No More Learning

This is clearly shown by the following example:--

Take an estate consisting of arable land, meadows, and vineyards,
containing the dwellings of the owner and the tenant; and worth,
together with the farming implements, one hundred thousand francs, the
rate of increase being three per cent. If, instead of consuming his
revenue, the proprietor uses it, not in enlarging but in beautifying his
estate, can he annually demand of his tenant an additional ninety francs
on account of the three thousand francs which he has thus added to
his capital? Certainly not; for on such conditions the tenant, though
producing no more than before, would soon be obliged to labor for
nothing,--what do I say? to actually suffer loss in order to hold his
lease.

In fact, revenue can increase only as productive soil increases: it
is useless to build walls of marble, and work with plows of gold. But,
since it is impossible to go on acquiring for ever, to add estate to
estate, to CONTINUE ONE'S POSSESSIONS, as the Latins said; and since,
moreover, the proprietor always has means wherewith to capitalize,--it
follows that the exercise of his right finally becomes impossible.

Well, in spite of this impossibility, property capitalizes, and in
capitalizing increases its revenue; and, without stopping to look at the
particular cases which occur in commerce, manufacturing operations,
and banking, I will cite a graver fact,--one which directly affects all
citizens. I mean the indefinite increase of the budget.

The taxes increase every year. It would be difficult to tell in which
department of the government the expenses increase; for who can boast
of any knowledge as to the budget? On this point, the ablest financiers
continually disagree. What is to be thought, I ask, of the science of
government, when its professors cannot understand one another's figures?
Whatever be the immediate causes of this growth of the budget, it is
certain that taxation increases at a rate which causes everybody to
despair. Everybody sees it, everybody acknowledges it; but nobody
seems to understand the primary cause. [1] Now, I say that it cannot be
otherwise,--that it is necessary and inevitable.

[1] "The financial situation of the English government was shown up
in the House of Lords during the session of January 23. It is not
an encouraging one. For several years the expenses have exceeded the
receipts, and the Minister has been able to re-establish the balance
only by loans renewed annually. The combined deficits of the years 1838
and 1839 amount to forty-seven million five hundred thousand francs. In
1840, the excess of expenses over receipts is expected to be twenty-two
million five hundred thousand francs. Attention was called to these
figures by Lord Ripon. Lord Melbourne replied: 'The noble earl unhappily
was right in declaring that the public expenses continually increase,
and with him I must say that there is no room for hope that they can be
diminished or met in any way. '"--National: January 26, 1840.


A nation is the tenant of a rich proprietor called the GOVERNMENT,
to whom it pays, for the use of the soil, a farm-rent called a tax.
Whenever the government makes war, loses or gains a battle, changes the
outfit of its army, erects a monu-ment, digs a canal, opens a road,
or builds a railway, it borrows money, on which the tax-payers pay
interest; that is, the government, without adding to its productive
capacity, increases its active capital,--in a word, capitalizes after
the manner of the proprietor of whom I have just spoken.

Now, when a governmental loan is once contracted, and the interest is
once stipulated, the budget cannot be reduced. For, to accomplish that,
either the capitalists must relinquish their interest, which would
involve an abandonment of property; or the government must go into
bankruptcy, which would be a fraudulent denial of the political
principle; or it must pay the debt, which would require another loan;
or it must reduce expenses, which is impossible, since the loan
was contracted for the sole reason that the ordinary receipts
were insufficient; or the money expended by the government must be
reproductive, which requires an increase of productive capacity,--a
condition excluded by our hypothesis; or, finally, the tax-payers must
submit to a new tax in order to pay the debt,--an impossible thing. For,
if this new tax were levied upon all citizens alike, half, or even more,
of the citizens would be unable to pay it; if the rich had to bear the
whole, it would be a forced contribution,--an invasion of property.
Long financial experience has shown that the method of loans, though
exceedingly dangerous, is much surer, more convenient, and less costly
than any other method; consequently the government borrows,--that is,
goes on capitalizing,--and increases the budget.

Then, a budget, instead of ever diminishing, must necessarily and
continually increase. It is astonishing that the economists, with all
their learning, have failed to perceive a fact so simple and so evident.
If they have perceived it, why have they neglected to condemn it?


HISTORICAL COMMENT. --Much interest is felt at present in a financial
operation which is expected to result in a reduction of the budget.
It is proposed to change the present rate of increase, five per cent.
Laying aside the politico-legal question to deal only with the financial
question,--is it not true that, when five per cent. is changed to four
per cent. , it will then be necessary, for the same reasons, to change
four to three; then three to two, then two to one, and finally to sweep
away increase altogether? But that would be the advent of equality of
conditions and the abolition of property. Now it seems to me, that an
intelligent nation should voluntarily meet an inevitable revolution
half way, instead of suffering itself to be dragged after the car of
inflexible necessity.



