What Is Property?
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
[1840 / Part 16 of 16]
For my part, if I had the ear of this nation, to which I am
attached by birth and predilection, with no intention of playing the
leading part in the future republic, I would instruct the laboring
masses to conquer property through institutions and judicial
pleadings; to seek auxiliaries and accomplices in the highest ranks
of society, and to ruin all privileged classes by taking advantage
of their common desire for power and popularity. The petition for
the electoral reform has already received two hundred thousand
signatures, and the illustrious Arago threatens us with a million.
Surely, that will be well done; but from this million of citizens,
who are as willing to vote for an emperor as for equality, could we
not select ten thousand signatures -- I mean bonâ fide
signatures -- whose authors can read, write, cipher, and even think
a little, and whom we could invite, after due perusal and verbal
explanation, to sign such a petition as the following: --
"To his Excellency the Minister of the interior: --
"MONSIEUR LE MINISTRE, -- On the day when a royal ordinance,
decreeing the establishment of model national workshops, shall
appear in the `Moniteur,' the undersigned, to the number of ten
thousand, will repair to the Palace of the Tuileries, and there,
with all the power of their lungs, will shout, `Long live Louis
Philippe!'
"On the day when the `Moniteur' shall inform the public that
this petition is refused, the undersigned, to the number of ten
thousand, will say secretly in their hearts, `Down with Louis
Philippe!' "
If I am not mistaken, such a petition would have some effect.[*]
[*] The electoral reform, it is continually
asserted, is not an end, but a means. Undoubtedly;
but what, then, is the end? Why not furnish an unequivocal
explanation of its object? How can the people choose their
representatives, unless they know in advance the purpose for which
they choose them, and the object of the commission which they
entrust to them?
But, it is said, the very business of those chosen by the people
is to find out the object of the reform.
That is a quibble. What is to hinder these persons, who are to be
elected in future, from first seeking for this object, and then,
when they have found it, from communicating it to the people? The
reformers have well said, that, while the object of the electoral
reform remains in the least indefinite, it will be only a means of
transferring power from the hands of petty tyrants to the hands of
other tyrants. We know already how a nation may be oppressed by
being led to believe that it is obeying only its own laws. The
history of universal suffrage, among all nations, is the history of
the restrictions of liberty by and in the name of the multitude.
Still, if the electoral reform, in its present shape, were
rational, practical, acceptable to clean consciences and upright
minds, perhaps one might be excused, though ignorant of its object,
for supporting it. But, no; the text of the petition determines
nothing, makes no distinctions, requires no conditions, no
guarantee; it establishes the right without the duty. "Every
Frenchman is a voter, and eligible to office." As well say: "Every
bayonet is intelligent, every savage is civilized, every slave is
free." In its vague generality, the reformatory petition is the
weakest of abstractions, or the highest form of political treason.
Consequently, the enlightened patriots distrust and despise each
other. The most radical writer of the time, -- he whose economical
and social theories are, without comparison, the most advanced, --
M. Leroux, has taken a bold stand against universal suffrage and
democratic government, and has written an exceedingly keen criticism
of J. J. Rousseau. That is undoubtedly the reason why M. Leroux is
no longer the philosopher of "Le National." That journal,
like Napoleon, does not like men of ideas. Nevertheless, "Le
National" ought to know that he who fights against ideas will
perish by ideas.
The pleasure of a popular ovation would be well worth the
sacrifice of a few millions. They sow so much to reap unpopularity!
