Leroux replies in the third volume of his work on
"Humanity:"--
"There are three ways of destroying man's communion with his fellows and
with the universe:.
"Humanity:"--
"There are three ways of destroying man's communion with his fellows and
with the universe:.
Proudhon - What is Property? An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government
" I
think it leaves every thing undone.
Finally, M. Wolowski opposes, on the one hand, the concentration of
capital, and the absorption which results therefrom; and, on the other,
he objects to the extreme division of the land. Now I think that I have
demonstrated in my First Memoir, that large accumulation and minute
division are the first two terms of an economical trinity,--a THESIS and
an ANTITHESIS. But, while M. Wolowski says nothing of the third term,
the SYNTHESIS, and thus leaves the inference in suspense, I have shown
that this third term is ASSOCIATION, which is the annihilation of
property.
November 30. --LITERARY PROPERTY. M. Wolowski grants that it is just to
recognize the rights of talent (which is not in the least hostile to
equality); but he seriously objects to perpetual and absolute property
in the works of genius, to the profit of the authors' heirs. His main
argument is, that society has a right of collective production over
every creation of the mind. Now, it is precisely this principle of
collective power that I developed in my "Inquiries into Property and
Government," and on which I have established the complete edifice of
a new social organization. M. Wolowski is, as far as I know, the first
jurist who has made a legislative application of this economical law.
Only, while I have extended the principle of collective power to every
sort of product, M. Wolowski, more prudent than it is my nature to be,
confines it to neutral ground. So, that that which I am bold enough
to say of the whole, he is contented to affirm of a part, leaving
the intelligent hearer to fill up the void for himself. However, his
arguments are keen and close. One feels that the professor, finding
himself more at ease with one aspect of property, has given the rein to
his intellect, and is rushing on towards liberty.
1. Absolute literary property would hinder the activity of other men,
and obstruct the development of humanity. It would be the death of
progress; it would be suicide. What would have happened if the
first inventions,--the plough, the level, the saw, &c. ,--had been
appropriated?
Such is the first proposition of M. Wolowski.
I reply: Absolute property in land and tools hinders human activity, and
obstructs progress and the free development of man.
What happened in Rome, and in all the ancient nations? What occurred
in the middle ages? What do we see to-day in England, in consequence of
absolute property in the sources of production?
The suicide of humanity.
2. Real and personal property is in harmony with the social interest.
In consequence of literary property, social and individual interests are
perpetually in conflict.
The statement of this proposition contains a rhetorical figure, common
with those who do not enjoy full and complete liberty of speech. This
figure is the _anti-phrasis_ or _contre-verite_. It consists, according
to Dumarsais and the best humanists, in saying one thing while meaning
another. M. Wolowski's proposition, naturally expressed, would read as
follows: "Just as real and personal property is essentially hostile to
society, so, in consequence of literary property, social and individual
interests are perpetually in conflict. "
3. M. de Montalembert, in the Chamber of Peers, vehemently protested
against the assimilation of authors to inventors of machinery; an
assimilation which he claimed to be injurious to the former. M. Wolowski
replies, that the rights of authors, without machinery, would be nil;
that, without paper-mills, type foundries, and printing-offices,
there could be no sale of verse and prose; that many a mechanical
invention,--the compass, for instance, the telescope, or the
steam-engine,--is quite as valuable as a book.
Prior to M. Montalembert, M. Charles Comte had laughed at the inference
in favor of mechanical inventions, which logical minds never fail to
draw from the privileges granted to authors. "He," says M. Comte, "who
first conceived and executed the idea of transforming a piece of wood
into a pair of sabots, or an animal's hide into a pair of sandals, would
thereby have acquired an exclusive right to make shoes for the human
race! " Undoubtedly, under the system of property. For, in fact, this
pair of sabots, over which you make so merry, is the creation of the
shoemaker, the work of his genius, the expression of his thought; to him
it is his poem, quite as much as "Le Roi s'amuse," is M. Victor Hugo's
drama. Justice for all alike. If you refuse a patent to a perfecter of
boots, refuse also a privilege to a maker of rhymes.
4. That which gives importance to a book is a fact external to the
author and his work. Without the intelligence of society, without its
development, and a certain community of ideas, passions, and interests
between it and the authors, the works of the latter would be worth
nothing. The exchangeable value of a book is due even more to the SOCIAL
CONDITION than to the talent displayed in it.
Indeed, it seems as if I were copying my own words. This proposition
of M. Wolowski contains a special expression of a general and absolute
idea, one of the strongest and most conclusive against the right of
property. Why do artists, like mechanics, find the means to live?
Because society has made the fine arts, like the rudest industries,
objects of consumption and exchange, governed consequently by all the
laws of commerce and political economy. Now, the first of these laws is
the equipoise of functions; that is, the equality of associates.
5. M. Wolowski indulges in sarcasm against the petitioners for literary
property. "There are authors," he says, "who crave the privileges of
authors, and who for that purpose point out the power of the melodrama.
They speak of the niece of Corneille, begging at the door of a theatre
which the works of her uncle had enriched. . . . To satisfy the avarice of
literary people, it would be necessary to create literary majorats, and
make a whole code of exceptions. "
I like this virtuous irony. But M. Wolowski has by no means exhausted
the difficulties which the question involves. And first, is it just that
MM. Cousin, Guizot, Villemain, Damiron, and company, paid by the State
for delivering lectures, should be paid a second time through the
booksellers? --that I, who have the right to report their lectures,
should not have the right to print them? Is it just that MM. Noel and
Chapsal, overseers of the University, should use their influence in
selling their selections from literature to the youth whose studies they
are instructed to superintend in consideration of a salary? And, if
that is not just, is it not proper to refuse literary property to every
author holding public offices, and receiving pensions or sinecures?
Again, shall the privilege of the author extend to irreligious and
immoral works, calculated only to corrupt the heart, and obscure the
understanding? To grant this privilege is to sanction immorality by law;
to refuse it is to censure the author. And since it is impossible, in
the present imperfect state of society, to prevent all violations of the
moral law, it will be necessary to open a license-office for books as
well as morals. But, then, three-fourths of our literary people will
be obliged to register; and, recognized thenceforth on their own
declaration as PROSTITUTES, they will necessarily belong to the public.
We pay toll to the prostitute; we do not endow her.
Finally, shall plagiarism be classed with forgery? If you reply "Yes,"
you appropriate in advance all the subjects of which books treat; if
you say "No," you leave the whole matter to the decision of the judge.
Except in the case of a clandestine reprint, how will he distinguish
forgery from quotation, imitation, plagiarism, or even coincidence? A
savant spends two years in calculating a table of logarithms to nine
or ten decimals. He prints it. A fortnight after his book is selling
at half-price; it is impossible to tell whether this result is due to
forgery or competition. What shall the court do? In case of doubt, shall
it award the property to the first occupant? As well decide the question
by lot.
These, however, are trifling considerations; but do we see that, in
granting a perpetual privilege to authors and their heirs, we really
strike a fatal blow at their interests? We think to make booksellers
dependent upon authors,--a delusion. The booksellers will unite against
works, and their proprietors. Against works, by refusing to push their
sale, by replacing them with poor imitations, by reproducing them in
a hundred indirect ways; and no one knows how far the science of
plagiarism, and skilful imitation may be carried. Against proprietors.
Are we ignorant of the fact, that a demand for a dozen copies enables a
bookseller to sell a thousand; that with an edition of five hundred he
can supply a kingdom for thirty years? What will the poor authors do in
the presence of this omnipotent union of booksellers? I will tell them
what they will do. They will enter the employ of those whom they now
treat as pirates; and, to secure an advantage, they will become wage
laborers. A fit reward for ignoble avarice, and insatiable pride. [69]
Contradictions of contradictions! "Genius is the great leveller of the
world," cries M. de Lamartine; "then genius should be a proprietor.
Literary property is the fortune of democracy. " This unfortunate
poet thinks himself profound when he is only puffed up. His eloquence
consists solely in coupling ideas which clash with each other: ROUND
SQUARE, DARK SUN, FALLEN ANGEL, PRIEST and LOVE, THOUGHT and POETRY,
GUNIUS {? ? ? }, and FORTUNE, LEVELING and PROPERTY. Let us tell him, in
reply, that his mind is a dark luminary; that each of his discourses is
a disordered harmony; and that all his successes, whether in verse or
prose, are due to the use of the extraordinary in the treatment of the
most ordinary subjects.