EIGHTH PROPOSITION.

Property is impossible, because its power of Accumulation is infinite,
and is exercised only over finite quantities.

If men, living in equality, should grant to one of their number the
exclusive right of property; and this sole proprietor should lend one
hundred francs to the human race at compound interest, payable to his
descendants twenty-four generations hence,--at the end of six hundred
years this sum of one hundred francs, at five per cent. , would amount to
107,854,010,777,600 francs; two thousand six hundred and ninety-six
and one-third times the capital of France (supposing her capital to be
40,000,000,000), or more than twenty times the value of the terrestrial
globe!

Suppose that a man, in the reign of St. Louis, had borrowed one hundred
francs, and had refused,--he and his heirs after him,--to return it.
Even though it were known that the said heirs were not the rightful
possessors, and that prescription had been interrupted always at the
right moment,--nevertheless, by our laws, the last heir would be obliged
to return the one hundred francs with interest, and interest on the
interest; which in all would amount, as we have seen, to nearly one
hundred and eight thousand billions.

Every day, fortunes are growing in our midst much more rapidly than
this. The preceding example supposed the interest equal to one-twentieth
of the capital,--it often equals one-tenth, one-fifth, one-half of the
capital; and sometimes the capital itself.

The Fourierists--irreconcilable enemies of equality, whose partisans
they regard as SHARKS--intend, by quadrupling production, to satisfy
all the demands of capital, labor, and skill. But, should production
be multiplied by four, ten, or even one hundred, property would
soon absorb, by its power of accumulation and the effects of its
capitalization, both products and capital, and the land, and even the
laborers. Is the phalanstery to be prohibited from capitalizing and
lending at interest? Let it explain, then, what it means by property.

I will carry these calculations no farther. They are capable of infinite
variation, upon which it would be puerile for me to insist. I only ask
by what standard judges, called upon to decide a suit for possession,
fix the interest? And, developing the question, I ask,--

Did the legislator, in introducing into the Republic the principle
of property, weigh all the consequences? Did he know the law of the
possible? If he knew it, why is it not in the Code? Why is so much
latitude allowed to the proprietor in accumulating property and
charging interest,--to the judge in recognizing and fixing the domain of
property,--to the State in its power to levy new taxes continually? At
what point is the nation justified in repudiating the budget, the tenant
his farm-rent, and the manufacturer the interest on his capital? How
far may the idler take advantage of the laborer? Where does the right
of spoliation begin, and where does it end? When may the producer say
to the proprietor, "I owe you nothing more"? When is property satisfied?
When must it cease to steal?

If the legislator did know the law of the possible, and disregarded it,
what must be thought of his justice? If he did not know it, what must
be thought of his wisdom? Either wicked or foolish, how can we recognize
his authority?

If our charters and our codes are based upon an absurd hypothesis,
what is taught in the law-schools? What does a judgment of the Court
of Appeal amount to? About what do our Chambers deliberate? What is
POLITICS? What is our definition of a STATESMAN? What is the meaning of
JURISPRUDENCE? Should we not rather say JURISIGNORANCE?

If all our institutions are based upon an error in calculation, does it
not follow that these institutions are so many shams? And if the entire
social structure is built upon this absolute impossibility of property,
is it not true that the government under which we live is a chimera, and
our present society a utopia?



NINTH PROPOSITION.

Property is impossible, because it is powerless against Property.


I. By the third corollary of our axiom, interest tells against the
proprietor as well as the stranger. This economical principle is
universally admitted. Nothing simpler at first blush; yet, nothing more
absurd, more contradictory in terms, or more absolutely impossible.

The manufacturer, it is said, pays himself the rent on his house and
capital. HE PAYS HIMSELF; that is, he gets paid by the public who buy
his products. For, suppose the manufacturer, who seems to make this
profit on his property, wishes also to make it on his merchandise, can
he then pay himself one franc for that which cost him ninety centimes,
and make money by the operation? No: such a transaction would transfer
the merchant's money from his right hand to his left, but without any
profit whatever.

Now, that which is true of a single individual trading with himself is
true also of the whole business world. Form a chain of ten, fifteen,
twenty producers; as many as you wish. If the producer A makes a
profit out of the producer B. B's loss must, according to economical
principles, be made up by C, C's by D; and so on through to Z.

But by whom will Z be paid for the loss caused him by the profit charged
by A in the beginning? BY THE CONSUMER, replies Say. Contemptible
equivocation! Is this consumer any other, then, than A, B. C, D, &c. ,
or Z? By whom will Z be paid? If he is paid by A, no one makes a profit;
consequently, there is no property. If, on the contrary, Z bears the
burden himself, he ceases to be a member of society; since it refuses
him the right of property and profit, which it grants to the other
associates.