Then, if the nation, its hopes of 1830 restored, should feel it its
duty to keep its promise, -- and it would keep it, for the word of
the nation is, like that of God, sacred, -- if, I say, the nation,
reconciled by this act with the public-spirited monarchy, should
bear to the foot of the throne its cheers and its vows, and should
at that solemn moment choose me to speak in its name, the following
would be the substance of my speech: --
"SIRE, -- This is what the nation wishes to say to your
Majesty: --
"O King! you see what it costs to gain the applause of the
citizens. Would you like us henceforth to take for our motto: `Let
us help the King, the King will help us'? Do you wish the people to
cry: `THE KING AND THE FRENCH NATION'? Then abandon these grasping
bankers, these quarrelsome lawyers, these miserable bourgeois,
these infamous writers, these dishonored men. All these, Sire, hate
you, and continue to support you only because they fear us. Finish
the work of our kings; wipe out aristocracy and privilege; consult
with these faithful proletaires, with the nation, which alone can
honor a sovereign and sincerely shout, `Long live the king!' "
The rest of what I have to say, sir, is for you alone; others
would not understand me. You are, I perceive, a republican as well
as an economist, and your patriotism revolts at the very idea of
addressing to the authorities a petition in which the government of
Louis Philippe should be tacitly recognized. "National
workshops! it were well to have such institutions established,"
you think; "but patriotic hearts never will accept them from an
aristocratic ministry, nor by the courtesy of a king." Already,
undoubtedly, your old prejudices have returned, and you now regard
me only as a sophist, as ready to flatter the powers that be as to
dishonor, by pushing them to an extreme, the principles of equality
and universal fraternity.
What shall I say to you? . . . That I should so lightly compromise
the future of my theories, either this clever sophistry which is
attributed to me must be at bottom a very trifling affair, or else
my convictions must be so firm that they deprive me of free-will.
But, not to insist further on the necessity of a compromise
between the executive power and the people, it seems to me, sir,
that, in doubting my patriotism, you reason very capriciously, and
that your judgments are exceedingly rash. You, sir, ostensibly
defending government and property, are allowed to be a republican,
reformer, phalansterian, any thing you wish; I, on the contrary,
demanding distinctly enough a slight reform in public economy, am
foreordained a conservative, and likewise a friend of the dynasty. I
cannot explain myself more clearly. So firm a believer am I in the
philosophy of accomplished facts and the statu quo of
governmental forms that, instead of destroying that which exists and
beginning over again the past, I prefer to render every thing
legitimate by correcting it. It is true that the corrections which I
propose, though respecting the form, tend to finally change the
nature of the things corrected. Who denies it? But it is precisely
that which constitutes my system of statu quo. I make no war
upon symbols, figures, or phantoms. I respect scarecrows, and bow
before bugbears. I ask, on the one hand, that property be left as it
is, but that interest on all kinds of capital be gradually lowered
and finally abolished; on the other hand, that the charter be
maintained in its present shape, but that method be introduced into
administration and politics. That is all. Nevertheless, submitting
to all that is, though not satisfied with it, I endeavor to conform
to the established order, and to render unto Cæsar the things
that are Cæsar's. Is it thought, for instance, that I love
property? . . . Very well; I am myself a proprietor and do homage to
the right of increase, as is proved by the fact that I have
creditors to whom I faithfully pay, every year, a large amount of
interest. The same with politics. Since we are a monarchy, I would
cry, "Long live the king," rather than suffer
death; which does not prevent me, however, from demanding that the
irremovable, inviolable, and hereditary representative of the nation
shall act with the proletaires against the privileged classes; in a
word, that the king shall become the leader of the radical party.
Thereby we proletaires would gain every thing; and I am sure that,
at this price, Louis Philippe might secure to his family the
perpetual presidency of the republic. And this is why I think so.
If there existed in France but one great functional inequality,
the duty of the functionary being, from one end of the year to the
other, to hold full court of savants, artists, soldiers,
deputies, inspectors, &c., it is evident that the expenses of
the presidency then would be the national expenses; and that,
through the reversion of the civil list to the mass of consumers,
the great inequality of which I speak would form an exact equation
with the whole nation. Of this no econo-mist needs a demonstration.