"Le National," in reply to the report of M. Lamartine, endeavors to
prove that literary property is of quite a different nature from landed
property; as if the nature of the right of property depended on the
object to which it is applied, and not on the mode of its exercise and
the condition of its existence. But the main object of "Le National"
is to please a class of proprietors whom an extension of the right of
property vexes: that is why "Le National" opposes literary property.
Will it tell us, once for all, whether it is for equality or against it?
6. OBJECTION. --Property in occupied land passes to the heirs of the
occupant. "Why," say the authors, "should not the work of genius pass
in like manner to the heirs of the man of genius? " M. Wolowski's reply:
"Because the labor of the first occupant is continued by his heirs,
while the heirs of an author neither change nor add to his works. In
landed property, the continuance of labor explains the continuance of
the right. "
Yes, when the labor is continued; but if the labor is not continued,
the right ceases. Thus is the right of possession, founded on personal
labor, recognized by M. Wolowski.
M. Wolowski decides in favor of granting to authors property in their
works for a certain number of years, dating from the day of their first
publication.
The succeeding lectures on patents on inventions were no less
instructive, although intermingled with shocking contradictions inserted
with a view to make the useful truths more palatable. The necessity
for brevity compels me to terminate this examination here, not without
regret.
Thus, of two eclectic jurists, who attempt a defence of property, one
is entangled in a set of dogmas without principle or method, and is
constantly talking nonsense; and the other designedly abandons the
cause of property, in order to present under the same name the theory
of individual possession. Was I wrong in claiming that confusion reigned
among legists, and ought I to be legally prosecuted for having said
that their science henceforth stood convicted of falsehood, its glory
eclipsed?
The ordinary resources of the law no longer sufficing, philosophy,
political economy, and the framers of systems have been consulted. All
the oracles appealed to have been discouraging.
The philosophers are no clearer to-day than at the time of the eclectic
efflorescence; nevertheless, through their mystical apothegms, we
can distinguish the words PROGRESS, UNITY, ASSOCIATION, SOLIDARITY,
FRATERNITY, which are certainly not reassuring to proprietors. One of
these philosophers, M. Pierre Leroux, has written two large books, in
which he claims to show by all religious, legislative, and philosophical
systems that, since men are responsible to each other, equality of
conditions is the final law of society. It is true that this philosopher
admits a kind of property; but as he leaves us to imagine what property
would become in presence of equality, we may boldly class him with the
opponents of the right of increase.
I must here declare freely--in order that I may not be suspected of
secret connivance, which is foreign to my nature--that M. Leroux has
my full sympathy. Not that I am a believer in his quasi-Pythagorean
philosophy (upon this subject I should have more than one observation to
submit to him, provided a veteran covered with stripes would not despise
the remarks of a conscript); not that I feel bound to this author by any
special consideration for his opposition to property. In my opinion, M.
Leroux could, and even ought to, state his position more explicitly and
logically. But I like, I admire, in M. Leroux, the antagonist of our
philosophical demigods, the demolisher of usurped reputations, the
pitiless critic of every thing that is respected because of its
antiquity. Such is the reason for my high esteem of M. Leroux; such
would be the principle of the only literary association which, in this
century of coteries, I should care to form. We need men who, like
M. Leroux, call in question social principles,--not to diffuse doubt
concerning them, but to make them doubly sure; men who excite the mind
by bold negations, and make the conscience tremble by doctrines of
annihilation. Where is the man who does not shudder on hearing M. Leroux
exclaim, "There is neither a paradise nor a hell; the wicked will not
be punished, nor the good rewarded. Mortals! cease to hope and fear; you
revolve in a circle of appearances; humanity is an immortal tree, whose
branches, withering one after another, feed with their debris the root
which is always young! " Where is the man who, on hearing this desolate
confession of faith, does not demand with terror, "Is it then true that
I am only an aggregate of elements organized by an unknown force, an
idea realized for a few moments, a form which passes and disappears? Is
it true that my mind is only a harmony, and my soul a vortex? What is
the ego? what is God? what is the sanction of society? "
In former times, M. Leroux would have been regarded as a great culprit,
worthy only (like Vanini) of death and universal execration. To-day, M.
Leroux is fulfilling a mission of salvation, for which, whatever he
may say, he will be rewarded. Like those gloomy invalids who are always
talking of their approaching death, and who faint when the doctor's
opinion confirms their pretence, our materialistic society is agitated
and loses countenance while listening to this startling decree of the
philosopher, "Thou shalt die! " Honor then to M. Leroux, who has revealed
to us the cowardice of the Epicureans; to M. Leroux, who renders new
philosophical solutions necessary! Honor to the anti-eclectic, to the
apostle of equality!
In his work on "Humanity," M. Leroux commences by positing the necessity
of property: "You wish to abolish property; but do you not see that
thereby you would annihilate man and even the name of man? . . . You wish
to abolish property; but could you live without a body? I will not tell
you that it is necessary to support this body;. . . I will tell you that
this body is itself a species of property. "
In order clearly to understand the doctrine of M. Leroux, it must be
borne in mind that there are three necessary and primitive forms of
society,--communism, property, and that which to-day we properly call
association. M. Leroux rejects in the first place communism, and combats
it with all his might. Man is a personal and free being, and therefore
needs a sphere of independence and individual activity. M. Leroux
emphasizes this in adding: "You wish neither family, nor country, nor
property; therefore no more fathers, no more sons, no more brothers.
Here you are, related to no being in time, and therefore without a name;
here you are, alone in the midst of a billion of men who to-day inhabit
the earth. How do you expect me to distinguish you in space in the midst
of this multitude? "
If man is indistinguishable, he is nothing. Now, he can be
distinguished, individualized, only through a devotion of certain things
to his use,--such as his body, his faculties, and the tools which he
uses. "Hence," says M. Leroux, "the necessity of appropriation;" in
short, property.
But property on what condition? Here M. Leroux, after having condemned
communism, denounces in its turn the right of domain. His whole doctrine
can be summed up in this single proposition,--_Man may be made by
property a slave or a despot by turns_.
That posited, if we ask M. Leroux to tell us under what system of
property man will be neither a slave nor a despot, but free, just, and
a citizen, M.
Leroux replies in the third volume of his work on
"Humanity:"--
"There are three ways of destroying man's communion with his fellows and
with the universe:. . . 1. By separating man in time; 2. by separating him
in space; 3. by dividing the land, or, in general terms, the instruments
of production; by attaching men to things, by subordinating man to
property, by making man a proprietor. "
This language, it must be confessed, savors a little too strongly of the
metaphysical heights which the author frequents, and of the school of
M. Cousin. Nevertheless, it can be seen, clearly enough it seems to me,
that M. Leroux opposes the exclusive appropriation of the instruments of
production; only he calls this non-appropriation of the instruments of
production a NEW METHOD of establishing property, while I, in accordance
with all precedent, call it a destruction of property. In fact, without
the appropriation of instruments, property is nothing.
"Hitherto, we have confined ourselves to pointing out and combating the
despotic features of property, by considering property alone. We have
failed to see that the despotism of property is a correlative of the
division of the human race;. . . that property, instead of being organized
in such a way as to facilitate the unlimited communion of man with his
fellows and with the universe, has been, on the contrary, turned against
this communion. "
Let us translate this into commercial phraseology. In order to destroy
despotism and the inequality of conditions, men must cease from
competition and must associate their interests. Let employer and
employed (now enemies and rivals) become associates.
Now, ask any manufacturer, merchant, or capitalist, whether he would
consider himself a proprietor if he were to share his revenue and
profits with this mass of wage-laborers whom it is proposed to make his
associates.
"Family, property, and country are finite things, which ought to be
organized with a view to the infinite. For man is a finite being,
who aspires to the infinite. To him, absolute finiteness is evil. The
infinite is his aim, the indefinite his right. "
Few of my readers would understand these hierophantic words, were I to
leave them unexplained. M. Leroux means, by this magnificent formula,
that humanity is a single immense society, which, in its collective
unity, represents the infinite; that every nation, every tribe, every
commune, and every citizen are, in different degrees, fragments or
finite members of the infinite society, the evil in which results
solely from individualism and privilege,--in other words, from the
subordination of the infinite to the finite; finally, that, to attain
humanity's end and aim, each part has a right to an indefinitely
progressive development.
