The man who works for others has in view value.
Now Property, as I have defined it, is founded on Value, and value
being simply a relation, it follows that property is also a relation.
Were there only one man upon the earth, the idea of Property would
never enter his mind. Monarch of all he surveyed, surrounded with
utilities which he had only to adapt to his use, never encountering
any analogous right to serve as a limit to his own, how should it
ever come into his head to say ‹This is mine›? That would imply
the correlative assertion, ‹This is not mine›, or ‹This belongs to
another›. ‹Meum› and ‹tuum› are inconsistent with isolation, and
the word Property necessarily implies relation; but it gives us
emphatically to understand that a thing is ‹proper› to one person,
only by giving us to understand that it is not ‹proper› to anybody
else.
“The first man,” says Rousseau, “who having enclosed a field, took it
into his head to say ‹This is mine›, was the true founder of civil
society.”
What does the enclosure mean if it be not indicative of exclusion,
and consequently of relation? If its object were only to defend the
field against the intrusion of animals, it was a precaution, not a
sign of property. A boundary, on the contrary, is a mark of property,
not of precaution.
Thus men are truly proprietors only in relation to one another; and
this being so, of what are they proprietors? Of value, as we discover
very clearly in the exchanges they make with each other.
Let us, according to our usual practice, take a very simple case by
way of illustration.
Nature labours, and has done so probably from all eternity, to invest
spring water with those qualities which fit it for quenching our
thirst, and which qualities, so far as we are concerned, constitute
its ‹utility›. It is assuredly not my work, for it has been
elaborated without my assistance, and quite unknown to me. In this
respect I can truly say that water is to me the gratuitous gift of
God. What is my own ‹proper› work is the effort which I have made in
going to fetch my supply of water for the day.
Of what do I become proprietor by that act?
As regards myself, I am proprietor, if I may use the expression, of
all the utility with which nature has invested this water. I can turn
it to my own use in any way I think proper. It is for that purpose
that I have taken the trouble to fetch it. To dispute my right would
be to say that, although men cannot live without [p239] drinking,
they have no right to drink the water which they have procured by
their own exertions. I do not believe that the Communists, although
they go very far, will go the length of asserting this, and even
under the ‹régime› of Cabet, the lambs of Icaria would be allowed to
quench their thirst in the limpid stream.
But in relation to other men, who are free to do as I do, I am not,
and cannot be, proprietor except of what is called, by metonymy, ‹the
value of the water›, that is to say, the value of the ‹service› which
I render in procuring it.
My right to drink this water being granted, it is impossible to
contest my right to give it away. And the right of the other
contracting party to go to the spring, as I did, and draw water
for himself, being admitted, it is equally impossible to contest
his right to accept the water which I have fetched. If the one
has a right to give, and the other, in consideration of a payment
voluntarily bargained for, to accept, this water, the first is then
the ‹proprietor› in relation to the second. It is sad to write upon
Political Economy at a time when we cannot advance a step without
having recourse to demonstrations so puerile.
But on what basis is the arrangement we have supposed come to? It
is essential to know this, in order to appreciate the whole social
bearing of the word Property,—a word which sounds so ill in the ears
of democratic sentimentalism.
It is clear that, both parties being free, we must take into
consideration the trouble I have had, and the trouble I have
saved to the other party, as the circumstances which constitute
value. We discuss the conditions of the bargain, and, if we come
to terms, there is neither exaggeration nor subtilty in saying
that my neighbour has acquired ‹gratuitously›, or, if you will,
as ‹gratuitously as I did›, all the natural utility of the water.
Do you desire proof that the conditions, more or less onerous, of
the transaction are determined by the human efforts and not by the
intrinsic utility? It will be granted that the utility remains the
same whether the spring is distant or near at hand. It is the amount
of exertion made, or to be made, which depends upon the distance; and
since the remuneration varies with the exertion, it is in the latter,
and not in the utility, that the principle of relative value and
Property resides.
It is certain, then, that, in relation to others, I am, and can be,
proprietor only of my efforts, of my services, which have nothing in
common with the recondite and mysterious processes by which nature
communicates utility to the things which are the subject [p240] of
those services. It would be in vain for me to carry my pretensions
farther—at this point we must always in fact encounter the limit
of Property;—for if I exact more than the value of my services, my
neighbour will do the work for himself. This limit is absolute and
unchangeable. It fully explains and vindicates Property, thus reduced
to the natural and simple right of demanding one service for another.
It shows that the enjoyment of natural utility is appropriated only
nominally and in appearance; that the expression, Property in an acre
of land, in a hundredweight of iron, in a quarter of wheat, in a yard
of cloth, is truly a metonymy, like the expression, Value of water,
of iron, and so forth; and that so far as nature has given these
things to men, they enjoy them gratuitously and in common; in a word,
that Community is in perfect harmony with Property, the gifts of God
remaining in the domain of the one, and human services forming alone
the very legitimate domain of the other.
But from my having chosen a very simple example in order to point
out the line of demarcation which separates the domain of what is
common from the domain of what has been appropriated, you are not
to conclude that this line loses itself and disappears, even in the
most complicated transactions. It continues always to show itself in
every free transaction. The labour of going to fetch water from the
spring is very simple, no doubt; but when you examine the thing more
narrowly, you will be convinced that the labour of raising corn is
only more complicated because it embraces a series of efforts quite
as simple, in each of which the work of nature co-operates with that
of man, so that in fact the example I have shown may be regarded as
the type of every economical fact. Take the case of water, of corn,
of cloth, of books, of transport, of pictures, of the ballet, of
the opera,—in all, certain circumstances, I allow, may impart such
value to certain services, but no one is ever paid for anything else
than services,—never certainly for the co-operation of nature,—and
the reason is obvious, because one of the contracting parties has
it always in his power to say, If you demand from me more than your
service is ‹worth›, I shall apply to another quarter, or do the work
for myself.