Consequently, there would be no more fear of cliques, courtiers, and
appanages, since no new inequality could be established. The king,
as king, would have friends (unheard-of thing), but no family. His
relatives or kinsmen, -- agnats et cognats, -- if they were
fools, would be nothing to him; and in no case, with the exception
of the heir apparent, would they have, even in court, more
privileges than others. No more nepotism, no more favor, no more
baseness. No one would go to court save when duty required, or when
called by an honorable distinction; and as all conditions would be
equal and all functions equally honored, there would be no other
emulation than that of merit and virtue. I wish the king of the
French could say without shame, "My brother the gardener, my
sister-in-law the milk-maid, my son the prince-royal, and my son the
blacksmith." His daughter might well be an artist. That would
be beautiful, sir; that would be royal; no one but a buffoon could
fail to understand it.
In this way, I have come to think that the forms of royalty may be
made to harmonize with the requirements of equality, and have given
a monarchical form to my republican spirit. I have seen that France
contains by no means as many democrats as is generally supposed, and
I have compromised with the monarchy. I do not say, however, that,
if France wanted a republic, I could not accommodate myself equally
well, and perhaps better. By nature, I hate all signs of
distinction, crosses of honor, gold lace, liveries, costumes,
honorary titles, &c., and, above all, parades. If I had my way,
no general should be distinguished from a soldier, nor a peer of
France from a peasant. Why have I never taken part in a review? for
I am happy to say, sir, that I am a national guard; I have nothing
else in the world but that. Because the review is always held at a
place which I do not like, and because they have fools for officers
whom I am compelled to obey. You see, -- and this is not the best of
my history, -- that, in spite of my conservative opinions, my life
is a perpetual sacrifice to the republic.
Nevertheless, I doubt if such simplicity would be agreeable to
French vanity, to that inordinate love of distinction and flattery
which makes our nation the most frivolous in the world. M.
Lamartine, in his grand "Meditation on Bonaparte," calls
the French a nation of Brutuses. We are merely a nation of
Narcissuses. Previous to '89, we had the aristocracy of blood; then
every bourgeois looked down upon the commonalty, and wished
to be a nobleman. Afterwards, distinction was based on wealth, and
the bourgeoisie jealous of the nobility, and proud of their
money, used 1830 to promote, not liberty by any means, but the
aristocracy of wealth. When, through the force of events, and the
natural laws of society, for the development of which France offers
such free play, equality shall be established in functions and
fortunes, then the beaux and the belles, the savants and the
artists, will form new classes. There is a universal and innate
desire in this Gallic country for fame and glory. We must have
distinctions, be they what they may, -- nobility, wealth, talent,
beauty, or dress. I suspect MM. Arage and Garnier-Pagès of
having aristocratic manners, and I picture to myself our great
journalists, in their columns so friendly to the people,
administering rough kicks to the compositors in their printing
offices.
"This man," once said "Le National" in
speaking of Carrel, "whom we had proclaimed first consul!
. . . Is it not true that the monarchical principle still lives in
the hearts of our democrats, and that they want universal suffrage
in order to make themselves kings? Since "Le National"
prides itself on holding more fixed opinions than "Le Journal
des Debats," I presume that, Armand Carrel being dead, M.
Armand Marrast is now first consul, and M. Garnier-Pagès
second consul. In every thing the deputy must give way to the
journalist. I do not speak of M. Arago, whom I believe to be, in
spite of calumny, too learned for the consulship. Be it so. Though
we have consuls, our position is not much altered. I am ready to
yield my share of sovereignty to MM. Armand Marrast and Garnier-Pagès,
the appointed consuls, provided they will swear on entering upon the
duties of their office, to abolish property and not be haughty.
Forever promises! Forever oaths! Why should the people trust in
tribunes, when kings perjure themselves? Alas! truth and honesty are
no longer, as in the days of King John, in the mouth of princes. A
whole senate has been convicted of felony, and, the interest of the
governors always being, for some mysterious reason, opposed to the
interest of the governed, parliaments follow each other while the
nation dies of hunger. No, no! No more protectors, no more emperors,
no more consuls. Better manage our affairs ourselves than through
agents. Better associate our industries than beg from monopolies;
and, since the republic cannot dispense with virtues, we should
labor for our reform.