"All the evils which afflict the human race arise from caste. The family
is a blessing; the family caste (the nobility) is an evil. Country is
a blessing; the country caste (supreme, domineering, conquering) is an
evil; property (individual possession) is a blessing; the property
caste (the domain of property of Pothier, Toullier, Troplong, &c. ) is an
evil. "
Thus, according to M. Leroux, there is property and property,--the one
good, the other bad. Now, as it is proper to call different things by
different names, if we keep the name "property" for the former, we must
call the latter robbery, rapine, brigandage. If, on the contrary, we
reserve the name "property" for the latter, we must designate the former
by the term POSSESSION, or some other equivalent; otherwise we should be
troubled with an unpleasant synonymy.
What a blessing it would be if philosophers, daring for once to say all
that they think, would speak the language of ordinary mortals! Nations
and rulers would derive much greater profit from their lectures, and,
applying the same names to the same ideas, would come, perhaps, to
understand each other. I boldly declare that, in regard to property, I
hold no other opinion than that of M. Leroux; but, if I should adopt the
style of the philosopher, and repeat after him, "Property is a blessing,
but the property caste--the _statu quo_ of property--is an evil," I
should be extolled as a genius by all the bachelors who write for the
reviews. [70] If, on the contrary, I prefer the classic language of Rome
and the civil code, and say accordingly, "Possession is a blessing, but
property is robbery," immediately the aforesaid bachelors raise a hue
and cry against the monster, and the judge threatens me. Oh, the power
of language!
"Le National," on the other hand, has laughed at M. Leroux and his ideas
on property, charging him with TAUTOLOGY and CHILDISHNESS. "Le National"
does not wish to understand. Is it necessary to remind this journal that
it has no right to deride a dogmatic philosopher, because it is without
a doctrine itself? From its foundation, "Le National" has been a nursery
of intriguers and renegades. From time to time it takes care to warn its
readers. Instead of lamenting over all its defections, the democratic
sheet would do better to lay the blame on itself, and confess the
shallowness of its theories. When will this organ of popular interests
and the electoral reform cease to hire sceptics and spread doubt? I will
wager, without going further, that M. Leon Durocher, the critic of M.
Leroux, is an anonymous or pseudonymous editor of some bourgeois, or
even aristocratic, journal.
The economists, questioned in their turn, propose to associate capital
and labor. You know, sir, what that means. If we follow out the
doctrine, we soon find that it ends in an absorption of property, not by
the community, but by a general and indissoluble commandite, so that
the condition of the proprietor would differ from that of the workingman
only in receiving larger wages. This system, with some peculiar
additions and embellishments, is the idea of the phalanstery. But it
is clear that, if inequality of conditions is one of the attributes of
property, it is not the whole of property. That which makes property a
DELIGHTFUL THING, as some philosopher (I know not who) has said, is
the power to dispose at will, not only of one's own goods, but of their
specific nature; to use them at pleasure; to confine and enclose them;
to excommunicate mankind, as M. Pierre Leroux says; in short, to make
such use of them as passion, interest, or even caprice, may suggest.
What is the possession of money, a share in an agricultural or
industrial enterprise, or a government-bond coupon, in comparison with
the infinite charm of being master of one's house and grounds, under
one's vine and fig-tree? "_Beati possidentes_! " says an author quoted by
M. Troplong. Seriously, can that be applied to a man of income, who has
no other possession under the sun than the market, and in his pocket
his money? As well maintain that a trough is a coward. A nice method of
reform! They never cease to condemn the thirst for gold, and the
growing individualism of the century; and yet, most inconceivable
of contradictions, they prepare to turn all kinds of property into
one,--property in coin.
I must say something further of a theory of property lately put forth
with some ado: I mean the theory of M. Considerant.
The Fourierists are not men who examine a doctrine in order to ascertain
whether it conflicts with their system. On the contrary, it is their
custom to exult and sing songs of triumph whenever an adversary passes
without perceiving or noticing them.
These gentlemen want direct refutations, in order that, if they are
beaten, they may have, at least, the selfish consolation of having been
spoken of. Well, let their wish be gratified.
M. Considerant makes the most lofty pretensions to logic. His method
of procedure is always that of MAJOR, MINOR, AND CONCLUSION. He would
willingly write upon his hat, "_Argumentator in barbara_. " But M.
Considerant is too intelligent and quick-witted to be a good logician,
as is proved by the fact that he appears to have taken the syllogism for
logic.
The syllogism, as everybody knows who is interested in philosophical
curiosities, is the first and perpetual sophism of the human mind,--the
favorite tool of falsehood, the stumbling-block of science, the advocate
of crime. The syllogism has produced all the evils which the fabulist
so eloquently condemned, and has done nothing good or useful: it is
as devoid of truth as of justice. We might apply to it these words of
Scripture: "_Celui qui met en lui sa confiance, perira_. " Consequently,
the best philosophers long since condemned it; so that now none but the
enemies of reason wish to make the syllogism its weapon.
M. Considerant, then, has built his theory of property upon a syllogism.
Would he be disposed to stake the system of Fourier upon his arguments,
as I am ready to risk the whole doctrine of equality upon my refutation
of that system? Such a duel would be quite in keeping with the warlike
and chivalric tastes of M. Considerant, and the public would profit by
it; for, one of the two adversaries falling, no more would be said about
him, and there would be one grumbler less in the world.
The theory of M. Considerant has this remarkable feature, that, in
attempting to satisfy at the same time the claims of both laborers and
proprietors, it infringes alike upon the rights of the former and the
privileges of the latter. In the first place, the author lays it down as
a principle: "1. That the use of the land belongs to each member of the
race; that it is a natural and imprescriptible right, similar in all
respects to the right to the air and the sunshine. 2. That the right
to labor is equally fundamental, natural, and imprescriptible. " I have
shown that the recognition of this double right would be the death of
property. I denounce M. Considerant to the proprietors!
But M. Considerant maintains that the right to labor creates the right
of property, and this is the way he reasons:--
Major Premise. --"Every man legitimately possesses the thing which his
labor, his skill,--or, in more general terms, his action,--has created. "
To which M. Considerant adds, by way of comment: "Indeed, the land not
having been created by man, it follows from the fundamental principle
of property, that the land, being given to the race in common, can in
no wise be the exclusive and legitimate property of such and such
individuals, who were not the creators of this value. "
If I am not mistaken, there is no one to whom this proposition, at first
sight and in its entirety, does not seem utterly irrefutable. Reader,
distrust the syllogism.
First, I observe that the words LEGITIMATELY POSSESSES signify to the
author's mind is _LEGITIMATE PROPRIETOR;_ otherwise the argument, being
intended to prove the legitimacy of property, would have no meaning. I
might here raise the question of the difference between property and
possession, and call upon M. Considerant, before going further, to
define the one and the other; but I pass on.
This first proposition is doubly false. 1. In that it asserts the act
of CREATION to be the only basis of property. 2. In that it regards this
act as sufficient in all cases to authorize the right of property.
And, in the first place, if man may be proprietor of the game which he
does not create, but which he KILLS; of the fruits which he does not
create, but which he GATHERS; of the vegetables which he does not
create, but which he PLANTS; of the animals which he does not create,
but which he REARS,--it is conceivable that men may in like manner
become proprietors of the land which they do not create, but which they
clear and fertilize. The act of creation, then, is not NECESSARY to the
acquisition of the right of property. I say further, that this act alone
is not always sufficient, and I prove it by the second premise of M.
Considerant:--
Minor Premise. --"Suppose that on an isolated island, on the soil of a
nation, or over the whole face of the earth (the extent of the scene of
action does not affect our judgment of the facts), a generation of
human beings devotes itself for the first time to industry, agriculture,
manufactures, &c. This generation, by its labor, intelligence, and
activity, creates products, develops values which did not exist on the
uncultivated land. Is it not perfectly clear that the property of this
industrious generation will stand on a basis of right, if the value
or wealth produced by the activity of all be distributed among the
producers, according to each one's assistance in the creation of the
general wealth? That is unquestionable. "
That is quite questionable. For this value or wealth, PRODUCED BY THE
ACTIVITY OF ALL, is by the very fact of its creation COLLECTIVE wealth,
the use of which, like that of the land, may be divided, but which as
property remains UNDIVIDED. And why this undivided ownership? Because
the society which creates is itself indivisible,--a permanent unit,
incapable of reduction to fractions. And it is this unity of society
which makes the land common property, and which, as M. Considerant
says, renders its use imprescriptible in the case of every individual.
