No More Learning

3 . 6 . 9 . 12 . 15.


An acquaintance with this sort of LOGARITHMS--tables of which,
calculated to a very high degree, are possessed by proprietors--will
give us the key to the most puzzling problems, and cause us to
experience a series of surprises.

By this LOGARITHMIC theory of the right of increase, a piece of
property, together with its income, may be defined as A NUMBER WHOSE
LOGARITHM IS EQUAL TO THE SUM OF ITS UNITS DIVIDED BY ONE HUNDRED, AND
MULTIPLIED BY THE RATE OF INTEREST. For instance; a house valued at one
hundred thousand francs, and leased at five per cent. , yields a revenue
of five thousand francs, according to the formula 100,000 x 5 / 100 =
five thousand. Vice versa, a piece of land which yields, at two and a
half per cent. , a revenue of three thousand francs is worth one hundred
and twenty thousand francs, according to this other formula;
3,000 x 100/ 2 1/2 = one hundred and twenty thousand.

In the first case, the ratio of the progression which marks the increase
of interest is five; in the second, it is two and a half.

OBSERVATION. --The forms of increase known as farm-rent, income, and
interest are paid annually; rent is paid by the week, the month, or
the year; profits and gains are paid at the time of exchange. Thus, the
amount of increase is proportional both to the thing increased, and
the time during which it increases; in other words, usury grows like a
cancer--_foenus serpit sicut cancer_.

2. THE INCREASE PAID TO THE PROPRIETOR BY THE OCCUPANT IS A DEAD LOSS
TO THE LATTER. For if the proprietor owed, in exchange for the increase
which he receives, some thing more than the permission which he grants,
his right of property would not be perfect--he would not possess
_jure optimo, jure perfecto;_ that is, he would not be in reality a
proprietor. Then, all which passes from the hands of the occupant into
those of the proprietor in the name of increase, and as the price of
the permission to occupy, is a permanent gain for the latter, and a dead
loss and annihilation for the former; to whom none of it will return,
save in the forms of gift, alms, wages paid for his services, or
the price of merchandise which he has delivered. In a word, increase
perishes so far as the borrower is concerned; or to use the more
energetic Latin phrase,--_res perit solventi_.

3. THE RIGHT OF INCREASE OPPRESSES THE PROPRIETOR AS WELL AS THE
STRANGER. The master of a thing, as its proprietor, levies a tax for the
use of his property upon himself as its possessor, equal to that which
he would receive from a third party; so that capital bears interest in
the hands of the capitalist, as well as in those of the borrower and the
commandite. If, indeed, rather than accept a rent of five hundred francs
for my apartment, I prefer to occupy and enjoy it, it is clear that I
shall become my own debtor for a rent equal to that which I deny myself.
This principle is universally practised in business, and is regarded as
an axiom by the economists. Manufacturers, also, who have the advantage
of being proprietors of their floating capital, although they owe no
interest to any one, in calculating their profits subtract from them,
not only their running expenses and the wages of their employees, but
also the interest on their capital. For the same reason, money-lenders
retain in their own possession as little money as possible; for, since
all capital necessarily bears interest, if this interest is supplied by
no one, it comes out of the capital, which is to that extent diminished.
Thus, by the right of increase, capital eats itself up. This is,
doubtless, the idea that Papinius intended to convey in the phrase, as
elegant as it is forcible--_Foenus mordet solidam_. I beg pardon for
using Latin so frequently in discussing this subject; it is an homage
which I pay to the most usurious nation that ever existed.



FIRST PROPOSITION.

Property is impossible, because it demands Something for Nothing.


The discussion of this proposition covers the same ground as that of the
origin of farm-rent, which is so much debated by the economists. When
I read the writings of the greater part of these men, I cannot avoid
a feeling of contempt mingled with anger, in view of this mass of
nonsense, in which the detestable vies with the absurd. It would be a
repetition of the story of the elephant in the moon, were it not for the
atrocity of the consequences. To seek a rational and legitimate origin
of that which is, and ever must be, only robbery, extortion, and
plunder--that must be the height of the proprietor's folly; the last
degree of bedevilment into which minds, otherwise judicious, can be
thrown by the perversity of selfishness.


"A farmer," says Say, "is a wheat manufacturer who, among other tools
which serve him in modifying the material from which he makes the
wheat, employs one large tool, which we call a field. If he is not the
proprietor of the field, if he is only a tenant, he pays the proprietor
for the productive service of this tool. The tenant is reimbursed by
the purchaser, the latter by another, until the product reaches the
consumer; who redeems the first payment, PLUS all the others, by means
of which the product has at last come into his hands. "


Let us lay aside the subsequent payments by which the product reaches
the consumer, and, for the present, pay attention only to the first one
of all,--the rent paid to the proprietor by the tenant. On what ground,
we ask, is the proprietor entitled to this rent?