This, therefore, is my line of conduct. I preach emancipation to
the proletaires; association to the laborers; equality to the
wealthy. I push forward the revolution by all means in my power, --
the tongue, the pen, the press, by action, and example. My life is a
continual apostleship.
Yes, I am a reformer; I say it as I think it, in good faith, and
that I may be no longer reproached for my vanity. I wish to convert
the world. Very likely this fancy springs from an enthusiastic pride
which may have turned to delirium; but it will be admitted at least
that I have plenty of company, and that my madness is not monomania.
At the present day, everybody wishes to be reckoned among the
lunatics of Beranger. To say nothing of the Babeufs, the Marats, and
the Robespierres, who swarm in our streets and workshops, all the
great reformers of antiquity live again in the most illustrious
personages of our time. One is Jesus Christ, another Moses, a third
Mahomet; this is Orpheus, that Plato, or Pythagoras. Gregory VII.,
himself, has risen from the grave together with the evangelists and
the apostles; and it may turn out that even I am that slave who,
having escaped from his master's house, was forthwith made a bishop
and a reformer by St. Paul. As for the virgins and holy women, they
are expected daily; at present, we have only Aspasias and
courtesans.
Now, as in all diseases, the diagnostic varies according to the
temperament, so my madness has its peculiar aspects and
distinguishing characteristic.
Reformers, as a general thing, are jealous of their rôle;
they suffer no rivals, they want no partners; they have disciples,
but no co-laborers. It is my desire, on the contrary, to communicate
my enthusiasm, and to make it, as far as I can, epidemic. I wish
that all were, like myself, reformers, in order that there might be
no more sects; and that Christs, Anti-Christs, and false Christs
might be forced to understand and agree with each other.
Again, every reformer is a magician, or at least desires to become
one. Thus Moses, Jesus Christ, and the apostles, proved their
mission by miracles. Mahomet ridiculed miracles after having
endeavored to perform them. Fourier, more cunning, promises us
wonders when the globe shall be covered with phalansteries. For
myself, I have as great a horror of miracles as of authorities, and
aim only at logic. That is why I continually search after the criterion
of certainty. I work for the reformation of ideas. Little matters it
that they find me dry and austere. I mean to conquer by a bold
struggle, or die in the attempt; and whoever shall come to the
defence of property, I swear that I will force him to argue like M.
Considérant, or philosophize like M. Troplong.
Finally, -- and it is here that I differ most from my compeers, --
I do not believe it necessary, in order to reach equality, to turn
every thing topsy-turvy. To maintain that nothing but an overturn
can lead to reform is, in my judgment, to construct a syllogism, and
to look for the truth in the regions of the unknown. Now, I am for
generalization, induction, and progress. I regard general
disappropriation as impossible: attacked from that point, the
problem of universal association seems to me insolvable. Property is
like the dragon which Hercules killed: to destroy it, it must be
taken, not by the head, but by the tail, -- that is, by profit and
interest.
I stop. I have said enough to satisfy any one who can read and
understand. The surest way by which the government can baffle
intrigues and break up parties is to take possession of science, and
point out to the nation, at an already appreciable distance, the
rising oriflamme of equality; to say to those politicians of the
tribune and the press, for whose fruitless quarrels we pay so
dearly, "You are rushing forward, blind as you are, to the
abolition of property; but the government marches with its eyes
open. You hasten the future by unprincipled and insincere
controversy; but the government, which knows this future, leads you
thither by a happy and peaceful transition. The present generation
will not pass away before France, the guide and model of civilized
nations, has regained her rank and legitimate influence."