Suppose, indeed, that at a given time the soil should be equally
divided; the very next moment this division, if it allowed the right
of property, would become illegitimate. Should there be the slightest
irregularity in the method of transfer, men, members of society,
imprescriptible possessors of the land, might be deprived at one blow of
property, possession, and the means of production. In short, property
in capital is indivisible, and consequently inalienable, not necessarily
when the capital is UNCREATED, but when it is COMMON or COLLECTIVE.
I confirm this theory against M. Considerant, by the third term of his
syllogism:--
Conclusion. --"The results of the labor performed by this generation are
divisible into two classes, between which it is important clearly to
distinguish. The first class includes the products of the soil which
belong to this first generation in its usufructuary capacity, augmented,
improved and refined by its labor and industry. These products consist
either of objects of consumption or instruments of labor. It is clear
that these products are the legitimate property of those who have
created them by their activity. . . . Second class. --Not only has this
generation created the products just mentioned (objects of consumption
and instruments of labor), but it has also added to the original value
of the soil by cultivation, by the erection of buildings, by all
the labor producing permanent results, which it has performed. This
additional value evidently constitutes a product--a value created by
the activity of the first generation; and if, BY ANY MEANS WHATEVER,
the ownership of this value be distributed among the members of
society equitably,--that is, in proportion to the labor which each
has performed,--each will legitimately possess the portion which he
receives. He may then dispose of this legitimate and private property
as he sees fit,--exchange it, give it away, or transfer it; and no other
individual, or collection of other individuals,--that is, society,--can
lay any claim to these values. "
Thus, by the distribution of collective capital, to the use of which
each associate, either in his own right or in right of his authors,
has an imprescriptible and undivided title, there will be in the
phalanstery, as in the France of 1841, the poor and the rich; some men
who, to live in luxury, have only, as Figaro says, to take the
trouble to be born, and others for whom the fortune of life is but an
opportunity for long-continued poverty; idlers with large incomes, and
workers whose fortune is always in the future; some privileged by birth
and caste, and others pariahs whose sole civil and political rights are
THE RIGHT TO LABOR, AND THE RIGHT TO LAND. For we must not be deceived;
in the phalanstery every thing will be as it is to-day, an object of
property,--machines, inventions, thought, books, the products of art,
of agriculture, and of industry; animals, houses, fences, vineyards,
pastures, forests, fields,--every thing, in short, except the
UNCULTIVATED LAND. Now, would you like to know what uncultivated land is
worth, according to the advocates of property? "A square league hardly
suffices for the support of a savage," says M. Charles Comte. Estimating
the wretched subsistence of this savage at three hundred francs
per year, we find that the square league necessary to his life is,
relatively to him, faithfully represented by a rent of fifteen francs.
In France there are twenty-eight thousand square leagues, the total rent
of which, by this estimate, would be four hundred and twenty thousand
francs, which, when divided among nearly thirty-four millions of people,
would give each an INCOME OF A CENTIME AND A QUARTER. That is the new
right which the great genius of Fourier has invented IN BEHALF OF THE
FRENCH PEOPLE, and with which his first disciple hopes to reform the
world. I denounce M. Considerant to the proletariat!
If the theory of M. Considerant would at least really guarantee this
property which he cherishes so jealously, I might pardon him the flaws
in his syllogism, certainly the best one he ever made in his life. But,
no: that which M. Considerant takes for property is only a privilege
of extra pay. In Fourier's system, neither the created capital nor
the increased value of the soil are divided and appropriated in any
effective manner: the instruments of labor, whether created or not,
remain in the hands of the phalanx; the pretended proprietor can touch
only the income. He is permitted neither to realize his share of the
stock, nor to possess it exclusively, nor to administer it, whatever it
be. The cashier throws him his dividend; and then, proprietor, eat the
whole if you can!
The system of Fourier would not suit the proprietors, since it takes
away the most delightful feature of property,--the free disposition of
one's goods. It would please the communists no better, since it involves
unequal conditions. It is repugnant to the friends of free association
and equality, in consequence of its tendency to wipe out human character
and individuality by suppressing possession, family, and country,--the
threefold expression of the human personality.
Of all our active publicists, none seem to me more fertile in resources,
richer in imagination, more luxuriant and varied in style, than M.
Considerant. Nevertheless, I doubt if he will undertake to reestablish
his theory of property. If he has this courage, this is what I would say
to him: "Before writing your reply, consider well your plan of action;
do not scour the country; have recourse to none of your ordinary
expedients; no complaints of civilization; no sarcasms upon equality;
no glorification of the phalanstery. Leave Fourier and the departed in
peace, and endeavor only to re-adjust the pieces of your syllogism. To
this end, you ought, first, to analyze closely each proposition of your
adversary; second, to show the error, either by a direct refutation, or
by proving the converse; third, to oppose argument to argument, so that,
objection and reply meeting face to face, the stronger may break down
the weaker, and shiver it to atoms. By that method only can you boast of
having conquered, and compel me to regard you as an honest reasoner, and
a good artillery-man. "
I should have no excuse for tarrying longer with these phalansterian
crotchets, if the obligation which I have imposed upon myself of making
a clean sweep, and the necessity of vindicating my dignity as a writer,
did not prevent me from passing in silence the reproach uttered against
me by a correspondent of "La Phalange. " "We have seen but lately," says
this journalist, [71] "that M. Proudhon, enthusiast as he has been for
the science created by Fourier, is, or will be, an enthusiast for any
thing else whatsoever. "
If ever sectarians had the right to reproach another for changes in
his beliefs, this right certainly does not belong to the disciples of
Fourier, who are always so eager to administer the phalansterian baptism
to the deserters of all parties. But why regard it as a crime, if they
are sincere? Of what consequence is the constancy or inconstancy of
an individual to the truth which is always the same? It is better
to enlighten men's minds than to teach them to be obstinate in their
prejudices. Do we not know that man is frail and fickle, that his heart
is full of delusions, and that his lips are a distillery of falsehood?
_Omnis homo meudax_. Whether we will or no, we all serve for a time as
instruments of this truth, whose kingdom comes every day.
God alone is immutable, because he is eternal.
That is the reply which, as a general rule, an honest man is entitled
always to make, and which I ought perhaps to be content to offer as an
excuse; for I am no better than my fathers. But, in a century of doubt
and apostasy like ours, when it is of importance to set the small and
the weak an example of strength and honesty of utterance, I must not
suffer my character as a public assailant of property to be dishonored.
I must render an account of my old opinions.
Examining myself, therefore, upon this charge of Fourierism, and
endeavoring to refresh my memory, I find that, having been connected
with the Fourierists in my studies and my friendships, it is possible
that, without knowing it, I have been one of Fourier's partisans. Jerome
Lalande placed Napoleon and Jesus Christ in his catalogue of atheists.
The Fourierists resemble this astronomer: if a man happens to find fault
with the existing civilization, and to admit the truth of a few of their
criticisms, they straightway enlist him, willy-nilly, in their school.
Nevertheless, I do not deny that I have been a Fourierist; for,
since they say it, of course it may be so. But, sir, that of which my
ex-associates are ignorant, and which doubtless will astonish you, is
that I have been many other things,--in religion, by turns a Protestant,
a Papist, an Arian and Semi-Arian, a Manichean, a Gnostic, an
Adamite even and a Pre-Adamite, a Sceptic, a Pelagian, a Socinian, an
Anti-Trinitarian, and a Neo-Christian; [72] in philosophy and politics,
an Idealist, a Pantheist, a Platonist, a Cartesian, an Eclectic
(that is, a sort of _juste-milieu_), a Monarchist, an Aristocrat,
a Constitutionalist, a follower of Babeuf, and a Communist. I have
wandered through a whole encyclopaedia of systems. Do you think
it surprising, sir, that, among them all, I was for a short time a
Fourierist?
For my part, I am not at all surprised, although at present I have
no recollection of it. One thing is sure,--that my superstition and
credulity reached their height at the very period of my life which my
critics reproachfully assign as the date of my Fourieristic beliefs.
Now I hold quite other views. My mind no longer admits that which is
demonstrated by syllogisms, analogies, or metaphors, which are the
methods of the phalanstery, but demands a process of generalization and
induction which excludes error. Of my past OPINIONSS I retain absolutely
none. I have acquired some KNOWLEDGE. I no longer BELIEVE. I either
KNOW, or am IGNORANT. In a word, in seeking for the reason of things, I
saw that I was a RATIONALIST.