According to Ricardo, MacCulloch, and Mill, farm-rent, properly
speaking, is simply the EXCESS OF THE PRODUCT OF THE MOST FERTILE LAND
OVER THAT OF LANDS OF AN INFERIOR QUALITY; so that farm-rent is not
demanded for the former until the increase of population renders
necessary the cultivation of the latter.

It is difficult to see any sense in this. How can a right to the land be
based upon a difference in the quality of the land? How can varieties of
soil engender a principle of legislation and politics? This reasoning
is either so subtle, or so stupid, that the more I think of it, the more
bewildered I become. Suppose two pieces of land of equal area; the one,
A, capable of supporting ten thousand inhabitants; the other, B, capable
of supporting nine thousand only: when, owing to an increase in their
number, the inhabitants of A shall be forced to cultivate B, the landed
proprietors of A will exact from their tenants in A a rent proportional
to the difference between ten and nine. So say, I think, Ricardo,
MacCulloch, and Mill. But if A supports as many inhabitants as it can
contain,--that is, if the inhabitants of A, by our hypothesis, have only
just enough land to keep them alive,--how can they pay farm-rent?

If they had gone no farther than to say that the difference in land has
OCCASIONED farm-rent, instead of CAUSED it, this observation would have
taught us a valuable lesson; namely, that farm-rent grew out of a desire
for equality. Indeed, if all men have an equal right to the possession
of good land, no one can be forced to cultivate bad land without
indemnification. Farm-rent--according to Ricardo, MacCulloch, and
Mill--would then have been a compensation for loss and hardship. This
system of practical equality is a bad one, no doubt; but it sprang from
good intentions. What argument can Ricardo, MacCulloch, and Mill develop
therefrom in favor of property? Their theory turns against themselves,
and strangles them.

Malthus thinks that farm-rent has its source in the power possessed by
land of producing more than is necessary to supply the wants of the
men who cultivate it. I would ask Malthus why successful labor should
entitle the idle to a portion of the products?

But the worthy Malthus is mistaken in regard to the fact. Yes; land has
the power of producing more than is needed by those who cultivate it, if
by CULTIVATORS is meant tenants only. The tailor also makes more clothes
than he wears, and the cabinet-maker more furniture than he uses. But,
since the various professions imply and sustain one another, not only
the farmer, but the followers of all arts and trades--even to the doctor
and the school-teacher--are, and ought to be, regarded as CULTIVATORS OF
THE LAND. Malthus bases farm-rent upon the principle of commerce.
Now, the fundamental law of commerce being equivalence of the products
exchanged, any thing which destroys this equivalence violates the law.
There is an error in the estimate which needs to be corrected.

Buchanan--a commentator on Smith--regarded farm-rent as the result of a
monopoly, and maintained that labor alone is productive. Consequently,
he thought that, without this monopoly, products would rise in price;
and he found no basis for farm-rent save in the civil law. This opinion
is a corollary of that which makes the civil law the basis of property.
But why has the civil law--which ought to be the written expression of
justice--authorized this monopoly? Whoever says monopoly, necessarily
excludes justice. Now, to say that farm-rent is a monopoly sanctioned by
the law, is to say that injustice is based on justice,--a contradiction
in terms.

Say answers Buchanan, that the proprietor is not a monopolist, because a
monopolist "is one who does not increase the utility of the merchandise
which passes through his hands. "

How much does the proprietor increase the utility of his tenant's
products? Has he ploughed, sowed, reaped, mowed, winnowed, weeded? These
are the processes by which the tenant and his employees increase
the utility of the material which they consume for the purpose of
reproduction.


"The landed proprietor increases the utility of products by means of his
implement, the land. This implement receives in one state, and returns
in another the materials of which wheat is composed. The action of
the land is a chemical process, which so modifies the material that it
multiplies it by destroying it. The soil is then a producer of utility;
and when it [the soil? ] asks its pay in the form of profit, or farm
rent, for its proprietor, it at the same time gives something to the
consumer in exchange for the amount which the consumer pays it. It gives
him a produced utility; and it is the production of this utility which
warrants us in calling land productive, as well as labor. "


Let us clear up this matter.

The blacksmith who manufactures for the farmer implements of husbandry,
the wheelwright who makes him a cart, the mason who builds his barn,
the carpenter, the basket-maker, &c. ,--all of whom contribute to
agricultural production by the tools which they provide,--are producers
of utility; consequently, they are entitled to a part of the products.


