If, in consequence of an increase in his household, the
tenant becomes ten times as strong as the proprietor, he will
produce ten times as much. Would the proprietor in such a case be
justified in raising the farm-rent tenfold? His right is not, The
more you produce, the more I demand. It is, The more I sacrifice,
the more I demand. The increase in the tenant's household, the
number of hands at his disposal, the resources of his industry, --
all these serve to increase production, but bear no relation to the
proprietor. His claims are to be measured by his own productive
capacity, not that of others. Property is the right of increase, not
a poll-tax. How could a man, hardly capable of cultivating even a
few acres by himself, demand of a community, on the ground of its
use of ten thousand acres of his property, ten thousand times as
much as he is incapable of producing from one acre? Why should the
price of a loan be governed by the skill and strength of the
borrower, rather than by the utility sacrificed by the proprietor?
We must recognize, then, this second economical law: Increase is
measured by a fraction of the proprietors production.
Now, this production, what is it? In other words, What can the
lord and master of a piece of land justly claim to have sacrificed
in lending it to a tenant?
The productive capacity of a proprietor, like that of any laborer,
being one, the product which he sacrifices in surrendering his land
is also one. If, then, the rate of increase is ten per cent., the
maximum increase 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 accrues to him, being equal to 0.1 while he remains
among the laborers, will be equal 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 of a proprietor is equal to the
square root of the product of one laborer (some number being
agreed upon to express this product). The diminution which this
income suffers, if the proprietor is idle, is equal to a fraction
whose numerator is 1, and whose denominator is the number which
expresses the product.
Thus the maximum income of an idle proprietor, or of one who
labors in his own behalf outside of the community, figured at ten
per cent. on an average production of one thousand francs per
laborer, would be ninety francs. If, then, there are in France one
million proprietors with an income of one thousand francs each,
which they consume unproductively, instead of the one thousand
millions which are paid them annually, they are entitled in strict
justice, and by the most accurate calculation, to ninety millions
only.
It is something of a reduction, to take nine hundred and ten
millions from the burdens which weigh so heavily upon the laboring
class! Nevertheless, the account is not finished, and the laborer is
still ignorant of the full extent of his rights.
What is the right of increase when confined within just limits? A
recognition of the right of occupancy. But since all have an equal
right of occupancy, every man is by the same title a proprietor.
Every man has a 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 the proprietor, the proprietor is obliged by the
same right to pay the same amount of rent to the laborer; and, since
their rights balance each other, the difference between them is
zero.
Scholium. -- If farm-rent is only a fraction of the
supposed product of the proprietor, whatever the amount and value of
the property, the same is 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 cannot use the property of all at
the same time.
To sum up. The right of increase, which can exist only within very
narrow limits, defined by the laws of production, is annihilated by
the right of occupancy. Now, without the right of increase, there is
no property. 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
and justice, it would be reduced to an indemnity or reward whose
maximum never could exceed, for a single laborer, a certain
fraction of that which he is capable of producing. This we have just
shown. But why should the right of increase -- let us not fear to
call it by its right name, the right of robbery -- be governed by
reason, with which it has nothing in common? The proprietor is not
content with the increase allotted him by good sense and the nature
of things: he demands ten times, a hundred times, a thousand times,
a million times as much. By his own labor, his property would yield
him a product equal only to one; and he demands of society, no
longer a right proportional to his productive capacity, but a per
capita tax. He taxes his fellows in proportion to their
strength, their number, and their industry. A son is born to a
farmer. "Good!" says the proprietor; "one more chance
for increase!" By what process has farm-rent been thus changed
into a poll-tax? Why have our jurists and our theologians failed,
with all their shrewdness, to check the extension of the right of
increase?
The proprietor, having estimated from his own productive capacity
the number of laborers which his property will accommodate, divides
it into as many portions, and says: "Each one shall yield me
revenue." To increase his income, he has only to divide his
property. Instead of reckoning the interest due him on his labor, he
reckons it on his capital; and, by this substitution, the same
property, which in the hands of its owner is capable of yielding
only one, is worth to him ten, a hundred, a thousand, a million.
Consequently, he has only to hold himself in readiness to register
the names of the laborers who apply to him -- his task consists in
drafting leases and receipts.
Not satisfied with the lightness of his duties, the proprietor
does not intend to bear even the deficit resulting from his
idleness; he throws it upon the shoulders of the producer, of whom
he always demands the same reward. When the farm-rent of a piece of
land is once raised to its highest point, the proprietor never
lowers it; high prices, the scarcity of labor, the disadvantages of
the season, even pestilence itself, have no effect upon him -- why
should he suffer from hard times when he does not 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 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.[1]
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 [1] 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.[1]
[1] 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. 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.