Undoubtedly, it would have been simpler to begin where I have ended.
think it leaves every thing undone.
Finally, M. Wolowski opposes, on the one hand, the concentration of
capital, and the absorption which results therefrom; and, on the other,
he objects to the extreme division of the land. Now I think that I have
demonstrated in my First Memoir, that large accumulation and minute
division are the first two terms of an economical trinity,--a THESIS and
an ANTITHESIS. But, while M. Wolowski says nothing of the third term,
the SYNTHESIS, and thus leaves the inference in suspense, I have shown
that this third term is ASSOCIATION, which is the annihilation of
property.
November 30. --LITERARY PROPERTY. M. Wolowski grants that it is just to
recognize the rights of talent (which is not in the least hostile to
equality); but he seriously objects to perpetual and absolute property
in the works of genius, to the profit of the authors' heirs. His main
argument is, that society has a right of collective production over
every creation of the mind. Now, it is precisely this principle of
collective power that I developed in my "Inquiries into Property and
Government," and on which I have established the complete edifice of
a new social organization. M. Wolowski is, as far as I know, the first
jurist who has made a legislative application of this economical law.
Only, while I have extended the principle of collective power to every
sort of product, M. Wolowski, more prudent than it is my nature to be,
confines it to neutral ground. So, that that which I am bold enough
to say of the whole, he is contented to affirm of a part, leaving
the intelligent hearer to fill up the void for himself. However, his
arguments are keen and close. One feels that the professor, finding
himself more at ease with one aspect of property, has given the rein to
his intellect, and is rushing on towards liberty.
1. Absolute literary property would hinder the activity of other men,
and obstruct the development of humanity. It would be the death of
progress; it would be suicide. What would have happened if the
first inventions,--the plough, the level, the saw, &c. ,--had been
appropriated?
Such is the first proposition of M. Wolowski.
I reply: Absolute property in land and tools hinders human activity, and
obstructs progress and the free development of man.
What happened in Rome, and in all the ancient nations? What occurred
in the middle ages? What do we see to-day in England, in consequence of
absolute property in the sources of production?
The suicide of humanity.
2. Real and personal property is in harmony with the social interest.
In consequence of literary property, social and individual interests are
perpetually in conflict.
The statement of this proposition contains a rhetorical figure, common
with those who do not enjoy full and complete liberty of speech. This
figure is the _anti-phrasis_ or _contre-verite_. It consists, according
to Dumarsais and the best humanists, in saying one thing while meaning
another. M. Wolowski's proposition, naturally expressed, would read as
follows: "Just as real and personal property is essentially hostile to
society, so, in consequence of literary property, social and individual
interests are perpetually in conflict. "
3. M. de Montalembert, in the Chamber of Peers, vehemently protested
against the assimilation of authors to inventors of machinery; an
assimilation which he claimed to be injurious to the former. M. Wolowski
replies, that the rights of authors, without machinery, would be nil;
that, without paper-mills, type foundries, and printing-offices,
there could be no sale of verse and prose; that many a mechanical
invention,--the compass, for instance, the telescope, or the
steam-engine,--is quite as valuable as a book.
Prior to M. Montalembert, M. Charles Comte had laughed at the inference
in favor of mechanical inventions, which logical minds never fail to
draw from the privileges granted to authors. "He," says M. Comte, "who
first conceived and executed the idea of transforming a piece of wood
into a pair of sabots, or an animal's hide into a pair of sandals, would
thereby have acquired an exclusive right to make shoes for the human
race! " Undoubtedly, under the system of property. For, in fact, this
pair of sabots, over which you make so merry, is the creation of the
shoemaker, the work of his genius, the expression of his thought; to him
it is his poem, quite as much as "Le Roi s'amuse," is M. Victor Hugo's
drama. Justice for all alike. If you refuse a patent to a perfecter of
boots, refuse also a privilege to a maker of rhymes.
4. That which gives importance to a book is a fact external to the
author and his work. Without the intelligence of society, without its
development, and a certain community of ideas, passions, and interests
between it and the authors, the works of the latter would be worth
nothing. The exchangeable value of a book is due even more to the SOCIAL
CONDITION than to the talent displayed in it.
Indeed, it seems as if I were copying my own words. This proposition
of M. Wolowski contains a special expression of a general and absolute
idea, one of the strongest and most conclusive against the right of
property. Why do artists, like mechanics, find the means to live?
Because society has made the fine arts, like the rudest industries,
objects of consumption and exchange, governed consequently by all the
laws of commerce and political economy. Now, the first of these laws is
the equipoise of functions; that is, the equality of associates.
5. M. Wolowski indulges in sarcasm against the petitioners for literary
property. "There are authors," he says, "who crave the privileges of
authors, and who for that purpose point out the power of the melodrama.
They speak of the niece of Corneille, begging at the door of a theatre
which the works of her uncle had enriched. . . . To satisfy the avarice of
literary people, it would be necessary to create literary majorats, and
make a whole code of exceptions. "
I like this virtuous irony. But M. Wolowski has by no means exhausted
the difficulties which the question involves. And first, is it just that
MM. Cousin, Guizot, Villemain, Damiron, and company, paid by the State
for delivering lectures, should be paid a second time through the
booksellers? --that I, who have the right to report their lectures,
should not have the right to print them? Is it just that MM. Noel and
Chapsal, overseers of the University, should use their influence in
selling their selections from literature to the youth whose studies they
are instructed to superintend in consideration of a salary? And, if
that is not just, is it not proper to refuse literary property to every
author holding public offices, and receiving pensions or sinecures?
Again, shall the privilege of the author extend to irreligious and
immoral works, calculated only to corrupt the heart, and obscure the
understanding? To grant this privilege is to sanction immorality by law;
to refuse it is to censure the author. And since it is impossible, in
the present imperfect state of society, to prevent all violations of the
moral law, it will be necessary to open a license-office for books as
well as morals. But, then, three-fourths of our literary people will
be obliged to register; and, recognized thenceforth on their own
declaration as PROSTITUTES, they will necessarily belong to the public.
We pay toll to the prostitute; we do not endow her.
Finally, shall plagiarism be classed with forgery? If you reply "Yes,"
you appropriate in advance all the subjects of which books treat; if
you say "No," you leave the whole matter to the decision of the judge.
Except in the case of a clandestine reprint, how will he distinguish
forgery from quotation, imitation, plagiarism, or even coincidence? A
savant spends two years in calculating a table of logarithms to nine
or ten decimals. He prints it. A fortnight after his book is selling
at half-price; it is impossible to tell whether this result is due to
forgery or competition. What shall the court do? In case of doubt, shall
it award the property to the first occupant? As well decide the question
by lot.
These, however, are trifling considerations; but do we see that, in
granting a perpetual privilege to authors and their heirs, we really
strike a fatal blow at their interests? We think to make booksellers
dependent upon authors,--a delusion. The booksellers will unite against
works, and their proprietors. Against works, by refusing to push their
sale, by replacing them with poor imitations, by reproducing them in
a hundred indirect ways; and no one knows how far the science of
plagiarism, and skilful imitation may be carried. Against proprietors.
Are we ignorant of the fact, that a demand for a dozen copies enables a
bookseller to sell a thousand; that with an edition of five hundred he
can supply a kingdom for thirty years? What will the poor authors do in
the presence of this omnipotent union of booksellers? I will tell them
what they will do. They will enter the employ of those whom they now
treat as pirates; and, to secure an advantage, they will become wage
laborers. A fit reward for ignoble avarice, and insatiable pride. [69]
Contradictions of contradictions! "Genius is the great leveller of the
world," cries M. de Lamartine; "then genius should be a proprietor.
Literary property is the fortune of democracy. " This unfortunate
poet thinks himself profound when he is only puffed up. His eloquence
consists solely in coupling ideas which clash with each other: ROUND
SQUARE, DARK SUN, FALLEN ANGEL, PRIEST and LOVE, THOUGHT and POETRY,
GUNIUS {? ? ? }, and FORTUNE, LEVELING and PROPERTY. Let us tell him, in
reply, that his mind is a dark luminary; that each of his discourses is
a disordered harmony; and that all his successes, whether in verse or
prose, are due to the use of the extraordinary in the treatment of the
most ordinary subjects.