But I am not content to vindicate Property; I should wish to make
it an object of cherished affection even to the most determined
Communists. And to accomplish this, all that is necessary is to
describe the popular, progressive, and equalizing part which it
plays; and to demonstrate clearly, not only that it does not
monopolize and concentrate in a few hands the gifts of God, but that
its special mission is to enlarge continually the sphere of [p241]
Community. In this respect the natural laws of society are much more
ingenious than the artificial systems of Plato, Sir Thomas More,
Fénélon, or Monsieur Cabet.
That there are satisfactions which men enjoy, gratuitously and in
common, upon a footing of the most perfect equality,—that there is in
the social order, underlying Property, a real Community,—no one will
dispute. To see this it is not necessary that you should be either an
Economist or a Socialist, but that you should have eyes in your head.
In certain respects all the children of God are treated in precisely
the same way. All are equal as regards the law of gravitation, which
attaches them to the earth, as regards the air we breathe, the light
of day, the water of the brook. This vast and measureless common
fund, which has nothing whatever to do with Value or Property, J. B.
Say denominates ‹natural wealth›, in opposition to ‹social wealth›;
Proudhon, ‹natural property›, in opposition to ‹acquired property›;
Considérant, ‹natural capital›, in opposition to ‹capital which is
created›; Saint-Chamans, the ‹wealth of enjoyment›, in opposition to
the ‹wealth of value›. We have denominated it ‹gratuitous utility›,
in contradistinction to ‹onerous utility›. Call it what you will, it
exists, and that entitles us to say that there is among men a common
fund of gratuitous and equal satisfactions.
And if wealth, ‹social›, ‹acquired›, ‹created›, ‹of value›,
‹onerous›, in a word, Property, is unequally distributed, we cannot
affirm that it is unjustly so, seeing that it is in each man’s case
proportional to the ‹services› which give rise to it, and of which it
is simply the measure and estimate. Besides, it is clear that this
Inequality is lessened by the existence of the common fund, in virtue
of the mathematical rule: the relative inequality of two unequal
numbers is lessened by adding equal numbers to each of them. When our
inventories, then, show that one man is twice as rich as another man,
that proportion ceases to be exact when we take into consideration
their equal share in the gratuitous utility furnished by nature, and
the inequality would be gradually effaced and wiped away if this
common fund were itself progressive.
The problem, then, is to find out whether this ‹common fund› is a
fixed invariable quantity, given to mankind by Providence in the
beginning, and once for all, above which the ‹appropriated fund› is
superimposed, apart from the existence of any relation or action
between these two orders of phenomena.
Economists have concluded that the social order had no influence upon
this natural and common fund of wealth; and this is their reason for
excluding it from the domain of Political Economy. [p242]
The Socialists go farther. They believe that the constitution of
society tends to make this common fund pass into the region of
Property, that it consecrates, to the profit of a few, the usurpation
of what belongs to all; and this is the reason why they rise up
against Political Economy, which denies this fatal tendency, and
against modern society, which submits to it.
The truth is, that Socialism, in this particular, taxes Political
Economy with inconsistency, and with some justice too; for after
having declared that there are no relations between common and
appropriated wealth, Economists have invalidated their own assertion,
and prepared the way for the socialist grievance. They did so the
moment that, confounding value with utility, they asserted that the
materials and forces of nature, that is to say, the gifts of God,
had an intrinsic value, a value inherent in them,—for value implies,
always and necessarily, appropriation. From that moment they lost the
right and the means of logically vindicating Property.
What I maintain—and maintain with a conviction amounting to absolute
certainty—is this: that the appropriated fund exerts a constant
action upon the fund which is common and unappropriated, and in
this respect the first assertion of the Economists is erroneous.
But the second assertion, as developed and explained by socialism,
is still more fatal; for the action in question does not take
place in a way to make the common fund pass into the appropriated
fund, but, on the contrary, to make the appropriated fund pass
incessantly into the common domain. Property, just and legitimate
in itself, because always representing services, tends to transform
onerous into gratuitous utility. It is the spur which urges on human
intelligence to make latent natural forces operative. It struggles,
and undoubtedly for our benefit, against the obstacles which render
utility onerous. And when the obstacle has been to a certain extent
removed, it is found that, to that extent, it has been removed to the
profit and advantage of all. Then indefatigable Property challenges
and encounters other obstacles, and goes on, raising, always and
without intermission, the level of humanity, realizing more and more
Community, and, with Community, Equality, among the great family of
mankind.
In this consists the truly marvellous Harmony of the natural social
order. This harmony I am unable to describe without combating
objections which are perpetually recurring, and without falling
into wearisome repetitions. No matter, I submit—let the reader also
exercise a little patience on his side. [p243]
Make yourself master, first of all, of this fundamental idea,
that when, in any case, there is no obstacle between desire and
satisfaction (there is none, for instance, between our eyes and the
light of day)—there is no effort to make, no service to render,
either to ourselves or to other people, and value and Property have
no existence. When an obstacle exists, the whole series comes into
play. First, we have Effort—then a voluntary exchange of efforts or
Services—then a comparative appreciation of those services, or Value;
lastly, the right of each to enjoy the utilities attached to these
values, or Property.
If in this struggle against obstacles, which are always uniform, the
co-operation of nature and that of labour were also always in equal
proportion, Property and Community would advance in parallel lines,
without changing their relative proportions.