"Undoubtedly," says Say; "but the land also is an implement whose
service must be paid for, then. . . . "


I admit that the land is an implement; but who made it? Did the
proprietor? Did he--by the efficacious virtue of the right of property,
by this MORAL QUALITY infused into the soil--endow it with vigor and
fertility? Exactly there lies the monopoly of the proprietor; in the
fact that, though he did not make the implement, he asks pay for its
use. When the Creator shall present himself and claim farm-rent, we will
consider the matter with him; or even when the proprietor--his pretended
representative--shall exhibit his power-of-attorney.


"The proprietor's service," adds Say, "is easy, I admit. "


It is a frank confession.


"But we cannot disregard it. Without property, one farmer would contend
with another for the possession of a field without a proprietor, and the
field would remain uncultivated. . . . "


Then the proprietor's business is to reconcile farmers by robbing
them. O logic! O justice! O the marvellous wisdom of economists! The
proprietor, if they are right, is like Perrin-Dandin who, when summoned
by two travellers to settle a dispute about an oyster, opened it,
gobbled it, and said to them:--


"The Court awards you each a shell. "


Could any thing worse be said of property?

Will Say tell us why the same farmers, who, if there were no
proprietors, would contend with each other for possession of the
soil, do not contend to-day with the proprietors for this possession?
Obviously, because they think them legitimate possessors, and because
their respect for even an imaginary right exceeds their avarice. I
proved, in Chapter II. , that possession is sufficient, without property,
to maintain social order. Would it be more difficult, then, to reconcile
possessors without masters than tenants controlled by proprietors? Would
laboring men, who respect--much to their own detriment--the pretended
rights of the idler, violate the natural rights of the producer and the
manufacturer? What! if the husbandman forfeited his right to the land as
soon as he ceased to occupy it, would he become more covetous? And would
the impossibility of demanding increase, of taxing another's labor, be a
source of quarrels and law-suits? The economists use singular logic.
But we are not yet through. Admit that the proprietor is the legitimate
master of the land.

"The land is an instrument of production," they say. That is true. But
when, changing the noun into an adjective, they alter the phrase, thus,
"The land is a productive instrument," they make a wicked blunder.

According to Quesnay and the early economists, all production comes from
the land. Smith, Ricardo, and de Tracy, on the contrary, say that labor
is the sole agent of production. Say, and most of his successors,
teach that BOTH land AND labor AND capital are productive. The latter
constitute the eclectic school of political economy. The truth is, that
NEITHER land NOR labor NOR capital is productive. Production results
from the co-operation of these three equally necessary elements, which,
taken separately, are equally sterile.

Political economy, indeed, treats of the production, distribution,
and consumption of wealth or values. But of what values? Of the values
produced by human industry; that is, of the changes made in matter
by man, that he may appropriate it to his own use, and not at all of
Nature's spontaneous productions. Man's labor consists in a simple
laying on of hands. When he has taken that trouble, he has produced a
value. Until then, the salt of the sea, the water of the springs, the
grass of the fields, and the trees of the forests are to him as if they
were not. The sea, without the fisherman and his line, supplies no fish.
The forest, without the wood-cutter and his axe, furnishes neither
fuel nor timber. The meadow, without the mower, yields neither hay
nor aftermath. Nature is a vast mass of material to be cultivated and
converted into products; but Nature produces nothing for herself: in the
economical sense, her products, in their relation to man, are not yet
products.

Capital, tools, and machinery are likewise unproductive. The hammer and
the anvil, without the blacksmith and the iron, do not forge. The mill,
without the miller and the grain, does not grind, &c. Bring tools and
raw material together; place a plough and some seed on fertile soil;
enter a smithy, light the fire, and shut up the shop,--you will produce
nothing. The following remark was made by an economist who possessed
more good sense than most of his fellows: "Say credits capital with an
active part unwarranted by its nature; left to itself, it is an idle
tool. " (J. Droz: Political Economy. )

Finally, labor and capital together, when unfortunately combined,
produce nothing. Plough a sandy desert, beat the water of the rivers,
pass type through a sieve,--you will get neither wheat, nor fish, nor
books. Your trouble will be as fruitless as was the immense labor of the
army of Xerxes; who, as Herodotus says, with his three million soldiers,
scourged the Hellespont for twenty-four hours, as a punishment for
having broken and scattered the pontoon bridge which the great king had
thrown across it.

Tools and capital, land and labor, considered individually and
abstractly, are not, literally speaking, productive. The proprietor who
asks to be rewarded for the use of a tool, or the productive power
of his land, takes for granted, then, that which is radically false;
namely, that capital produces by its own effort,--and, in taking pay for
this imaginary product, he literally receives something for nothing.

OBJECTION. --But if the blacksmith, the wheelwright, all manufacturers in
short, have a right to the products in return for the implements which
they furnish; and if land is an implement of production,--why does not
this implement entitle its proprietor, be his claim real or imaginary,
to a portion of the products; as in the case of the manufacturers of
ploughs and wagons?