Since, then, a nation, like universal humanity, is a vast industrial
association which cannot act outside of itself, it is clear that no man
can enrich himself without impoverishing another. For, in order that the
right of property, the right of increase, may be respected in the
case of A, it must be denied to Z; thus we see how equality of rights,
separated from equality of conditions, may be a truth. The iniquity of
political economy in this respect is flagrant. "When I, a manufacturer,
purchase the labor of a workingman, I do not include his wages in the
net product of my business; on the contrary, I deduct them. But the
workingman includes them in his net product. . . . "(Say: Political
Economy. )

That means that all which the workingman gains is NET PRODUCT; but that
only that part of the manufacturer's gains is NET PRODUCT, which remains
after deducting his wages. But why is the right of profit confined to
the manufacturer? Why is this right, which is at bottom the right of
property itself, denied to the workingman? In the terms of economical
science, the workingman is capital. Now, all capital, beyond the cost
of its maintenance and repair, must bear interest. This the proprietor
takes care to get, both for his capital and for himself. Why is the
workingman prohibited from charging a like interest for his capital,
which is himself?

Property, then, is inequality of rights; for, if it were not inequality
of rights, it would be equality of goods,--in other words, it would not
exist. Now, the charter guarantees to all equality of rights. Then, by
the charter, property is impossible.

II. Is A, the proprietor of an estate, entitled by the fact of his
proprietorship to take possession of the field belonging to B. his
neighbor? "No," reply the proprietors; "but what has that to do with
the right of property? " That I shall show you by a series of similar
propositions.

Has C, a hatter, the right to force D, his neighbor and also a hatter,
to close his shop, and cease his business? Not the least in the world.

But C wishes to make a profit of one franc on every hat, while D is
content with fifty centimes. It is evident that D's moderation is
injurious to C's extravagant claims. Has the latter a right to prevent D
from selling? Certainly not.

Since D is at liberty to sell his hats fifty centimes cheaper than C if
he chooses, C in his turn is free to reduce his price one franc. Now, D
is poor, while C is rich; so that at the end of two or three years D is
ruined by this intolerable competition, and C has complete control of
the market. Can the proprietor D get any redress from the proprietor C?
Can he bring a suit against him to recover his business and property?
No; for D could have done the same thing, had he been the richer of the
two.

On the same ground, the large proprietor A may say to the small
proprietor B: "Sell me your field, otherwise you shall not sell your
wheat,"--and that without doing him the least wrong, or giving him
ground for complaint. So that A can devour B if he likes, for the very
reason that A is stronger than B. Consequently, it is not the right of
property which enables A and C to rob B and D, but the right of might.
By the right of property, neither the two neighbors A and B, nor the two
merchants C and D, could harm each other. They could neither dispossess
nor destroy one another, nor gain at one another's expense. The power of
invasion lies in superior strength.

But it is superior strength also which enables the manufacturer
to reduce the wages of his employees, and the rich merchant and
well-stocked proprietor to sell their products for what they please. The
manufacturer says to the laborer, "You are as free to go elsewhere
with your services as I am to receive them. I offer you so much. " The
merchant says to the customer, "Take it or leave it; you are master of
your money, as I am of my goods. I want so much. " Who will yield? The
weaker.

Therefore, without force, property is powerless against property, since
without force it has no power to increase; therefore, without force,
property is null and void.

HISTORICAL COMMENT. --The struggle between colonial and native sugars
furnishes us a striking example of this impossibility of property. Leave
these two industries to themselves, and the native manufacturer will
be ruined by the colonist. To maintain the beet-root, the cane must be
taxed: to protect the property of the one, it is necessary to injure the
property of the other. The most remarkable feature of this business is
precisely that to which the least attention is paid; namely, that, in
one way or another, property has to be violated. Impose on each industry
a proportional tax, so as to preserve a balance in the market, and you
create a MAXIMUM PRICE,--you attack property in two ways. On the one
hand, your tax interferes with the liberty of trade; on the other, it
does not recognize equality of proprietors. Indemnify the beet-root, you
violate the property of the tax-payer. Cultivate the two varieties of
sugar at the nation's expense, just as different varieties of tobacco
are cultivated,--you abolish one species of property. This last course
would be the simpler and better one; but, to induce the nations to adopt
it, requires such a co-operation of able minds and generous hearts as is
at present out of the question.

Competition, sometimes called liberty of trade,--in a word, property
in exchange,--will be for a long time the basis of our commercial
legislation; which, from the economical point of view, embraces all
civil laws and all government. Now, what is competition? A duel in a
closed field, where arms are the test of right.