"Le National," in reply to the report of M. Lamartine, endeavors to
prove that literary property is of quite a different nature from landed
property; as if the nature of the right of property depended on the
object to which it is applied, and not on the mode of its exercise and
the condition of its existence. But the main object of "Le National"
is to please a class of proprietors whom an extension of the right of
property vexes: that is why "Le National" opposes literary property.
Will it tell us, once for all, whether it is for equality or against it?
6. OBJECTION. --Property in occupied land passes to the heirs of the
occupant. "Why," say the authors, "should not the work of genius pass
in like manner to the heirs of the man of genius? " M. Wolowski's reply:
"Because the labor of the first occupant is continued by his heirs,
while the heirs of an author neither change nor add to his works. In
landed property, the continuance of labor explains the continuance of
the right. "
Yes, when the labor is continued; but if the labor is not continued,
the right ceases. Thus is the right of possession, founded on personal
labor, recognized by M. Wolowski.
M. Wolowski decides in favor of granting to authors property in their
works for a certain number of years, dating from the day of their first
publication.
The succeeding lectures on patents on inventions were no less
instructive, although intermingled with shocking contradictions inserted
with a view to make the useful truths more palatable. The necessity
for brevity compels me to terminate this examination here, not without
regret.
Thus, of two eclectic jurists, who attempt a defence of property, one
is entangled in a set of dogmas without principle or method, and is
constantly talking nonsense; and the other designedly abandons the
cause of property, in order to present under the same name the theory
of individual possession. Was I wrong in claiming that confusion reigned
among legists, and ought I to be legally prosecuted for having said
that their science henceforth stood convicted of falsehood, its glory
eclipsed?
The ordinary resources of the law no longer sufficing, philosophy,
political economy, and the framers of systems have been consulted. All
the oracles appealed to have been discouraging.
The philosophers are no clearer to-day than at the time of the eclectic
efflorescence; nevertheless, through their mystical apothegms, we
can distinguish the words PROGRESS, UNITY, ASSOCIATION, SOLIDARITY,
FRATERNITY, which are certainly not reassuring to proprietors. One of
these philosophers, M. Pierre Leroux, has written two large books, in
which he claims to show by all religious, legislative, and philosophical
systems that, since men are responsible to each other, equality of
conditions is the final law of society. It is true that this philosopher
admits a kind of property; but as he leaves us to imagine what property
would become in presence of equality, we may boldly class him with the
opponents of the right of increase.
I must here declare freely--in order that I may not be suspected of
secret connivance, which is foreign to my nature--that M. Leroux has
my full sympathy. Not that I am a believer in his quasi-Pythagorean
philosophy (upon this subject I should have more than one observation to
submit to him, provided a veteran covered with stripes would not despise
the remarks of a conscript); not that I feel bound to this author by any
special consideration for his opposition to property. In my opinion, M.
Leroux could, and even ought to, state his position more explicitly and
logically. But I like, I admire, in M. Leroux, the antagonist of our
philosophical demigods, the demolisher of usurped reputations, the
pitiless critic of every thing that is respected because of its
antiquity. Such is the reason for my high esteem of M. Leroux; such
would be the principle of the only literary association which, in this
century of coteries, I should care to form. We need men who, like
M. Leroux, call in question social principles,--not to diffuse doubt
concerning them, but to make them doubly sure; men who excite the mind
by bold negations, and make the conscience tremble by doctrines of
annihilation. Where is the man who does not shudder on hearing M. Leroux
exclaim, "There is neither a paradise nor a hell; the wicked will not
be punished, nor the good rewarded. Mortals! cease to hope and fear; you
revolve in a circle of appearances; humanity is an immortal tree, whose
branches, withering one after another, feed with their debris the root
which is always young! " Where is the man who, on hearing this desolate
confession of faith, does not demand with terror, "Is it then true that
I am only an aggregate of elements organized by an unknown force, an
idea realized for a few moments, a form which passes and disappears? Is
it true that my mind is only a harmony, and my soul a vortex? What is
the ego? what is God? what is the sanction of society? "
In former times, M. Leroux would have been regarded as a great culprit,
worthy only (like Vanini) of death and universal execration. To-day, M.
Leroux is fulfilling a mission of salvation, for which, whatever he
may say, he will be rewarded. Like those gloomy invalids who are always
talking of their approaching death, and who faint when the doctor's
opinion confirms their pretence, our materialistic society is agitated
and loses countenance while listening to this startling decree of the
philosopher, "Thou shalt die! " Honor then to M. Leroux, who has revealed
to us the cowardice of the Epicureans; to M. Leroux, who renders new
philosophical solutions necessary! Honor to the anti-eclectic, to the
apostle of equality!
In his work on "Humanity," M. Leroux commences by positing the necessity
of property: "You wish to abolish property; but do you not see that
thereby you would annihilate man and even the name of man? . . . You wish
to abolish property; but could you live without a body? I will not tell
you that it is necessary to support this body;. . . I will tell you that
this body is itself a species of property. "
In order clearly to understand the doctrine of M. Leroux, it must be
borne in mind that there are three necessary and primitive forms of
society,--communism, property, and that which to-day we properly call
association. M. Leroux rejects in the first place communism, and combats
it with all his might. Man is a personal and free being, and therefore
needs a sphere of independence and individual activity. M. Leroux
emphasizes this in adding: "You wish neither family, nor country, nor
property; therefore no more fathers, no more sons, no more brothers.
Here you are, related to no being in time, and therefore without a name;
here you are, alone in the midst of a billion of men who to-day inhabit
the earth. How do you expect me to distinguish you in space in the midst
of this multitude? "
If man is indistinguishable, he is nothing. Now, he can be
distinguished, individualized, only through a devotion of certain things
to his use,--such as his body, his faculties, and the tools which he
uses. "Hence," says M. Leroux, "the necessity of appropriation;" in
short, property.
But property on what condition? Here M. Leroux, after having condemned
communism, denounces in its turn the right of domain. His whole doctrine
can be summed up in this single proposition,--_Man may be made by
property a slave or a despot by turns_.
That posited, if we ask M. Leroux to tell us under what system of
property man will be neither a slave nor a despot, but free, just, and
a citizen, M.
Leroux replies in the third volume of his work on
"Humanity:"--
"There are three ways of destroying man's communion with his fellows and
with the universe:. . . 1. By separating man in time; 2. by separating him
in space; 3. by dividing the land, or, in general terms, the instruments
of production; by attaching men to things, by subordinating man to
property, by making man a proprietor. "
This language, it must be confessed, savors a little too strongly of the
metaphysical heights which the author frequents, and of the school of
M. Cousin. Nevertheless, it can be seen, clearly enough it seems to me,
that M. Leroux opposes the exclusive appropriation of the instruments of
production; only he calls this non-appropriation of the instruments of
production a NEW METHOD of establishing property, while I, in accordance
with all precedent, call it a destruction of property. In fact, without
the appropriation of instruments, property is nothing.
"Hitherto, we have confined ourselves to pointing out and combating the
despotic features of property, by considering property alone. We have
failed to see that the despotism of property is a correlative of the
division of the human race;. . . that property, instead of being organized
in such a way as to facilitate the unlimited communion of man with his
fellows and with the universe, has been, on the contrary, turned against
this communion. "
Let us translate this into commercial phraseology. In order to destroy
despotism and the inequality of conditions, men must cease from
competition and must associate their interests. Let employer and
employed (now enemies and rivals) become associates.
Now, ask any manufacturer, merchant, or capitalist, whether he would
consider himself a proprietor if he were to share his revenue and
profits with this mass of wage-laborers whom it is proposed to make his
associates.
"Family, property, and country are finite things, which ought to be
organized with a view to the infinite. For man is a finite being,
who aspires to the infinite. To him, absolute finiteness is evil. The
infinite is his aim, the indefinite his right. "
Few of my readers would understand these hierophantic words, were I to
leave them unexplained. M. Leroux means, by this magnificent formula,
that humanity is a single immense society, which, in its collective
unity, represents the infinite; that every nation, every tribe, every
commune, and every citizen are, in different degrees, fragments or
finite members of the infinite society, the evil in which results
solely from individualism and privilege,--in other words, from the
subordination of the infinite to the finite; finally, that, to attain
humanity's end and aim, each part has a right to an indefinitely
progressive development.