REPLY. --Here we touch the heart of the question, the mystery of
property; which we must clear up, if we would understand any thing of
the strange effects of the right of increase.

He who manufactures or repairs the farmer's tools receives the price
ONCE, either at the time of delivery, or in several payments; and when
this price is once paid to the manufacturer, the tools which he has
delivered belong to him no more. Never does he claim double payment for
the same tool, or the same job of repairs. If he annually shares in the
products of the farmer, it is owing to the fact that he annually makes
something for the farmer.

The proprietor, on the contrary, does not yield his implement; eternally
he is paid for it, eternally he keeps it.

In fact, the rent received by the proprietor is not intended to defray
the expense of maintaining and repairing the implement; this expense is
charged to the borrower, and does not concern the proprietor except as
he is interested in the preservation of the article. If he takes it upon
himself to attend to the repairs, he takes care that the money which he
expends for this purpose is repaid.

This rent does not represent the product of the implement, since of
itself the implement produces nothing; we have just proved this, and we
shall prove it more clearly still by its consequences.

Finally, this rent does not represent the participation of the
proprietor in the production; since this participation could consist,
like that of the blacksmith and the wheelwright, only in the surrender
of the whole or a part of his implement, in which case he would cease
to be its proprietor, which would involve a contradiction of the idea of
property.

Then, between the proprietor and his tenant there is no exchange either
of values or services; then, as our axiom says, farm-rent is real
increase,--an extortion based solely upon fraud and violence on the
one hand, and weakness and ignorance upon the other. PRODUCTS say
the economists, ARE BOUGHT ONLY BY PRODUCTS. This maxim is property's
condemnation. The proprietor, producing neither by his own labor nor by
his implement, and receiving products in exchange for nothing, is either
a parasite or a thief. Then, if property can exist only as a right,
property is impossible.

COROLLARIES. --1. The republican constitution of 1793, which defined
property as "the right to enjoy the fruit of one's labor," was grossly
mistaken. It should have said, "Property is the right to enjoy and
dispose at will of another's goods,--the fruit of another's industry and
labor. "

2. Every possessor of lands, houses, furniture, machinery, tools, money,
&c. , who lends a thing for a price exceeding the cost of repairs (the
repairs being charged to the lender, and representing products which he
exchanges for other products), is guilty of swindling and extortion. In
short, all rent received (nominally as damages, but really as payment
for a loan) is an act of property,--a robbery.

HISTORICAL COMMENT. --The tax which a victorious nation levies upon a
conquered nation is genuine farm-rent. The seigniorial rights abolished
by the Revolution of 1789,--tithes, mortmain, statute-labor, &c. ,--were
different forms of the rights of property; and they who under the titles
of nobles, seigneurs, prebendaries, &c. enjoyed these rights, were
neither more nor less than proprietors. To defend property to-day is to
condemn the Revolution.



SECOND PROPOSITION.

Property is impossible because wherever it exists Production costs more
than it is worth.


The preceding proposition was legislative in its nature; this one
is economical. It serves to prove that property, which originates in
violence, results in waste.


"Production," says Say, "is exchange on a large scale. To render the
exchange productive the value of the whole amount of service must be
balanced by the value of the product. If this condition is not
complied with, the exchange is unequal; the producer gives more than he
receives. "


Now, value being necessarily based upon utility, it follows that every
useless product is necessarily valueless,--that it cannot be exchanged;
and, consequently, that it cannot be given in payment for productive
services.

Then, though production may equal consumption, it never can exceed it;
for there is no real production save where there is a production of
utility, and there is no utility save where there is a possibility of
consumption. Thus, so much of every product as is rendered by
excessive abundance inconsumable, becomes useless, valueless,
unexchangeable,--consequently, unfit to be given in payment for any
thing whatever, and is no longer a product.

Consumption, on the other hand, to be legitimate,--to be true
consumption,--must be reproductive of utility; for, if it is
unproductive, the products which it destroys are cancelled
values--things produced at a pure loss; a state of things which causes
products to depreciate in value. Man has the power to destroy, but he
consumes only that which he reproduces. Under a right system of economy,
there is then an equation between production and consumption.

These points established, let us suppose a community of one thousand
families, enclosed in a territory of a given circumference, and deprived
of foreign intercourse. Let this community represent the human race,
which, scattered over the face of the earth, is really isolated. In
fact, the difference between a community and the human race being only
a numerical one, the economical results will be absolutely the same in
each case.

Suppose, then, that these thousand families, devoting themselves
exclusively to wheat-culture, are obliged to pay to one hundred
individuals, chosen from the mass, an annual revenue of ten per cent. on
their product. It is clear that, in such a case, the right of increase
is equivalent to a tax levied in advance upon social production. Of what
use is this tax?