But it is not so. The universal aim of men in all their enterprises
is to diminish the proportion between effort and result, and for
that purpose to enlist more and more in their work the assistance
of natural agents. No agriculturist, manufacturer, merchant,
artisan, shipowner, artist, but makes this his constant study. In
that direction all their faculties are bent. For that purpose they
invent tools and machines, and avail themselves of the chemical
and mechanical forces of the elements, divide their occupations,
and unite their efforts. To accomplish more with less, such is the
eternal problem which they propose to themselves at all times, in
all places, in all situations, in everything. Who doubts that in all
this they are prompted by self-interest? What other stimulant could
excite them to the same energy? Every man, moreover, is charged with
the care of his own existence and advancement. What, then, should
constitute the mainspring of his movements but self-interest? You
express your astonishment, but wait till I have done, and you will
find that if each cares for himself, God cares for us all.
Our constant study, then, is to diminish the proportion which the
effort bears to the useful effect sought to be produced. But when
the effort is lessened, whether by the removal of obstacles or the
intervention of machinery, by the division of labour, the union of
forces, or the assistance of natural agents, etc., this diminished
effort is less highly appreciated in relation to others;—we render
less ‹service› in making the effort for another. There is less value,
and we are justified in saying that the domain of Property has
receded. Is the useful effect on that account lost? By hypothesis it
is not. Where then has it gone to? It has passed into the domain of
Community. As regards that portion of human effort [p244] which the
useful effect no longer absorbs, it is not on that account sterile—it
is turned to other acquisitions. Obstacles present themselves, and
will always present themselves, to the indefinite expansibility of
our physical, moral, and intellectual wants, to an extent sufficient
to ensure that the labour set free in one department will find
employment in another. And it is in this way that the appropriated
fund remaining always the same, the common fund dilates and expands,
like a circle the radius of which is always enlarging.
Apart from this consideration, how could we explain progress or
civilisation, however imperfect? Let us turn our regards upon
ourselves, and consider our feebleness. Let us compare our own
individual vigour and knowledge with the vigour and knowledge
necessary to produce the innumerable satisfactions which we derive
from society. We shall soon be convinced that were we reduced to
our proper efforts, we could not obtain a hundred thousandth part
of them, even if millions of acres of uncultivated land were placed
at the disposal of each one of us. It is positively certain that a
given amount of human effort will realize an immeasurably greater
result at the present day than it could in the days of the Druids. If
that were true only of an individual, the natural conclusion would
be that he lives and prospers at the expense of his fellows. But
since this phenomenon is manifested in all the members of the human
family, we are led to the comfortable conclusion that things not our
own have come to our aid; that the gratuitous co-operation of nature
is in larger and larger measure added to our own efforts, and that
it remains gratuitous through all our transactions; for were it not
gratuitous, it would explain nothing.
From what we have said, we may deduce these formulas:
‹Property is Value, and Value is Property;›
‹That which has no Value is gratuitous, and what is gratuitous is
common;›
‹A fall of Value is an approximation towards the gratuitous;›
‹Such approximation is a partial realization of Community.›
There are times when one cannot give utterance to certain words
without being exposed to false interpretations. There are always
people ready to cry out, in a critical or in a laudatory spirit,
according to the sect they belong to: “The author talks of
Community—he must be a Communist.” I expect this, and resign myself
to it. And yet I must endeavour to guard myself against such hasty
inferences.
The reader must have been very inattentive (and the most [p245]
formidable class of readers are those who turn over books without
attending to what they read) if he has not observed the great gulf
which interposes itself between Community and Communism. The two
ideas are separated by the entire domain not only of property but of
liberty, right, justice, and even of human personality.
Community applies to those things which we enjoy in common by the
destination of Providence; because, exacting no effort in order to
adapt them to our use, they give rise to no service, no transaction,
no Property. The foundation of property is the right which we possess
to render services to ourselves, or to others on condition of a
return.
What Communism wishes to render common is, not the gratuitous gift of
God, but human effort—service.
It desires that each man should carry the fruit of his labour to the
common stock, and that afterwards an equitable distribution of that
stock should be made by authority.
Now, of two things one. Either the distribution is proportional to
the stake which each has contributed, or it is made upon another
principle.
In the first case, Communism aims at realizing, as regards result,
the present order of things—only substituting the arbitrary will of
one for the liberty of all.
In the second case, what must be the basis of the division? Communism
answers, Equality. What! Equality, without regard to the difference
of pains taken, of labour undergone! You are to have an ‹equal share›
whether you have worked six hours or twelve—mechanically, or with
intelligence! Of all inequalities surely that would be the most
shocking; besides it would be the destruction of all liberty, all
activity, all dignity, all sagacity. You pretend to put an end to
competition, but in truth you only transform it. The competition at
present is, who shall work most and best. Under your regime it would
be, who should work worst and least.
Communism misunderstands or disowns the very nature of man. Effort is
painful in itself. What urges us to make it? It can only be a feeling
more painful still, a want to satisfy, a suffering to remove, a good
to be realized. Our moving principle, then, is self-interest. When
you ask the Communists what they would substitute for this, they
answer, by the mouth of Louis Blanc, ‹The point of honour›, and by
that of Monsieur Cabet, ‹Fraternity›. Enable me, then, to experience
the sensations of others, in order that I may know what direction to
impress upon my industry.
I should like to have it explained what this point of honour, [p246]
this fraternity, which are to be set to work in society at the
instigation and under the direction of Messieurs Louis Blanc and
Cabet, really mean.
But it is not my business in this place to refute Communism, which
is opposed in everything to the system which it is my object to
establish.