"Who is the liar,--the accused or the accuser? " said our barbarous
ancestors. "Let them fight it out," replied the still more barbarous
judge; "the stronger is right. "

Which of us two shall sell spices to our neighbor? "Let each offer them
for sale," cries the economist; "the sharper, or the more cunning, is
the more honest man, and the better merchant. "

Such is the exact spirit of the Code Napoleon.



TENTH PROPOSITION.

Property is impossible, because it is the Negation of equality.


The development of this proposition will be the resume of the preceding
ones.

1. It is a principle of economical justice, that PRODUCTS ARE BOUGHT
ONLY BY PRODUCTS. Property, being capable of defence only on the ground
that it produces utility, is, since it produces nothing, for ever
condemned.

2. It is an economical law, that LABOR MUST BE BALANCED BY PRODUCT. It
is a fact that, with property, production costs more than it is worth.

3. Another economical law: THE CAPITAL BEING GIVEN, PRODUCTION IS
MEASURED, NOT BY THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL, BUT BY PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY.
Property, requiring income to be always proportional to capital without
regard to labor, does not recognize this relation of equality between
effect and cause.

4 and 5. Like the insect which spins its silk, the laborer never
produces for himself alone. Property, demanding a double product and
unable to obtain it, robs the laborer, and kills him.

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

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

8. The satisfaction of a natural right always gives rise to an equation;
in other words, the right to a thing is necessarily balanced by the
possession of the thing. Thus, between the right to liberty and the
condition of a free man there is a balance, an equation; between the
right to be a father and paternity, an equation; between the right to
security and the social guarantee, an equation. But between the right
of increase and the receipt of this increase there is never an equation;
for every new increase carries with it the right to another, the latter
to a third, and so on for ever. Property, never being able to accomplish
its object, is a right against Nature and against reason.

9. Finally, property is not self-existent. An extraneous cause--either
FORCE or FRAUD--is necessary to its life and action. In other
words, property is not equal to property: it is a negation--a
delusion--NOTHING.




CHAPTER V.
PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPOSITION OF THE IDEA OF JUSTICE


PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPOSITION OF THE IDEA OF JUSTICE AND
INJUSTICE, AND A DETERMINATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF
GOVERNMENT AND OF RIGHT.


Property is impossible; equality does not exist. We hate the former, and
yet wish to possess it; the latter rules all our thoughts, yet we know
not how to reach it. Who will explain this profound antagonism between
our conscience and our will? Who will point out the causes of this
pernicious error, which has become the most sacred principle of justice
and society?

I am bold enough to undertake the task, and I hope to succeed.

But before explaining why man has violated justice, it is necessary to
determine what justice is.



PART FIRST.


% 1. --Of the Moral Sense in Man and the Animals.


The philosophers have endeavored often to locate the line which
separates man's intelligence from that of the brutes; and, according
to their general custom, they gave utterance to much foolishness before
resolving upon the only course possible for them to take,--observation.
It was reserved for an unpretending savant--who perhaps did not pride
himself on his philosophy--to put an end to the interminable controversy
by a simple distinction; but one of those luminous distinctions which
are worth more than systems. Frederic Cuvier separated INSTINCT from
INTELLIGENCE.

But, as yet, no one has proposed this question:--

IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MAN'S MORAL SENSE AND THAT OF THE BRUTE A
DIFFERENCE IN KIND OR ONLY IN DEGREE?

If, hitherto, any one had dared to maintain the latter alternative, his
arguments would have seemed scandalous, blasphemous, and offensive to
morality and religion. The ecclesiastical and secular tribunals would
have condemned him with one voice. And, mark the style in which they
would have branded the immoral paradox! "Conscience,"--they would have
cried,--"conscience, man's chief glory, was given to him exclusively;
the notion of justice and injustice, of merit and demerit, is his noble
privilege; to man, alone,--the lord of creation,--belongs the sublime
power to resist his worldly propensities, to choose between good and
evil, and to bring himself more and more into the resemblance of God
through liberty and justice. . . . No; the holy image of virtue was never
graven save on the heart of man. " Words full of feeling, but void of
sense.

Man is a rational and social animal--{GREEK ' c g}--said Aristotle. This
definition is worth more than all which have been given since. I do not
except even M. de Bonald's celebrated definition,--MAN IS AN INTELLECT
SERVED BY ORGANS--a definition which has the double fault of explaining
the known by the unknown; that is, the living being by the intellect;
and of neglecting man's essential quality,--animality.

Man, then, is an animal living in society. Society means the sum total
of relationships; in short, system. Now, all systems exist only on
certain conditions. What, then, are the conditions, the LAWS, of human
society?

What are the RIGHTS of men with respect to each other; what is JUSTICE?