It cannot be levied to supply the community with provisions, for between
that and farm-rent there is nothing in common; nor to pay for services
and products,--for the proprietors, laboring like the others, have
labored only for themselves.
Finally, this tax is of no use to its
recipients who, having harvested wheat enough for their own consumption,
and not being able in a society without commerce and manufactures to
procure any thing else in exchange for it, thereby lose the advantage of
their income.

In such a society, one-tenth of the product being inconsumable,
one-tenth of the labor goes unpaid--production costs more than it is
worth.

Now, change three hundred of our wheat-producers into artisans of all
kinds: one hundred gardeners and wine-growers, sixty shoemakers
and tailors, fifty carpenters and blacksmiths, eighty of various
professions, and, that nothing may be lacking, seven school-masters,
one mayor, one judge, and one priest; each industry furnishes the whole
community with its special product. Now, the total production being one
thousand, each laborer's consumption is one; namely, wheat, meat,
and grain, 0. 7; wine and vegetables, 0. 1; shoes and clothing, 0. 06;
iron-work and furniture, 0. 05; sundries, 0. 08; instruction, 0. 007;
administration, 0. 002; mass, 0. 001, Total 1.

But the community owes a revenue of ten per cent. ; and it matters little
whether the farmers alone pay it, or all the laborers are responsible
for it,--the result is the same. The farmer raises the price of his
products in proportion to his share of the debt; the other laborers
follow his example. Then, after some fluctuations, equilibrium is
established, and all pay nearly the same amount of the revenue. It
would be a grave error to assume that in a nation none but farmers pay
farm-rent--the whole nation pays it.

I say, then, that by this tax of ten per cent. each laborer's
consumption is reduced as follows: wheat, 0. 63; wine and vegetables,
0. 09; clothing and shoes, 0. 054; furniture and iron-work, 0. 045; other
products, 0. 072; schooling, 0. 0063; administration, 0. 0018; mass,
0. 0009. Total 0. 9.

The laborer has produced 1; he consumes only 0. 9. He loses, then,
one-tenth of the price of his labor; his production still costs
more than it is worth. On the other hand, the tenth received by the
proprietors is no less a waste; for, being laborers themselves, they,
like the others, possess in the nine-tenths of their product the
wherewithal to live: they want for nothing. Why should they wish their
proportion of bread, wine, meat, clothes, shelter, &c. , to be doubled,
if they can neither consume nor exchange them? Then farm-rent, with
them as with the rest of the laborers, is a waste, and perishes in their
hands. Extend the hypothesis, increase the number and variety of the
products, you still have the same result.

Hitherto, we have considered the proprietor as taking part in the
production, not only (as Say says) by the use of his instrument, but in
an effective manner and by the labor of his hands. Now, it is easy to
see that, under such circumstances, property will never exist. What
happens?

The proprietor--an essentially libidinous animal, without virtue or
shame--is not satisfied with an orderly and disciplined life. He loves
property, because it enables him to do at leisure what he pleases and
when he pleases. Having obtained the means of life, he gives himself up
to trivialities and indolence; he enjoys, he fritters away his time, he
goes in quest of curiosities and novel sensations. Property--to enjoy
itself--has to abandon ordinary life, and busy itself in luxurious
occupations and unclean enjoyments.

Instead of giving up a farm-rent, which is perishing in their hands,
and thus lightening the labor of the community, our hundred proprietors
prefer to rest. In consequence of this withdrawal,--the absolute
production being diminished by one hundred, while the consumption
remains the same,--production and consumption seem to balance. But,
in the first place, since the proprietors no longer labor, their
consumption is, according to economical principles, unproductive;
consequently, the previous condition of the community--when the labor of
one hundred was rewarded by no products--is superseded by one in which
the products of one hundred are consumed without labor. The deficit
is always the same, whichever the column of the account in which it is
expressed. Either the maxims of political economy are false, or else
property, which contradicts them, is impossible.

The economists--regarding all unproductive consumption as an evil, as
a robbery of the human race--never fail to exhort proprietors to
moderation, labor, and economy; they preach to them the necessity of
making themselves useful, of remunerating production for that which they
receive from it; they launch the most terrible curses against luxury and
laziness. Very beautiful morality, surely; it is a pity that it lacks
common sense. The proprietor who labors, or, as the economists say,
WHO MAKES HIMSELF USEFUL, is paid for this labor and utility; is he,
therefore, any the less idle as concerns the property which he does not
use, and from which he receives an income? His condition, whatever he
may do, is an unproductive and FELONIOUS one; he cannot cease to waste
and destroy without ceasing to be a proprietor.

But this is only the least of the evils which property engenders.

Society has to maintain some idle people, whether or no. It will always
have the blind, the maimed, the insane, and the idiotic. It can easily
support a few sluggards. At this point, the impossibilities thicken and
become complicated.