We recognise the right of every man to serve himself, or to serve
others on conditions freely stipulated. Communism denies this right,
since it masses together and centralizes all services in the hands of
an arbitrary authority.
Our doctrine is based upon Property. Communism is founded on
systematic spoliation. It consists in handing over to one, without
compensation, the labour of another. In fact, did it distribute to
each according to his labour, it would recognise property, and would
be no longer Communism.
Our doctrine is founded on liberty. In truth, property and liberty
are in our eyes one and the same thing, for that which constitutes a
man the proprietor of his service is his right and power of disposing
of it. Communism annihilates liberty, since it leaves to no one the
free disposal of his labour.
Our doctrine is founded on justice—Communism on injustice. That
follows clearly from what has been already said.
There is only one point of contact, then, between the communists and
us—it is the similarity of two syllables, in the words ‹communism›
and ‹community›.
But this similarity of sounds should not mislead the reader. Whilst
communism is the negation of Property, we find in our doctrine
of Community the most explicit affirmation and the most positive
demonstration of property.
If the legitimacy of property has appeared doubtful and inexplicable,
even to men who are not communists, the reason is, that they believe
that it concentrates in the hands of some, to the exclusion of
others, those gifts of God which were originally common. We believe
we have entirely dissipated that doubt by demonstrating that what
is common by providential destination remains common in all human
transactions,—the domain of property never extending beyond that of
value—of right onerously acquired by services rendered.
Thus explained, property is vindicated; for who but a fool could
pretend that men have no right to their own labour—no right to
receive the voluntary services of those to whom they have rendered
voluntary services?
There is another word upon which I must offer some explanation,
[p247] for of late it has been strangely misapplied—I mean the word
‹gratuitous›. I need not say that I denominate gratuitous, not what
costs a man nothing because he has deprived another of it, but what
has cost nothing to anyone.
When Diogenes warmed himself in the sun, he might be said to warm
himself gratuitously, for he obtained from the divine liberality
a satisfaction which exacted no labour either from himself or his
contemporaries. Nor does the heat of the sun’s rays cease to be
gratuitous when the proprietor avails himself of it to ripen his corn
and his grapes, seeing that in selling his grapes or his corn he is
paid for his own services and not for those of the sun. This may be
an erroneous view (in which case we have no alternative but to become
communists); but at any rate this is the sense in which I use the
word ‹gratuitous›, and this is what it evidently means.
Much has been said, since the establishment of the Republic, of
‹gratuitous› credit, and ‹gratuitous› instruction. But it is evident
that a gross sophism lurks under this phraseology. Can the State
shed abroad instruction like the light of day without its costing
anything to anybody? Can it cover the country with institutions
and professors without their being paid in one shape or another?
Instead of leaving each individual to demand and to remunerate
voluntarily this description of service, the State may lay hold of
the remuneration, taken by taxation from the pockets of the citizens,
and distribute among them instruction of its own selection, without
exacting from them a second remuneration. This is all that can be
effected by government interference—and in this case, those who do
not learn pay for those who do, those who learn little for those who
learn much, those who are destined to manual labour for those who
embrace learned professions. This is communism applied to one branch
of human activity. Under this régime, of which I am not called upon
here to give an opinion, it might very well be said that ‹instruction
is common›, but it would be ridiculous to say that ‹instruction is
gratuitous›. Gratuitous! Yes, for some of those who receive it, but
not for those who have to pay for it, if not to the teacher, at least
to the tax-gatherer.
For that matter, there is nothing which the State can give
‹gratuitously›; and if the word were not a mystification, it is not
only ‹gratuitous› education which we should demand from the State,
but ‹gratuitous› food, ‹gratuitous› clothing, ‹gratuitous› lodging,
etc. Let us take care. The people are not far from going this
length, and there are already among us those who demand ‹gratuitous›
credit, ‹gratuitous› tools and instruments of labour, etc. Dupes
of a word, [p248] we have made one step towards Communism; why
should we not make a second, and a third, until all liberty, all
justice, and all property have passed away? Will it be urged that
instruction is so universally necessary that we may depart somewhat
from right and principle in this instance? But then, are not food and
sustenance still more necessary than education? ‹Primò vivere, deinde
philosophari›, the people may say; and I know not in truth what
answer we can make to them.
Who knows? Those who charge me with Communism for having demonstrated
the natural community of the gifts of God, are perhaps the very
people who seek to violate justice in the matter of education, that
is to say, to attack property in its essence. Such inconsistencies
are more surprising than uncommon. [p249]
IX.
LANDED PROPERTY.
If the leading idea of this work is well founded, the relations of
mankind with the external world must be viewed in this way:
God created the earth. On it, and within it, he has placed a
multitude of things which are useful to man, inasmuch as they are
adapted to satisfy his wants.
God has, besides, endued matter with forces—gravitation, elasticity,
porosity, compressibility, heat, light, electricity, crystallization,
vegetable life.
He has placed man in the middle of these materials and forces, which
he has delivered over to him gratuitously.
Men set themselves to exercise their activity upon these materials
and forces; and in this way they render service to themselves.
They also work for one another, and in this way render reciprocal
services. These services, compared by the act of exchange, give rise
to the idea of Value, and Value to that of Property.
Each man, then, becomes an owner or proprietor in proportion to the
services he has rendered. But the materials and forces given by God
to man gratuitously, at the beginning, have continued gratuitous,
and are and must continue to be so through all our transactions; for
in the estimates and appreciations to which exchange gives rise, the
‹equivalents› are ‹human services›, not the ‹gifts of God›.
Hence it follows that no human being, so long as transactions are
free, can ever cease to be the usufructuary of these gifts. A single
condition is laid down, which is, that we shall execute the labour
necessary to make them available to us, or, if any one makes this
exertion for us, that we make for him an equivalent exertion.