It amounts to nothing to say,--with the philosophers of various
schools,--"It is a divine instinct, an immortal and heavenly voice, a
guide given us by Nature, a light revealed unto every man on coming
into the world, a law engraved upon our hearts; it is the voice of
conscience, the dictum of reason, the inspiration of sentiment, the
penchant of feeling; it is the love of self in others; it is enlightened
self-interest; or else it is an innate idea, the imperative command of
applied reason, which has its source in the concepts of pure reason;
it is a passional attraction," &c. , &c. This may be as true as it seems
beautiful; but it is utterly meaningless. Though we should prolong
this litany through ten pages (it has been filtered through a thousand
volumes), we should be no nearer to the solution of the question.

"Justice is public utility," says Aristotle. That is true, but it is a
tautology. "The principle that the public welfare ought to be the
object of the legislator"--says M. Ch. Comte in his "Treatise on
Legislation"--"cannot be overthrown. But legislation is advanced no
farther by its announcement and demonstration, than is medicine when it
is said that it is the business of physicians to cure the sick. "

Let us take another course. RUGHT is the sum total of the principles
which govern society. Justice, in man, is the respect and observation of
those principles. To practise justice is to obey the social instinct;
to do an act of justice is to do a social act. If, then, we watch the
conduct of men towards each other under different circumstances, it
will be easy for us to distinguish between the presence and absence of
society; from the result we may inductively infer the law.

Let us commence with the simplest and least doubtful cases.

The mother, who protects her son at the peril of her life, and
sacrifices every thing to his support, is in society with him--she is a
good mother. She, on the contrary, who abandons her child, is unfaithful
to the social instinct,--maternal love being one of its many features;
she is an unnatural mother.

If I plunge into the water to rescue a drowning man, I am his brother,
his associate; if, instead of aiding him, I sink him, I am his enemy,
his murderer.

Whoever bestows alms treats the poor man as his associate; not
thoroughly, it is true, but only in respect to the amount which he
shares with him. Whoever takes by force or stratagem that which is
not the product of his labor, destroys his social character--he is a
brigand.

The Samaritan who relieves the traveller lying by the wayside, dresses
his wounds, comforts him, and supplies him with money, thereby declares
himself his associate--his neighbor; the priest, who passes by on the
other side, remains unassociated, and is his enemy.

In all these cases, man is moved by an internal attraction towards his
fellow, by a secret sympathy which causes him to love, congratulate,
and condole; so that, to resist this attraction, his will must struggle
against his nature.

But in these respects there is no decided difference between man and the
animals. With them, as long as the weakness of their young endears them
to their mothers,--in a word, associates them with their mothers,--the
latter protect the former, at the peril of their lives, with a courage
which reminds us of our heroes dying for their country. Certain species
unite for hunting purposes, seek each other, call each other (a poet
would say invite each other), to share their prey; in danger they
aid, protect, and warn each other. The elephant knows how to help his
companion out of the ditch into which the latter has fallen. Cows form
a circle, with their horns outward and their calves in the centre, in
order to repel the attacks of wolves. Horses and pigs, on hearing a cry
of distress from one of their number, rush to the spot whence it comes.
What descriptions I might give of their marriages, the tenderness of the
males towards the females, and the fidelity of their loves! Let us add,
however,--to be entirely just--that these touching demonstrations of
society, fraternity, and love of neighbor, do not prevent the animals
from quarrelling, fighting, and outrageously abusing one another while
gaining their livelihood and showing their gallantry; the resemblance
between them and ourselves is perfect.

The social instinct, in man and beast, exists to a greater or less
degree--its nature is the same. Man has the greater need of association,
and employs it more; the animal seems better able to endure isolation.
In man, social needs are more imperative and complex; in the beast, they
seem less intense, less diversified, less regretted. Society, in a
word, aims, in the case of man, at the preservation of the race and
the individual; with the animals, its object is more exclusively the
preservation of the race.

As yet, we have met with no claim which man can make for himself alone.
The social instinct and the moral sense he shares with the brutes; and
when he thinks to become god-like by a few acts of charity, justice,
and devotion, he does not perceive that in so acting he simply obeys an
instinct wholly animal in its nature. As we are good, loving, tender,
just, so we are passionate, greedy, lewd, and vindictive; that is, we
are like the beasts. Our highest virtues appear, in the last analysis,
as blind, impulsive instincts. What subjects for canonization and
apotheosis!

There is, however, a difference between us two-handed bipeds and other
living creatures--what is it?