THIRD PROPOSITION.

Property is impossible, because, with a given capital, Production is
proportional to labor, not to property.


To pay a farm-rent of one hundred at the rate of ten per cent. of the
product, the product must be one thousand; that the product may be one
thousand, a force of one thousand laborers is needed. It follows,
that in granting a furlough, as we have just done, to our one hundred
laborer-proprietors, all of whom had an equal right to lead the life
of men of income,--we have placed ourselves in a position where we are
unable to pay their revenues. In fact, the productive power, which at
first was one thousand, being now but nine hundred, the production is
also reduced to nine hundred, one-tenth of which is ninety. Either,
then, ten proprietors out of the one hundred cannot be paid,--provided
the remaining ninety are to get the whole amount of their farm-rent,--or
else all must consent to a decrease of ten per cent. For it is not for
the laborer, who has been wanting in no particular, who has produced as
in the past, to suffer by the withdrawal of the proprietor. The
latter must take the consequences of his own idleness. But, then, the
proprietor becomes poorer for the very reason that he wishes to enjoy;
by exercising his right, he loses it; so that property seems to decrease
and vanish in proportion as we try to lay hold of it,--the more we
pursue it, the more it eludes our grasp. What sort of a right is that
which is governed by numerical relations, and which an arithmetical
calculation can destroy?

The laborer-proprietor received, first, as laborer, 0. 9 in wages;
second, as proprietor, 1 in farm-rent. He said to himself, "My farm-rent
is sufficient; I have enough and to spare without my labor. " And thus
it is that the income upon which he calculated gets diminished by
one-tenth,--he at the same time not even suspecting the cause of this
diminution. By taking part in the production, he was himself the creator
of this tenth which has vanished; and while he thought to labor only for
himself, he unwittingly suffered a loss in exchanging his products, by
which he was made to pay to himself one-tenth of his own farm-rent. Like
every one else, he produced 1, and received but 0. 9

If, instead of nine hundred laborers, there had been but five hundred,
the whole amount of farm-rent would have been reduced to fifty; if there
had been but one hundred, it would have fallen to ten. We may posit,
then, the following axiom as a law of proprietary economy: INCREASE MUST
DIMINISH AS THE NUMBER OF IDLERS AUGMENTS.

_ _This first result will lead us to another more surprising still.
Its effect is to deliver us at one blow from all the evils of property,
without abolishing it, without wronging proprietors, and by a highly
conservative process.

We have just proved that, if the farm-rent in a community of one
thousand laborers is one hundred, that of nine hundred would be ninety,
that of eight hundred, eighty, that of one hundred, ten, &c. So that, in
a community where there was but one laborer, the farm-rent would be but
0. 1; no matter how great the extent and value of the land appropriated.
Therefore, WITH A GIVEN LANDED CAPITAL, PRODUCTION IS PROPORTIONAL TO
LABOR, NOT TO PROPERTY.

Guided by this principle, let us try to ascertain the maximum increase
of all property whatever.

What is, essentially, a farm-lease? It is a contract by which the
proprietor yields to a tenant possession of his land, in consideration
of a portion of that which it yields him, the proprietor. If, in
consequence of an increase in his household, the tenant becomes ten
times as strong as the proprietor, he will produce ten times as
much. Would the proprietor in such a case be justified in raising the
farm-rent tenfold? His right is not, The more you produce, the more I
demand. It is, The more I sacrifice, the more I demand. The increase
in the tenant's household, the number of hands at his disposal, the
resources of his industry,--all these serve to increase production, but
bear no relation to the proprietor. His claims are to be measured by his
own productive capacity, not that of others. Property is the right of
increase, not a poll-tax. How could a man, hardly capable of cultivating
even a few acres by himself, demand of a community, on the ground of its
use of ten thousand acres of his property, ten thousand times as much
as he is incapable of producing from one acre? Why should the price of a
loan be governed by the skill and strength of the borrower, rather than
by the utility sacrificed by the proprietor? We must recognize, then,
this second economical law: INCREASE IS MEASURED BY A FRACTION OF THE
PROPRIETORS PRODUCTION.

Now, this production, what is it? In other words, What can the lord and
master of a piece of land justly claim to have sacrificed in lending it
to a tenant?

The productive capacity of a proprietor, like that of any laborer, being
one, the product which he sacrifices in surrendering his land is also
one. If, then, the rate of increase is ten per cent. , the maximum
increase is 0. 1.