If this account of the matter be true, Property is indeed
unassailable. [p250]
The universal instinct of mankind, more infallible than the
lucubrations of any individual, had adopted this view of the subject
without refining upon it, when theory began to scrutinize the
foundations of Property.
Theory unhappily began in confusion, mistaking Utility for Value, and
attributing an inherent ‹value›, independent of all human service, to
the materials or forces of nature. From that moment property became
unintelligible, and incapable of justification.
For utility is the relation between commodities and our organization.
It necessarily implies neither efforts, nor transactions, nor
comparisons. We can conceive of it ‹per se›, and in relation to man
in a state of isolation. Value, on the contrary, is a relation of man
to man. To exist at all, it must exist in duplicate. Nothing isolated
can be compared. Value implies that the person in possession of it
does not transfer it except for an equivalent value. The theory,
then, which confounds these two ideas, takes for granted that a
person, in effecting an exchange, gives pretended value of natural
creation for true value of human creation, utility which exacts no
labour for utility which does exact it; in other words, that he can
profit by the labour of another without working himself. Property,
thus understood, is called first of all a ‹necessary monopoly›, then
simply a ‹monopoly›,—then it is branded as ‹illegitimate›, and last
of all as ‹robbery›.
Landed Property receives the first blow, and so it should. Not that
natural agents do not bear their part in all manufactures, but these
agents manifest themselves more strikingly to the eyes of the vulgar
in the phenomena of vegetable and animal life, in the production of
food, and of what are improperly called ‹matières premières› [raw
materials], which are the special products of agriculture.
Besides, if there be any one monopoly more revolting than another, it
is undoubtedly a monopoly which applies to the first necessaries of
life.
The confusion which I am exposing, and which is specious in a
scientific view, since no theorist I am acquainted with has got rid
of it, becomes still more specious when we look at what is passing
around us.
We see the landed Proprietor frequently living without labour, and we
draw the conclusion, which is plausible enough, that “he must surely
be remunerated for something else than his work.” And what can this
something else be, if not the fecundity, the productiveness, the
co-operation of the soil as an instrument? It is, then, the ‹rent of
land› which we must brand, in the language [p251] of the times, with
the names of necessary monopoly, privilege, illegitimacy, theft.
We must admit that the authors of this theory have encountered a fact
which must have powerfully tended to mislead them. Few land estates
in Europe have escaped from conquest and all its attendant abuses;
and science has confounded the violent methods by which landed
property has been acquired with the methods by which it is naturally
formed.
But we must not imagine that the false definition of the word
‹value› tends only to unsettle landed property. Logic is a terrible
and indefatigable power, whether it sets out with a good or a bad
principle! As the earth, it is said, makes light, heat, electricity,
vegetable life, etc., co-operate in the production of value, does
not capital in the same way make gravitation, elasticity, the wind,
etc., concur in producing value? There are other men, then, besides
agriculturists who are paid for the intervention of natural agents.
This remuneration comes to capitalists in the shape of Interest, just
as it comes to proprietors in the shape of Rent. War, then, must be
declared against Interest as it has been against Rent!
Property has had a succession of blows aimed at it in the name of
this principle, false as I think, true according to the Economists
and ‹Egalitaires›, namely, that ‹natural agents possess or create
value›. This is a postulate upon which all schools are agreed. They
differ only in the boldness or timidity of their deductions.
The Economists say that ‹property› (in land) ‹is a monopoly›, but a
monopoly which is necessary, and which must be maintained.
The Socialists say that ‹property› (in land) ‹is a monopoly›, but a
monopoly which is necessary, and which must be maintained,—and they
demand compensation for it in the shape of right to employment [‹le
droit au travail›].
The Communists and ‹Egalitaires› say that ‹property› (in general) ‹is
a monopoly›, and must be destroyed.
For myself, I say most emphatically that «PROPERTY IS NOT A
MONOPOLY». Your premises are false, and your three conclusions,
although they differ, are false also. «Property is not a monopoly»,
and consequently it is not incumbent on us either to tolerate it by
way of favour, or to demand compensation for it, or to destroy it.
Let us pass briefly in review the opinions of writers of various
schools on this important subject.
The English Economists lay down this principle, upon which they
appear to be unanimous, that ‹value comes from labour›. Were they
consistent in their use of terms, it might be so; but are they
consistent? The reader will judge. He will see whether they [p252]
do not always and everywhere confound gratuitous Utility, which is
incapable of remuneration, and destitute of Value, with onerous
Utility, which we owe exclusively to labour, and which according to
them is alone possessed of value.
«Adam Smith.»—“In agriculture nature labours along with man; and
‹although her labour costs no expense›, its produce ‹has its value›,
as well as that of the most expensive workmen.”[55]
Here we have nature producing value. The purchaser of corn must pay
for it, although it has cost nothing to anybody, not even labour. Who
then dares come forward to demand this pretended ‹value›? Substitute
for that word the word ‹utility›, and all becomes clear, Property is
vindicated, and justice satisfied.
“This rent,” proceeds Smith, “may be considered as the produce
of those ‹powers of nature›, the use of which the landlord lends
to the farmer. . . . . It (rent!) is the ‹work of nature›, which
remains after deducting or compensating ‹everything which can be
regarded as the work of man›. It is seldom less than a fourth, and
frequently more than a third of the whole produce. No equal quantity
of productive labour employed in manufactures can ever occasion so
great a reproduction. In them nature does nothing; man does all.”[56]
Is it possible in as few words to include a greater number of
dangerous errors? At this rate a fourth or a third part of the
‹value› of human subsistence is due ‹exclusively› to the power of
nature. And yet the proprietor is paid by the farmer, and the farmer
by the corn-consumer, for this pretended value which remains after
‹the work of man› has been remunerated. And this is the basis on
which it is desired to place Property! And, then, what becomes of the
axiom that ‹all value comes from labour›?