A student of philosophy would hasten to reply: "This difference lies in
the fact that we are conscious of our social faculty, while the animals
are unconscious of theirs--in the fact that while we reflect and reason
upon the operation of our social instinct, the animals do nothing of the
kind. "

I will go farther. It is by our reflective and reasoning powers,
with which we seem to be exclusively endowed, that we know that it is
injurious, first to others and then to ourselves, to resist the social
instinct which governs us, and which we call JUSTICE. It is our reason
which teaches us that the selfish man, the robber, the murderer--in a
word, the traitor to society--sins against Nature, and is guilty with
respect to others and himself, when he does wrong wilfully. Finally, it
is our social sentiment on the one hand, and our reason on the
other, which cause us to think that beings such as we should take the
responsibility of their acts. Such is the principle of remorse, revenge,
and penal justice.

But this proves only an intellectual diversity between the animals and
man, not at all an affectional one; for, although we reason upon our
relations with our fellows, we likewise reason upon our most trivial
actions,--such as drinking, eating, choosing a wife, or selecting a
dwelling-place. We reason upon things earthly and things heavenly; there
is nothing to which our reasoning powers are not applicable. Now,
just as the knowledge of external phenomena, which we acquire, has no
influence upon their causes and laws, so reflection, by illuminating our
instinct, enlightens us as to our sentient nature, but does not alter
its character; it tells us what our morality is, but neither changes nor
modifies it. Our dissatisfaction with ourselves after doing wrong,
the indignation which we feel at the sight of injustice, the idea of
deserved punishment and due remuneration, are effects of reflection, and
not immediate effects of instinct and emotion. Our appreciation (I do
not say exclusive appreciation, for the animals also realize that they
have done wrong, and are indignant when one of their number is attacked,
but), our infinitely superior appreciation of our social duties, our
knowledge of good and evil, does not establish, as regards morality, any
vital difference between man and the beasts.



% 2. --Of the first and second degrees of Sociability.


I insist upon the fact, which I have just pointed out, as one of the
most important facts of anthropology.

The sympathetic attraction, which causes us to associate, is, by reason
of its blind, unruly nature, always governed by temporary impulse,
without regard to higher rights, and without distinction of merit or
priority. The bastard dog follows indifferently all who call it; the
suckling child regards every man as its father and every woman as its
nurse; every living creature, when deprived of the society of animals
of its species, seeks companionship in its solitude. This fundamental
characteristic of the social instinct renders intolerable and even
hateful the friendship of frivolous persons, liable to be infatuated
with every new face, accommodating to all whether good or bad, and
ready to sacrifice, for a passing liaison, the oldest and most honorable
affections. The fault of such beings is not in the heart--it is in the
judgment. Sociability, in this degree, is a sort of magnetism awakened
in us by the contemplation of a being similar to ourselves, but which
never goes beyond the person who feels it; it may be reciprocated, but
not communicated. Love, benevolence, pity, sympathy, call it what you
will, there is nothing in it which deserves esteem,--nothing which lifts
man above the beast.

The second degree of sociability is justice, which may be defined as the
RECOGNITION OF THE EQUALITY BETWEEN ANOTHER'S PERSONALITY AND OUR OWN.
The sentiment of justice we share with the animals; we alone can form
an exact idea of it; but our idea, as has been said already, does not
change its nature. We shall soon see how man rises to a third degree
of sociability which the animals are incapable of reaching. But I must
first prove by metaphysics that SOCIETY, JUSTICE, and EQUALITY,
are three equivalent terms,--three expressions meaning the same
thing,--whose mutual conversion is always allowable.

If, amid the confusion of a shipwreck, having escaped in a boat with
some provisions, I see a man struggling with the waves, am I bound to
go to his assistance? Yes, I am bound under penalty of being adjudged
guilty of murder and treason against society.

But am I also bound to share with him my provisions?

To settle this question, we must change the phraseology. If society is
binding on the boat, is it also binding on the provisions? Undoubtedly.
The duty of an associate is absolute. Man's occupancy succeeds his
social nature, and is subordinate to it; possession can become exclusive
only when permission to occupy is granted to all alike. That which
in this instance obscures our duty is our power of foresight, which,
causing us to fear an eventual danger, impels us to usurpation, and
makes us robbers and murderers. Animals do not calculate the duty of
instinct any more than the disadvantages resulting to those who exercise
it; it would be strange if the intellect of man--the most sociable of
animals--should lead him to disobey the law.

He betrays society who attempts to use it only for his own advantage;
better that God should deprive us of prudence, if it is to serve as the
tool of our selfishness.

"What! " you will say, "must I share my bread, the bread which I have
earned and which belongs to me, with the stranger whom I do not know;
whom I may never see again, and who, perhaps, will reward me with
ingratitude? If we had earned this bread together, if this man had
done something to obtain it, he might demand his share, since his
co-operation would entitle him to it; but as it is, what claim has he on
me? We have not produced together--we shall not eat together. "

The fallacy in this argument lies in the false supposition, that each
producer is not necessarily associated with every other producer.