But we have seen that, whenever a proprietor withdraws from production,
the amount of products is lessened by 1. Then the increase which accrues
to him, being equal to 0. 1 while he remains among the laborers, will be
equal after his withdrawal, by the law of the decrease of farm-rent,
to 0. 09. Thus we are led to this final formula: THE MAXIMUM INCOME OF
A PROPRIETOR IS EQUAL TO THE SQUARE ROOT OF THE PRODUCT OF ONE LABORER
(some number being agreed upon to express this product). THE DIMINUTION
WHICH THIS INCOME SUFFERS, IF THE PROPRIETOR IS IDLE, IS EQUAL TO A
FRACTION WHOSE NUMERATOR IS 1, AND WHOSE DENOMINATOR IS THE NUMBER WHICH
EXPRESSES THE PRODUCT.

Thus the maximum income of an idle proprietor, or of one who labors in
his own behalf outside of the community, figured at ten per cent. on an
average production of one thousand francs per laborer, would be ninety
francs. If, then, there are in France one million proprietors with an
income of one thousand francs each, which they consume unproductively,
instead of the one thousand millions which are paid them annually, they
are entitled in strict justice, and by the most accurate calculation, to
ninety millions only.

It is something of a reduction, to take nine hundred and ten millions
from the burdens which weigh so heavily upon the laboring class!
Nevertheless, the account is not finished, and the laborer is still
ignorant of the full extent of his rights.

What is the right of increase when confined within just limits? A
recognition of the right of occupancy. But since all have an equal right
of occupancy, every man is by the same title a proprietor. Every man has
a right to an income equal to a fraction of his product. If, then,
the laborer is obliged by the right of property to pay a rent to the
proprietor, the proprietor is obliged by the same right to pay the same
amount of rent to the laborer; and, since their rights balance each
other, the difference between them is zero.

_Scholium_. --If farm-rent is only a fraction of the supposed product of
the proprietor, whatever the amount and value of the property, the same
is true in the case of a large number of small and distinct proprietors.
For, although one man may use the property of each separately, he cannot
use the property of all at the same time.

To sum up. The right of increase, which can exist only within very
narrow limits, defined by the laws of production, is annihilated by
the right of occupancy. Now, without the right of increase, there is no
property. Then property is impossible.



FOURTH PROPOSITION.

Property is impossible, because it is Homicide.


If the right of increase could be subjected to the laws of reason and
justice, it would be reduced to an indemnity or reward whose MAXIMUM
never could exceed, for a single laborer, a certain fraction of that
which he is capable of producing. This we have just shown. But why
should the right of increase--let us not fear to call it by its right
name, the right of robbery--be governed by reason, with which it has
nothing in common? The proprietor is not content with the increase
allotted him by good sense and the nature of things: he demands ten
times, a hundred times, a thousand times, a million times as much. By
his own labor, his property would yield him a product equal only to
one; and he demands of society, no longer a right proportional to his
productive capacity, but a per capita tax. He taxes his fellows in
proportion to their strength, their number, and their industry. A son
is born to a farmer. "Good! " says the proprietor; "one more chance
for increase! " By what process has farm-rent been thus changed into
a poll-tax? Why have our jurists and our theologians failed, with all
their shrewdness, to check the extension of the right of increase?

The proprietor, having estimated from his own productive capacity the
number of laborers which his property will accommodate, divides it
into as many portions, and says: "Each one shall yield me revenue. "
To increase his income, he has only to divide his property. Instead
of reckoning the interest due him on his labor, he reckons it on his
capital; and, by this substitution, the same property, which in the
hands of its owner is capable of yielding only one, is worth to him
ten, a hundred, a thousand, a million. Consequently, he has only to hold
himself in readiness to register the names of the laborers who apply to
him--his task consists in drafting leases and receipts.

Not satisfied with the lightness of his duties, the proprietor does not
intend to bear even the deficit resulting from his idleness; he throws
it upon the shoulders of the producer, of whom he always demands the
same reward. When the farm-rent of a piece of land is once raised to its
highest point, the proprietor never lowers it; high prices, the scarcity
of labor, the disadvantages of the season, even pestilence itself, have
no effect upon him--why should he suffer from hard times when he does
not labor?

Here commences a new series of phenomena.

Say--who reasons with marvellous clearness whenever he assails taxation,
but who is blind to the fact that the proprietor, as well as the
tax-gatherer, steals from the tenant, and in the same manner--says in
his second letter to Malthus:--


"If the collector of taxes and those who employ him consume one-sixth
of the products, they thereby compel the producers to feed, clothe, and
support themselves on five-sixths of what they produce. They admit this,
but say at the same time that it is possible for each one to live on
five-sixths of what he produces.

"I admit that, if they insist upon it; but I ask if they believe that the
producer would live as well, in case they demanded of him, instead of
one-sixth, two-sixths, or one-third, of their products? No; but he would
still live. Then I ask whether he would still live, in case they should
rob him of two-thirds,. . . then three-quarters? But I hear no reply. "


If the master of the French economists had been less blinded by his
proprietary prejudices, he would have seen that farm-rent has precisely
the same effect.