Next, we have nature doing nothing in Manufactures! Do gravitation,
the elasticity of the air, and animal force, not aid the
manufacturer? These forces act in our manufactures just as they act
in our fields; they produce gratuitously, not value, but utility.
Were it otherwise, property in capital would be as much exposed to
the attacks of Communism as property in land.
«Buchanan.»—This commentator, adopting the theory of his master on
Rent, is pressed by logic to blame him for having represented it as
advantageous:
“In dwelling on the reproduction of rent as so great an advantage
to society, Smith does not reflect that rent is the effect of high
price, and that what the landlord gains in this way, he gains ‹at
the expense› of the community at large. There is no absolute gain to
society by the reproduction of rent. It is only one class profiting
at the expense of another class.”[57]
Here the logical deduction makes its appearance—rent is an injustice.
«Ricardo.»—“Rent is that portion of the produce of the earth
‹which is paid› to the landlord for the use of the ‹original and
indestructible powers of the soil›.” [p253]
And, in order that there may be no mistake, the author adds:
“It is often confounded with the interest and profit of
capital. . . . . It is evident that a portion only of the money
annually to be paid for the improved farm would be for ‹the original
and indestructible powers of the soil›, the other portion would
be paid for the use of the capital which had been employed in
ameliorating the quality of the land, and in erecting such buildings
as were necessary to secure and preserve the produce. . . . In
the future pages of this work, then, whenever I speak of the rent
of land, I wish to be understood as speaking of that compensation
which is paid to the owner of land ‹for the use of its original and
indestructible powers›.”[58]
«M’Culloch.»—“What is properly termed Rent is the sum paid ‹for the
use of the natural and inherent powers of the soil›. It is entirely
distinct from the sum paid for the use of buildings, enclosures,
roads, or other amelioration. ‹Rent is then always a monopoly›.”
«Scrope.»—“The value of land, and its power of yielding Rent, are
due to two circumstances,—1st, The appropriation of ‹its natural
powers›; 2d, The labour applied to its amelioration.”
We are not kept long waiting for the consequence:
“Under the first of these relations ‹rent is a monopoly›. It
restricts our usufruct and enjoyment of the gifts which God has
given to men for the satisfaction of their wants. This restriction
‹is just, only in as far as it is necessary› for the common good.”
In what perplexity must those good souls be landed who refuse to
admit anything to be necessary which is not just?
Scrope ends with these words:
“When it goes beyond this point, it must be modified on the same
principle which caused it to be established.”
It is impossible for the reader not to perceive that these authors
lead us to a negation of Property, and lead us to it very logically,
in setting out with the proposition that the proprietor is paid
for the gifts of God. Here we have rent held up as an injustice
established by Law under the pressure of necessity, and which laws
may modify or destroy under the pressure of another necessity. The
Communists have never gone farther than this.
«Senior.»—“The instruments of production are labour and natural
agents. Natural agents having been appropriated, proprietors ‹charge
for their use› under the form of Rent, which is the recompense of
no sacrifice whatever, and is received by those who have neither
laboured nor put by, but who merely hold out their hands to accept
the offerings of the rest of the community.”
After giving this heavy blow to property, Mr Senior explains that one
portion of Rent resolves itself into the Interest of Capital, and
then adds:
“The surplus is taken by ‹the proprietor of the natural agent›, and
is his reward, ‹not for having laboured or abstained›, but simply
for not having withheld what he was able to withhold; for having
permitted the gifts of nature to be accepted.”
You will observe that this is still the same theory. The proprietor
is supposed to interpose himself between the hungry mouth and the
food which God has vouchsafed under the condition of [p254] labour.
The proprietor who has co-operated in the work of production, charges
first of all for his co-operation, which is just, and then he makes a
second charge for the work of nature, for the use of natural agents,
for the indestructible powers of the soil, which is iniquitous.
This theory of the English Economists, which has been farther
developed by Mill, Malthus, and others, we are sorry to find making
its way also on the Continent.
“When a franc’s worth of seed,” says «Scialoja», “produces a hundred
francs’ worth of corn, this augmentation of ‹value› is mainly due to
the soil.”
This is to confound Utility with value; He might just as well have
said, when water which costs only one sou at ten yards’ distance from
the spring, costs ten sous at 100 yards, this augmentation of value
is due in part to the intervention of nature.
«Florez Estrada.»—“Rent is that portion of the agricultural
product which remains ‹after all the costs of production have been
defrayed›.”
Then the proprietor receives something for nothing.
The English Economists all set out by announcing the principle that
‹value comes from labour›, and they are guilty of inconsistency when
they afterwards attribute value to the inherent ‹powers of the soil›.
The French Economists in general make value to consist in utility;
but, confounding gratuitous with onerous utility, they have not the
less assisted in shaking the foundation of Property.
«J. B. Say.»—“Land is not the only natural agent which is
productive, but it is the only one, or almost the only one, that
man has been able to appropriate. The waters of the sea and of our
rivers, by their aptitude to impart motion to machines, to afford
nourishment to fishes, to float our ships, are likewise possessed
of productive power. The wind and the sun’s rays work for us; but
‹happily› no one has been able to say, The wind and the sun are
mine, and I must be paid for their services.”
M. Say appears from this to lament that any one should be able to
say, The land belongs to me, and I must be paid for the service
which it renders. ‹Happily›, say I, it is no more in the power of
the proprietor to charge for the services of the soil than for the
services of the sun and the wind.