When two or more individuals have regularly organized a society,--when
the contracts have been agreed upon, drafted, and signed,--there is
no difficulty about the future. Everybody knows that when two men
associate--for instance--in order to fish, if one of them catches no
fish, he is none the less entitled to those caught by his associate.
If two merchants form a partnership, while the partnership lasts, the
profits and losses are divided between them; since each produces, not
for himself, but for the society: when the time of distribution arrives,
it is not the producer who is considered, but the associate. That is why
the slave, to whom the planter gives straw and rice; and the civilized
laborer, to whom the capitalist pays a salary which is always too
small,--not being associated with their employers, although producing
with them,--are disregarded when the product is divided. Thus, the horse
who draws our coaches, and the ox who draws our carts produce with us,
but are not associated with us; we take their product, but do not share
it with them. The animals and laborers whom we employ hold the same
relation to us. Whatever we do for them, we do, not from a sense of
justice, but out of pure benevolence. [22]


But is it possible that we are not all associated? Let us call to mind
what was said in the last two chapters, That even though we do not want
to be associated, the force of things, the necessity of consumption, the
laws of production, and the mathematical principle of exchange combine
to associate us. There is but a single exception to this rule,--that
of the proprietor, who, producing by his right of increase, is not
associated with any one, and consequently is not obliged to share his
product with any one; just as no one else is bound to share with him.
With the exception of the proprietor, we labor for each other; we can
do nothing by ourselves unaided by others, and we continually exchange
products and services with each other. If these are not social acts,
what are they?

Now, neither a commercial, nor an industrial, nor an agricultural
association can be conceived of in the absence of equality; equality
is its sine qua non. So that, in all matters which concern this
association, to violate society is to violate justice and equality.
Apply this principle to humanity at large.

After what has been said, I assume that the reader has sufficient
insight to enable him to dispense with any aid of mine.

By this principle, the man who takes possession of a field, and says,
"This field is mine," will not be unjust so long as every one else has
an equal right of possession; nor will he be unjust, if, wishing to
change his location, he exchanges this field for an equivalent. But
if, putting another in his place, he says to him, "Work for me while
I rest," he then becomes unjust, unassociated, UNEQUAL. He is a
proprietor.

Reciprocally, the sluggard, or the rake, who, without performing
any social task, enjoys like others--and often more than others--the
products of society, should be proceeded against as a thief and a
parasite. We owe it to ourselves to give him nothing; but, since he must
live, to put him under supervision, and compel him to labor.

Sociability is the attraction felt by sentient beings for each other.
Justice is this same attraction, accompanied by thought and knowledge.
But under what general concept, in what category of the understanding,
is justice placed? In the category of equal quantities. Hence, the
ancient definition of justice--_Justum aequale est, injustum inaequale_.
What is it, then, to practise justice? It is to give equal wealth
to each, on condition of equal labor. It is to act socially. Our
selfishness may complain; there is no escape from evidence and
necessity.

What is the right of occupancy? It is a natural method of dividing the
earth, by reducing each laborer's share as fast as new laborers present
themselves. This right disappears if the public interest requires it;
which, being the social interest, is also that of the occupant.

What is the right of labor? It is the right to obtain one's share
of wealth by fulfilling the required conditions. It is the right of
society, the right of equality.

Justice, which is the product of the combination of an idea and an
instinct, manifests itself in man as soon as he is capable of feeling,
and of forming ideas. Consequently, it has been regarded as an
innate and original sentiment; but this opinion is logically and
chronologically false. But justice, by its composition hybrid--if I may
use the term,--justice, born of emotion and intellect combined, seems to
me one of the strongest proofs of the unity and simplicity of the
ego; the organism being no more capable of producing such a mixture by
itself, than are the combined senses of hearing and sight of forming a
binary sense, half auditory and half visual.

This double nature of justice gives us the definitive basis of all the
demonstrations in Chapters II. , III. , and IV. On the one hand, the idea
of JUSTICE being identical with that of society, and society necessarily
implying equality, equality must underlie all the sophisms invented in
defence of property; for, since property can be defended only as a just
and social institution, and property being inequality, in order to
prove that property is in harmony with society, it must be shown that
injustice is justice, and that inequality is equality,--a contradiction
in terms. On the other hand, since the idea of equality--the second
element of justice--has its source in the mathematical proportions of
things; and since property, or the unequal distribution of wealth among
laborers, destroys the necessary balance between labor, production, and
consumption,--property must be impossible.

All men, then, are associated; all are entitled to the same justice; all
are equal. Does it follow that the preferences of love and friendship
are unjust?

This requires explanation. I have already supposed the case of a man in
peril, I being in a position to help him. Now, I suppose myself appealed
to at the same time by two men exposed to danger.