Take a family of peasants composed of six persons,--father, mother, and
four children,--living in the country, and cultivating a small piece of
ground. Let us suppose that by hard labor they manage, as the saying is,
to make both ends meet; that, having lodged, warmed, clothed, and fed
themselves, they are clear of debt, but have laid up nothing. Taking the
years together, they contrive to live. If the year is prosperous, the
father drinks a little more wine, the daughters buy themselves a dress,
the sons a hat; they eat a little cheese, and, occasionally, some meat.
I say that these people are on the road to wreck and ruin.

For, by the third corollary of our axiom, they owe to themselves the
interest on their own capital. Estimating this capital at only eight
thousand francs at two and a half per cent. , there is an annual interest
of two hundred francs to be paid. If, then, these two hundred francs,
instead of being subtracted from the gross product to be saved and
capitalized, are consumed, there is an annual deficit of two hundred
francs in the family assets; so that at the end of forty years these
good people, without suspecting it, will have eaten up their property
and become bankrupt!

This result seems ridiculous--it is a sad reality.

The conscription comes. What is the conscription? An act of property
exercised over families by the government without warning--a robbery
of men and money. The peasants do not like to part with their sons,--in
that I do not think them wrong. It is hard for a young man of twenty
to gain any thing by life in the barracks; unless he is depraved, he
detests it. You can generally judge of a soldier's morality by his
hatred of his uniform. Unfortunate wretches or worthless scamps,--such
is the make-up of the French army. This ought not to be the case,--but
so it is. Question a hundred thousand men, and not one will contradict
my assertion.

Our peasant, in redeeming his two conscripted sons, expends four
thousand francs, which he borrows for that purpose; the interest on
this, at five per cent. , is two hundred francs;--a sum equal to that
referred to above. If, up to this time, the production of the family,
constantly balanced by its consumption, has been one thousand two
hundred francs, or two hundred francs per persons--in order to pay this
interest, either the six laborers must produce as much as seven, or must
consume as little as five.

Curtail consumption they cannot--how can they curtail necessity? To
produce more is impossible; they can work neither harder nor longer.
Shall they take a middle course, and consume five and a half while
producing six and a half? They would soon find that with the stomach
there is no compromise--that beyond a certain degree of abstinence it
is impossible to go--that strict necessity can be curtailed but little
without injury to the health; and, as for increasing the product,--there
comes a storm, a drought, an epizootic, and all the hopes of the farmer
are dashed. In short, the rent will not be paid, the interest will
accumulate, the farm will be seized, and the possessor ejected.

Thus a family, which lived in prosperity while it abstained from
exercising the right of property, falls into misery as soon as the
exercise of this right becomes a necessity. Property requires of the
husbandman the double power of enlarging his land, and fertilizing it by
a simple command. While a man is simply possessor of the land, he finds
in it means of subsistence; as soon as he pretends to proprietorship,
it suffices him no longer. Being able to produce only that which
he consumes, the fruit of his labor is his recompense for his
trouble--nothing is left for the instrument.

Required to pay what he cannot produce,--such is the condition of the
tenant after the proprietor has retired from social production in order
to speculate upon the labor of others by new methods.

Let us now return to our first hypothesis.

The nine hundred laborers, sure that their future production will equal
that of the past, are quite surprised, after paying their farm-rent, to
find themselves poorer by one-tenth than they were the previous year.
In fact, this tenth--which was formerly produced and paid by the
proprietor-laborer who then took part in the production, and paid part
of the--public expenses--now has not been produced, and has been paid.
It must then have been taken from the producer's consumption. To
choke this inexplicable deficit, the laborer borrows, confident of
his intention and ability to return,--a confidence which is shaken the
following year by a new loan, PLUS the interest on the first. From whom
does he borrow? From the proprietor. The proprietor lends his surplus to
the laborer; and this surplus, which he ought to return, becomes--being
lent at interest--a new source of profit to him. Then debts increase
indefinitely; the proprietor makes advances to the producer who never
returns them; and the latter, constantly robbed and constantly borrowing
from the robbers, ends in bankruptcy, defrauded of all that he had.

Suppose that the proprietor--who needs his tenant to furnish him with
an income--then releases him from his debts. He will thus do a very
benevolent deed, which will procure for him a recommendation in the
curate's prayers; while the poor tenant, overwhelmed by this unstinted
charity, and taught by his catechism to pray for his benefactors, will
promise to redouble his energy, and suffer new hardships that he may
discharge his debt to so kind a master.

This time he takes precautionary measures; he raises the price of
grains. The manufacturer does the same with his products. The reaction
comes, and, after some fluctuation, the farm-rent--which the tenant
thought to put upon the manufacturer's shoulders--becomes nearly
balanced.