But, alas! the government itself, -- who shall enlighten it? Who
can induce it to accept this doctrine of equality, whose terrible
but decisive formula the most generous minds hardly dare to
acknowledge? . . . I feel my whole being tremble when I think that
the testimony of three men -- yes, of three men who make it their
business to teach and define -- would suffice to give full play to
public opinion, to change beliefs, and to fix destinies. Will not
the three men be found? . . .
May we hope, or not? What must we think of those who govern us? In
the world of sorrow in which the proletaire moves, and where nothing
is known of the intentions of power, it must be said that despair
prevails. But you, sir, -- you, who by function belong to the
official world; you, in whom the people recognize one of their
noblest friends, and property its most prudent adversary, -- what
say you of our deputies, our ministers, our king? Do you believe
that the authorities are friendly to us? Then let the government
declare its position; let it print its profession of faith in
equality, and I am dumb. Otherwise, I shall continue the war; and
the more obstinacy and malice is shown, the oftener will I redouble
my energy and audacity. I have said before, and I repeat it, -- I
have sworn, not on the dagger and the death's-head, amid the horrors
of a catacomb, and in the presence of men besmeared with blood; but
I have sworn on my conscience to pursue property, to grant it
neither peace nor truce, until I see it everywhere execrated. I have
not yet published half the things that I have to say concerning the
right of domain, nor the best things. Let the knights of property,
if there are any who fight otherwise than by retreating, be prepared
every day for a new demonstration and accusation; let them enter the
arena armed with reason and knowledge, not wrapped up in sophisms,
for justice will be done.
"To become enlightened, we must have liberty. That alone
suffices; but it must be the liberty to use the reason in regard to
all public matters.
"And yet we hear on every hand authorities of all kinds and
degrees crying: `Do not reason!'
"If a distinction is wanted, here is one: --
"The public use of the reason always should be free,
but the private use ought always to be rigidly restricted.
By public use, I mean the scientific, literary use; by private, that
which may be taken advantage of by civil officials and public
functionaries. Since the governmental machinery must be kept in
motion, in order to preserve unity and attain our object, we must
not reason; we must obey. But the same individual who is bound, from
this point of view, to passive obedience, has the right to speak in
his capacity of citizen and scholar. He can make an appeal to the
public, submit to it his observations on events which occur around
him and in the ranks above him, taking care, however, to avoid
offences which are punishable.
"Reason, then, as much as you like; only, obey." -- Kant:
Fragment on the Liberty of Thought and of the Press. Tissot's
Translation.
These words of the great philosopher outline for me my duty. I
have delayed the reprint of the work entitled "What is
Property?" in order that I might lift the discussion to the
philosophical height from which ridiculous clamor has dragged it
down; and that, by a new presentation of the question, I might
dissipate the fears of good citizens. I now reenter upon the public
use of my reason, and give truth full swing. The second edition of
the First Memoir on Property will immediately follow the publication
of this letter. Before issuing any thing further, I shall await the
observations of my critics, and the co-operation of the friends of
the people and of equality.
Hitherto, I have spoken in my own name, and on my own personal
responsibility. It was my duty. I was endeavoring to call attention
to principles which antiquity could not discover, because it knew
nothing of the science which reveals them, -- political economy. I
have, then, testified as to facts; in short, I have been a
witness. Now my rôle changes. It remains for
me to deduce the practical consequences of the facts proclaimed. The
position of public prosecutor is the only one which I am
henceforth fitted to fill, and I shall sum up the case in the name
of the people.
I am, sir, with all the consideration that I owe to your talent
and your character,
Your very humble and most obedient servant,
P. J. PROUDHON,
Pensioner of the Academy of Besançon.
P.S. During the session of April 2, the Chamber of Deputies
rejected, by a very large majority, the literary-property bill, because
it did not understand it. Nevertheless, literary property is
only a special form of the right of property, which everybody claims
to understand. Let us hope that this legislative precedent will not
be fruitless for the cause of equality. The consequence of the vote
of the Chamber is the abolition of capitalistic property, --
property incomprehensible, contradictory, impossible, and absurd.