“The earth,” continues M. Say, “is an admirable chemical workshop,
in which are combined and elaborated a multitude of materials
and elements which are produced in the shape of grain, fruit,
flax, etc. Nature has presented to man, ‹gratuitously›, this vast
workshop divided into a great number of compartments fitted for
various kinds of production. But certain individual members of
society have appropriated them, and proclaimed,—This compartment
is mine,—that other is mine, and all that is produced in it is my
exclusive property. And the astonishing thing is, that this ‹usurped
privilege›, far from having been fatal to the community, has been
found productive of advantage to it.”
Undoubtedly this arrangement has been advantageous; but why? Just
because it is neither a privilege nor usurped, and [p255] that the
man who exclaims, “This domain is mine,” has not had it in his power
to add, “What has been produced on it is my exclusive property.”
On the contrary, he says, “What has been produced is the exclusive
property of whoever desires to purchase it, by giving me back simply
the same amount of labour which I have undergone, and which in this
instance I have saved his undergoing.” The co-operation of nature in
the work of production, which is gratuitous for me, is gratuitous for
him also.
M. Say indeed distinguishes, in the value of corn, the parts
contributed by Property, by Capital, and by Labour. He has with the
best intention been at great pains to justify this first part of
the remuneration which accrues to the proprietor, and which is the
recompense of no labour, either anterior or present; but he fails;
for, like Scrope, he is obliged to fall back on the last and least
satisfactory of all grounds of vindication, ‹necessity›.
“If it be impossible,” he remarks, “for production to be effected,
not only without land and without capital, but without these means
of production previously becoming ‹property›, may it not be said
that proprietors of land and capital exercise a productive function,
since, without the employment of these means, production would
not take place?—a convenient function no doubt, but which, in the
present state of society, presupposes accumulation, which is the
result of production or saving,” etc.
The confusion here is palpable. The accumulation has been effected
by the proprietor in his character of Capitalist—a character with
which at present we have no concern. But what M. Say represents
as convenient is the part played by the proprietor, in his proper
character of proprietor, exacting a price for the gifts of God. It is
this part which it is necessary to vindicate, and it has no connexion
with either accumulation or saving.
“If, then, property in land and in capital” (why assimilate the
two?) “be the fruit of production, I am warranted in representing
such property as a working and productive machine, for which its
author, although sitting with his hands across, is entitled to exact
a recompense.”
Still the same confusion. The man who constructs a machine is
proprietor of a ‹capital›, from which he legitimately derives an
income, because he is paid, not for the labour of the machine, but
for his own labour in constructing it. But ‹land›, or ‹territorial›
property, is ‹not the result of human production›. What right, then,
have we to be paid for its co-operation? The author has here mixed up
two different kinds of property in the same category, in order that
the same reasons which justify the one may serve for the vindication
of the other.
«Blanqui.»—“The agriculturist who tills, manures, sows, and
reaps his field, furnishes labour, without which nothing would be
produced. But the action of the soil in making the seed germinate,
and of the sun in bringing the plant to maturity, are independent
of that labour, and co-operate in the formation of the ‹value›
represented by the harvest. . . Smith and other Economists pretend
that the labour of [p256] man is the exclusive source of value.
Assuredly the industry of the labourer is not the exclusive source
of the value of a sack of corn or a bushel of potatoes. His skill
can no more succeed in producing the phenomenon of germination than
the patience of the alchymist could succeed in discovering the
philosopher’s stone. This is evident.”
It is impossible to imagine a more complete confusion than we have
here, first between utility and value, and then between onerous and
gratuitous utility.
«Joseph Garnier.»—“The rent of the proprietor differs essentially
from the wages of the labourer and the profits of the capitalist,
inasmuch as these two kinds of remuneration are the recompense,
the one of trouble or pains taken, the other of a privation
submitted to, and a risk encountered, whilst Rent is received by the
proprietor ‹gratuitously, and in virtue alone of a legal convention›
which recognises and maintains in certain individuals the right to
landed property.”—(‹Eléments de l’Économie Politique›, 2^e edition,
p. 293.)
In other words, the labourer and capitalist are paid, in the name of
equity, for the services they render; and the proprietor is paid, in
the name of law, for services which he does not render.
“The boldest innovators do not go farther than to propose the
substitution of collective for individual property. ‹It seems to us
that they have reason on their side as regards human right›; but
they are wrong practically, inasmuch as they are unable to exhibit
the advantages of a better Economical system.” . . . —(‹Ibid.›, pp.
377, 378.)
“But at the same time, ‹in avowing that property is a privilege,
a monopoly›, we must add, that it is a natural and a useful
monopoly. . . .
“In short, it seems to be admitted by Political Economy” [it is so,
alas! and here lies the evil] “that property does not flow from
divine right, demesnial right, or any other speculative right, but
simply from its utility. ‹It is only a monopoly tolerated in the
interest of all›,” etc.
This is precisely the judgment pronounced by Scrope, and repeated in
modified terms by Say.
I think I have now satisfactorily shown that Political Economy,
setting out with the false datum, that “natural agents possess or
create value,” has arrived at this conclusion, “that property (in
as far as it appropriates and is remunerated for this value, which
is independent of all human service) is a privilege, a monopoly,
a usurpation; but that it is a necessary monopoly, and must be
maintained.”
It remains for me to show that the Socialists set out with the same
postulate, only they modify the conclusion in this way: “Property is
a necessary monopoly; it must be maintained, but we must demand, from
those who have property, compensation to those who have none, in the
shape of Right to Employment.”