"All the evils which afflict the human race arise from caste. The family
is a blessing; the family caste (the nobility) is an evil. Country is
a blessing; the country caste (supreme, domineering, conquering) is an
evil; property (individual possession) is a blessing; the property
caste (the domain of property of Pothier, Toullier, Troplong, &c. ) is an
evil. "
Thus, according to M. Leroux, there is property and property,--the one
good, the other bad. Now, as it is proper to call different things by
different names, if we keep the name "property" for the former, we must
call the latter robbery, rapine, brigandage. If, on the contrary, we
reserve the name "property" for the latter, we must designate the former
by the term POSSESSION, or some other equivalent; otherwise we should be
troubled with an unpleasant synonymy.
What a blessing it would be if philosophers, daring for once to say all
that they think, would speak the language of ordinary mortals! Nations
and rulers would derive much greater profit from their lectures, and,
applying the same names to the same ideas, would come, perhaps, to
understand each other. I boldly declare that, in regard to property, I
hold no other opinion than that of M. Leroux; but, if I should adopt the
style of the philosopher, and repeat after him, "Property is a blessing,
but the property caste--the _statu quo_ of property--is an evil," I
should be extolled as a genius by all the bachelors who write for the
reviews. [70] If, on the contrary, I prefer the classic language of Rome
and the civil code, and say accordingly, "Possession is a blessing, but
property is robbery," immediately the aforesaid bachelors raise a hue
and cry against the monster, and the judge threatens me. Oh, the power
of language!
"Le National," on the other hand, has laughed at M. Leroux and his ideas
on property, charging him with TAUTOLOGY and CHILDISHNESS. "Le National"
does not wish to understand. Is it necessary to remind this journal that
it has no right to deride a dogmatic philosopher, because it is without
a doctrine itself? From its foundation, "Le National" has been a nursery
of intriguers and renegades. From time to time it takes care to warn its
readers. Instead of lamenting over all its defections, the democratic
sheet would do better to lay the blame on itself, and confess the
shallowness of its theories. When will this organ of popular interests
and the electoral reform cease to hire sceptics and spread doubt? I will
wager, without going further, that M. Leon Durocher, the critic of M.
Leroux, is an anonymous or pseudonymous editor of some bourgeois, or
even aristocratic, journal.
The economists, questioned in their turn, propose to associate capital
and labor. You know, sir, what that means. If we follow out the
doctrine, we soon find that it ends in an absorption of property, not by
the community, but by a general and indissoluble commandite, so that
the condition of the proprietor would differ from that of the workingman
only in receiving larger wages. This system, with some peculiar
additions and embellishments, is the idea of the phalanstery. But it
is clear that, if inequality of conditions is one of the attributes of
property, it is not the whole of property. That which makes property a
DELIGHTFUL THING, as some philosopher (I know not who) has said, is
the power to dispose at will, not only of one's own goods, but of their
specific nature; to use them at pleasure; to confine and enclose them;
to excommunicate mankind, as M. Pierre Leroux says; in short, to make
such use of them as passion, interest, or even caprice, may suggest.
What is the possession of money, a share in an agricultural or
industrial enterprise, or a government-bond coupon, in comparison with
the infinite charm of being master of one's house and grounds, under
one's vine and fig-tree? "_Beati possidentes_! " says an author quoted by
M. Troplong. Seriously, can that be applied to a man of income, who has
no other possession under the sun than the market, and in his pocket
his money? As well maintain that a trough is a coward. A nice method of
reform! They never cease to condemn the thirst for gold, and the
growing individualism of the century; and yet, most inconceivable
of contradictions, they prepare to turn all kinds of property into
one,--property in coin.
I must say something further of a theory of property lately put forth
with some ado: I mean the theory of M. Considerant.
The Fourierists are not men who examine a doctrine in order to ascertain
whether it conflicts with their system. On the contrary, it is their
custom to exult and sing songs of triumph whenever an adversary passes
without perceiving or noticing them.
These gentlemen want direct refutations, in order that, if they are
beaten, they may have, at least, the selfish consolation of having been
spoken of. Well, let their wish be gratified.
M. Considerant makes the most lofty pretensions to logic. His method
of procedure is always that of MAJOR, MINOR, AND CONCLUSION. He would
willingly write upon his hat, "_Argumentator in barbara_. " But M.
Considerant is too intelligent and quick-witted to be a good logician,
as is proved by the fact that he appears to have taken the syllogism for
logic.
The syllogism, as everybody knows who is interested in philosophical
curiosities, is the first and perpetual sophism of the human mind,--the
favorite tool of falsehood, the stumbling-block of science, the advocate
of crime. The syllogism has produced all the evils which the fabulist
so eloquently condemned, and has done nothing good or useful: it is
as devoid of truth as of justice. We might apply to it these words of
Scripture: "_Celui qui met en lui sa confiance, perira_. " Consequently,
the best philosophers long since condemned it; so that now none but the
enemies of reason wish to make the syllogism its weapon.
M. Considerant, then, has built his theory of property upon a syllogism.
Would he be disposed to stake the system of Fourier upon his arguments,
as I am ready to risk the whole doctrine of equality upon my refutation
of that system? Such a duel would be quite in keeping with the warlike
and chivalric tastes of M. Considerant, and the public would profit by
it; for, one of the two adversaries falling, no more would be said about
him, and there would be one grumbler less in the world.
The theory of M. Considerant has this remarkable feature, that, in
attempting to satisfy at the same time the claims of both laborers and
proprietors, it infringes alike upon the rights of the former and the
privileges of the latter. In the first place, the author lays it down as
a principle: "1. That the use of the land belongs to each member of the
race; that it is a natural and imprescriptible right, similar in all
respects to the right to the air and the sunshine. 2. That the right
to labor is equally fundamental, natural, and imprescriptible. " I have
shown that the recognition of this double right would be the death of
property. I denounce M. Considerant to the proprietors!
But M. Considerant maintains that the right to labor creates the right
of property, and this is the way he reasons:--
Major Premise. --"Every man legitimately possesses the thing which his
labor, his skill,--or, in more general terms, his action,--has created. "
To which M. Considerant adds, by way of comment: "Indeed, the land not
having been created by man, it follows from the fundamental principle
of property, that the land, being given to the race in common, can in
no wise be the exclusive and legitimate property of such and such
individuals, who were not the creators of this value. "
If I am not mistaken, there is no one to whom this proposition, at first
sight and in its entirety, does not seem utterly irrefutable. Reader,
distrust the syllogism.
First, I observe that the words LEGITIMATELY POSSESSES signify to the
author's mind is _LEGITIMATE PROPRIETOR;_ otherwise the argument, being
intended to prove the legitimacy of property, would have no meaning. I
might here raise the question of the difference between property and
possession, and call upon M. Considerant, before going further, to
define the one and the other; but I pass on.
This first proposition is doubly false. 1. In that it asserts the act
of CREATION to be the only basis of property. 2. In that it regards this
act as sufficient in all cases to authorize the right of property.
And, in the first place, if man may be proprietor of the game which he
does not create, but which he KILLS; of the fruits which he does not
create, but which he GATHERS; of the vegetables which he does not
create, but which he PLANTS; of the animals which he does not create,
but which he REARS,--it is conceivable that men may in like manner
become proprietors of the land which they do not create, but which they
clear and fertilize. The act of creation, then, is not NECESSARY to the
acquisition of the right of property. I say further, that this act alone
is not always sufficient, and I prove it by the second premise of M.
Considerant:--
Minor Premise. --"Suppose that on an isolated island, on the soil of a
nation, or over the whole face of the earth (the extent of the scene of
action does not affect our judgment of the facts), a generation of
human beings devotes itself for the first time to industry, agriculture,
manufactures, &c. This generation, by its labor, intelligence, and
activity, creates products, develops values which did not exist on the
uncultivated land. Is it not perfectly clear that the property of this
industrious generation will stand on a basis of right, if the value
or wealth produced by the activity of all be distributed among the
producers, according to each one's assistance in the creation of the
general wealth? That is unquestionable. "
That is quite questionable. For this value or wealth, PRODUCED BY THE
ACTIVITY OF ALL, is by the very fact of its creation COLLECTIVE wealth,
the use of which, like that of the land, may be divided, but which as
property remains UNDIVIDED. And why this undivided ownership? Because
the society which creates is itself indivisible,--a permanent unit,
incapable of reduction to fractions. And it is this unity of society
which makes the land common property, and which, as M. Considerant
says, renders its use imprescriptible in the case of every individual.