Am I not allowed--am I not commanded even--to rush first to the aid of
him who is endeared to me by ties of blood, friendship, acquaintance,
or esteem, at the risk of leaving the other to perish? Yes. And why?
Because within universal society there exist for each of us as many
special societies as there are individuals; and we are bound, by the
principle of sociability itself, to fulfil the obligations which these
impose upon us, according to the intimacy of our relations with them.
Therefore we must give our father, mother, children, friends, relatives,
&c. , the preference over all others. But in what consists this
preference?

A judge has a case to decide, in which one of the parties is his
friend, and the other his enemy. Should he, in this instance, prefer
his INTIMATE ASSOCIATE to his DISTANT ASSOCIATE; and decide the case in
favor of his friend, in spite of evidence to the contrary? No: for, if
he should favor his friend's injustice, he would become his accomplice
in his violation of the social compact; he would form with him a sort of
conspiracy against the social body. Preference should be shown only in
personal matters, such as love, esteem, confidence, or intimacy, when
all cannot be considered at once. Thus, in case of fire, a father
would save his own child before thinking of his neighbor's; but the
recognition of a right not being an optional matter with a judge, he is
not at liberty to favor one person to the detriment of another.

The theory of these special societies--which are formed concentrically,
so to speak, by each of us inside of the main body--gives the key to
all the problems which arise from the opposition and conflict of the
different varieties of social duty,--problems upon which the ancient
tragedies are based.

The justice practised among animals is, in a certain degree, negative.
With the exception of protecting their young, hunting and plundering
in troops, uniting for common defence and sometimes for individual
assistance, it consists more in prevention than in action. A sick animal
who cannot arise from the ground, or an imprudent one who has fallen
over a precipice, receives neither medicine nor nourishment. If he
cannot cure himself, nor relieve himself of his trouble, his life is in
danger: he will neither be cared for in bed, nor fed in a prison.

Their neglect of their fellows arises as much from the weakness of
their intellect as from their lack of resources. Still, the degrees
of intimacy common among men are not unknown to the animals. They
have friendships of habit and of choice; friendships neighborly, and
friendships parental. In comparison with us, they have feeble memories,
sluggish feelings, and are almost destitute of intelligence; but
the identity of these faculties is preserved to some extent, and our
superiority in this respect arises entirely from our understanding.

It is our strength of memory and penetration of judgment which enable us
to multiply and combine the acts which our social instinct impels us to
perform, and which teaches us how to render them more effective, and
how to distribute them justly. The beasts who live in society practise
justice, but are ignorant of its nature, and do not reason upon it; they
obey their instinct without thought or philosophy. They know not how to
unite the social sentiment with the idea of equality, which they do not
possess; this idea being an abstract one. We, on the contrary, starting
with the principle that society implies equality, can, by our reasoning
faculty, understand and agree with each other in settling our rights;
we have even used our judgment to a great extent. But in all this our
conscience plays a small part, as is proved by the fact that the idea
of RIGHT--of which we catch a glimpse in certain animals who approach
nearer than any others to our standard of intelligence--seems to grow,
from the low level at which it stands in savages, to the lofty height
which it reaches in a Plato or a Franklin. If we trace the development
of the moral sense in individuals, and the progress of laws in nations,
we shall be convinced that the ideas of justice and legislative
perfection are always proportional to intelligence. The notion of
justice--which has been regarded by some philosophers as simple--is
then, in reality, complex. It springs from the social instinct on the
one hand, and the idea of equality on the other; just as the notion of
guilt arises from the feeling that justice has been violated, and from
the idea of free-will.

In conclusion, instinct is not modified by acquaintance with its nature;
and the facts of society, which we have thus far observed, occur among
beasts as well as men. We know the meaning of justice; in other words,
of sociability viewed from the standpoint of equality. We have met with
nothing which separates us from the animals.



% 3. --Of the third degree of Sociability.


The reader, perhaps, has not forgotten what was said in the third
chapter concerning the division of labor and the speciality of talents.
The sum total of the talents and capacities of the race is always
the same, and their nature is always similar. We are all born poets,
mathematicians, philosophers, artists, artisans, or farmers, but we are
not born equally endowed; and between one man and another in society,
or between one faculty and another in the same individual, there is an
infinite difference. This difference of degree in the same faculties,
this predominance of talent in certain directions, is, we have said,
the very foundation of our society. Intelligence and natural genius have
been distributed by Nature so economically, and yet so liberally, that
in society there is no danger of either a surplus or a scarcity of
special talents; and that each laborer, by devoting himself to his
function, may always attain to the degree of proficiency necessary to
enable him to benefit by the labors and discoveries of his fellows.