Suppose, indeed, that at a given time the soil should be equally
divided; the very next moment this division, if it allowed the right
of property, would become illegitimate. Should there be the slightest
irregularity in the method of transfer, men, members of society,
imprescriptible possessors of the land, might be deprived at one blow of
property, possession, and the means of production. In short, property
in capital is indivisible, and consequently inalienable, not necessarily
when the capital is UNCREATED, but when it is COMMON or COLLECTIVE.
I confirm this theory against M. Considerant, by the third term of his
syllogism:--
Conclusion. --"The results of the labor performed by this generation are
divisible into two classes, between which it is important clearly to
distinguish. The first class includes the products of the soil which
belong to this first generation in its usufructuary capacity, augmented,
improved and refined by its labor and industry. These products consist
either of objects of consumption or instruments of labor. It is clear
that these products are the legitimate property of those who have
created them by their activity. . . . Second class. --Not only has this
generation created the products just mentioned (objects of consumption
and instruments of labor), but it has also added to the original value
of the soil by cultivation, by the erection of buildings, by all
the labor producing permanent results, which it has performed. This
additional value evidently constitutes a product--a value created by
the activity of the first generation; and if, BY ANY MEANS WHATEVER,
the ownership of this value be distributed among the members of
society equitably,--that is, in proportion to the labor which each
has performed,--each will legitimately possess the portion which he
receives. He may then dispose of this legitimate and private property
as he sees fit,--exchange it, give it away, or transfer it; and no other
individual, or collection of other individuals,--that is, society,--can
lay any claim to these values. "
Thus, by the distribution of collective capital, to the use of which
each associate, either in his own right or in right of his authors,
has an imprescriptible and undivided title, there will be in the
phalanstery, as in the France of 1841, the poor and the rich; some men
who, to live in luxury, have only, as Figaro says, to take the
trouble to be born, and others for whom the fortune of life is but an
opportunity for long-continued poverty; idlers with large incomes, and
workers whose fortune is always in the future; some privileged by birth
and caste, and others pariahs whose sole civil and political rights are
THE RIGHT TO LABOR, AND THE RIGHT TO LAND. For we must not be deceived;
in the phalanstery every thing will be as it is to-day, an object of
property,--machines, inventions, thought, books, the products of art,
of agriculture, and of industry; animals, houses, fences, vineyards,
pastures, forests, fields,--every thing, in short, except the
UNCULTIVATED LAND. Now, would you like to know what uncultivated land is
worth, according to the advocates of property? "A square league hardly
suffices for the support of a savage," says M. Charles Comte. Estimating
the wretched subsistence of this savage at three hundred francs
per year, we find that the square league necessary to his life is,
relatively to him, faithfully represented by a rent of fifteen francs.
In France there are twenty-eight thousand square leagues, the total rent
of which, by this estimate, would be four hundred and twenty thousand
francs, which, when divided among nearly thirty-four millions of people,
would give each an INCOME OF A CENTIME AND A QUARTER. That is the new
right which the great genius of Fourier has invented IN BEHALF OF THE
FRENCH PEOPLE, and with which his first disciple hopes to reform the
world. I denounce M. Considerant to the proletariat!
If the theory of M. Considerant would at least really guarantee this
property which he cherishes so jealously, I might pardon him the flaws
in his syllogism, certainly the best one he ever made in his life. But,
no: that which M. Considerant takes for property is only a privilege
of extra pay. In Fourier's system, neither the created capital nor
the increased value of the soil are divided and appropriated in any
effective manner: the instruments of labor, whether created or not,
remain in the hands of the phalanx; the pretended proprietor can touch
only the income. He is permitted neither to realize his share of the
stock, nor to possess it exclusively, nor to administer it, whatever it
be. The cashier throws him his dividend; and then, proprietor, eat the
whole if you can!
The system of Fourier would not suit the proprietors, since it takes
away the most delightful feature of property,--the free disposition of
one's goods. It would please the communists no better, since it involves
unequal conditions. It is repugnant to the friends of free association
and equality, in consequence of its tendency to wipe out human character
and individuality by suppressing possession, family, and country,--the
threefold expression of the human personality.
Of all our active publicists, none seem to me more fertile in resources,
richer in imagination, more luxuriant and varied in style, than M.
Considerant. Nevertheless, I doubt if he will undertake to reestablish
his theory of property. If he has this courage, this is what I would say
to him: "Before writing your reply, consider well your plan of action;
do not scour the country; have recourse to none of your ordinary
expedients; no complaints of civilization; no sarcasms upon equality;
no glorification of the phalanstery. Leave Fourier and the departed in
peace, and endeavor only to re-adjust the pieces of your syllogism. To
this end, you ought, first, to analyze closely each proposition of your
adversary; second, to show the error, either by a direct refutation, or
by proving the converse; third, to oppose argument to argument, so that,
objection and reply meeting face to face, the stronger may break down
the weaker, and shiver it to atoms. By that method only can you boast of
having conquered, and compel me to regard you as an honest reasoner, and
a good artillery-man. "
I should have no excuse for tarrying longer with these phalansterian
crotchets, if the obligation which I have imposed upon myself of making
a clean sweep, and the necessity of vindicating my dignity as a writer,
did not prevent me from passing in silence the reproach uttered against
me by a correspondent of "La Phalange. " "We have seen but lately," says
this journalist, [71] "that M. Proudhon, enthusiast as he has been for
the science created by Fourier, is, or will be, an enthusiast for any
thing else whatsoever. "
If ever sectarians had the right to reproach another for changes in
his beliefs, this right certainly does not belong to the disciples of
Fourier, who are always so eager to administer the phalansterian baptism
to the deserters of all parties. But why regard it as a crime, if they
are sincere? Of what consequence is the constancy or inconstancy of
an individual to the truth which is always the same? It is better
to enlighten men's minds than to teach them to be obstinate in their
prejudices. Do we not know that man is frail and fickle, that his heart
is full of delusions, and that his lips are a distillery of falsehood?
_Omnis homo meudax_. Whether we will or no, we all serve for a time as
instruments of this truth, whose kingdom comes every day.
God alone is immutable, because he is eternal.
That is the reply which, as a general rule, an honest man is entitled
always to make, and which I ought perhaps to be content to offer as an
excuse; for I am no better than my fathers. But, in a century of doubt
and apostasy like ours, when it is of importance to set the small and
the weak an example of strength and honesty of utterance, I must not
suffer my character as a public assailant of property to be dishonored.
I must render an account of my old opinions.
Examining myself, therefore, upon this charge of Fourierism, and
endeavoring to refresh my memory, I find that, having been connected
with the Fourierists in my studies and my friendships, it is possible
that, without knowing it, I have been one of Fourier's partisans. Jerome
Lalande placed Napoleon and Jesus Christ in his catalogue of atheists.
The Fourierists resemble this astronomer: if a man happens to find fault
with the existing civilization, and to admit the truth of a few of their
criticisms, they straightway enlist him, willy-nilly, in their school.
Nevertheless, I do not deny that I have been a Fourierist; for,
since they say it, of course it may be so. But, sir, that of which my
ex-associates are ignorant, and which doubtless will astonish you, is
that I have been many other things,--in religion, by turns a Protestant,
a Papist, an Arian and Semi-Arian, a Manichean, a Gnostic, an
Adamite even and a Pre-Adamite, a Sceptic, a Pelagian, a Socinian, an
Anti-Trinitarian, and a Neo-Christian; [72] in philosophy and politics,
an Idealist, a Pantheist, a Platonist, a Cartesian, an Eclectic
(that is, a sort of _juste-milieu_), a Monarchist, an Aristocrat,
a Constitutionalist, a follower of Babeuf, and a Communist. I have
wandered through a whole encyclopaedia of systems. Do you think
it surprising, sir, that, among them all, I was for a short time a
Fourierist?
For my part, I am not at all surprised, although at present I have
no recollection of it. One thing is sure,--that my superstition and
credulity reached their height at the very period of my life which my
critics reproachfully assign as the date of my Fourieristic beliefs.
Now I hold quite other views. My mind no longer admits that which is
demonstrated by syllogisms, analogies, or metaphors, which are the
methods of the phalanstery, but demands a process of generalization and
induction which excludes error. Of my past OPINIONSS I retain absolutely
none. I have acquired some KNOWLEDGE. I no longer BELIEVE. I either
KNOW, or am IGNORANT. In a word, in seeking for the reason of things, I
saw that I was a RATIONALIST.
Undoubtedly, it would have been simpler to begin where I have ended.