I shall, then, dispose of the doctrine of the Communists, who,
arguing from the same premises, conclude that “Property is a
monopoly, and ought to be abolished.”
Finally, and at the risk of repetition, I shall, if I can, expose
the fallacy of the premises on which all the three conclusions are
based, namely, that ‹natural agents possess or create value›. If I
succeed in [p257] this, if I demonstrate that natural agents, even
when appropriated, produce, not Value, but Utility, which, passing
from the hands of the proprietor without leaving anything behind it,
reaches the consumer gratuitously,—in that case, all—Economists,
Socialists, Communists—must at length come to a common understanding
to leave the world, in this respect, just as it is.
«M. Considérant.»[59]—“In order to discover how and under what
conditions ‹private property› may Legitimately manifest and develop
itself, we must get possession of the ‹fundamental principle of the
Right of Property›; and here it is:
“Every man «POSSESSES LEGITIMATELY THE THINGS» ‹which have been›
«CREATED» ‹by his labour, his intelligence, or›, to speak more
generally, «BY HIS ACTIVITY».
“This Principle is incontestable, and it is right to remark that
it contains implicitly the acknowledgment of the Right of all to
the Soil. The earth not having been created by man, it follows in
fact, from the fundamental principle of Property, that the Soil,
which is a common fund given over to the species, can in no shape
legitimately become the absolute and exclusive property of this or
that individual who has not created ‹this value›. Let us establish,
then, the true Theory of Property, by basing it exclusively on the
unexceptionable principle which makes ‹the legitimacy of Property›
hinge upon the fact of ‹the› «CREATION» ‹of the thing, or of the
value possessed›. To accomplish this we must direct our reasoning
to the origin of industry, that is to say, to the origin and
development of agriculture, manufactures, the arts, etc., in human
society.
“Suppose that on a solitary island, on the territory of a nation, or
on the entire surface of the earth (for the extent of the field of
action makes no difference in our estimate of facts), a generation
of mankind devotes itself for the first time to industry—for
the first time engages in agriculture, manufactures, etc. Each
generation, by its labour, by its intelligence, by the exertion
of its own proper activity, ‹creates products, develops value›,
which did not exist on the earth in its rude and primitive state.
Is it not perfectly evident that, among the first generation of
labourers, Property would conform to Right, «PROVIDED» ‹the value
or wealth produced by the activity of all› were distributed among
the producers «IN PROPORTION TO THE CO-OPERATION» of each in the
creation of the general riches? That is beyond dispute.
“Now, the results of the labour of this generation may be divided
into two categories, which it is important to distinguish.
“The ‹first category› includes the products of the soil, which
belong to this first generation in its character of usufructuary,
as having been increased, refined, or manufactured by its labour,
by its industry. These products, whether raw or manufactured,
consist either of objects of consumption or of instruments of
labour. It is clear that these products belong, ‹in entire and
legitimate property›, to those who have created them by their
activity. Each of them, then, has «RIGHT», either to consume these
products immediately, to store them up to be disposed of afterwards
at pleasure, or to employ them, exchange them, give them away, or
transmit them to any one he chooses, without receiving authority
from anyone. On this hypothesis, this Property is evidently
‹Legitimate›, respectable, sacred. We cannot assail it without
assailing ‹Justice›, ‹Right›, ‹individual liberty›,—without, in
short, being guilty of Spoliation.
“‹Second category.› But the creations attributable to the
industrious activity of this first generation are not all included
in the preceding category. This generation has created not only the
products which we have just described (objects of consumption and
instruments of labour),—it has also added an ‹additional value› to
the ‹primitive value› of the soil, by cultivation, by erections, by
the permanent improvements which it has executed.
“This additional value constitutes evidently a product, a value, due
to the activity of the first generation. Now, if by any means (we
are not concerned at present with the question of means),—if by any
means whatever the property of this additional value is equitably
distributed among the different members of society, that is to say,
is distributed among them proportionally to the co-operation of
each in its creation, each will possess ‹legitimately› the portion
which has fallen to him. He may, then, dispose of this individual
Property, legitimate as he sees it to be, exchange it, give it away,
or transmit it without control, society having over these values no
right or power whatsoever. [p258]
“We may, therefore, easily conceive that when the second generation
makes its appearance, it will find upon the land two sorts of
Capital:
“1st, The ‹primitive or natural capital›, which has not been created
by the men of the first generation—that is, the ‹value› of the land
in its rough, uncultivated state.
“2d, The ‹capital created› by the first generation: including (1),
the ‹products›, commodities, and instruments, which shall not have
been consumed or used by the first generation; (2), the additional
value which the labour of the first generation has added to the
value of the rough, uncultivated land.
“It is evident, then, and results clearly and necessarily from the
fundamental principle of the Right of Property, which I have just
explained, that each individual of the second generation has an
equal right to the ‹primitive or natural capital›, whilst he has no
right to the other species of ‹capital› which has been ‹created› by
the labour of the first generation. Each individual of the first
generation may, then, dispose of his share of this ‹created capital›
in favour of whatever individual of the second generation he may
please to select, children, friends, etc., and no one, not even the
State itself, as we have just seen, has the slightest right (on
pretence of Property) to control the disposal which, as donor or
testator, he may have made of such capital.
“Observe that on this hypothesis the man of the second generation
is already in a better situation than the man of the first, seeing
that, besides his right to the ‹primitive capital›, which is
preserved to him, he has his chance of receiving a portion of the
‹created capital›, that is to say, of a value which he has not
produced, and which represents anterior labour.
“If, then, we suppose things to be arranged in society in such a way
that,
“1st, The right to the ‹primitive capital›, that is, the usufruct of
the soil in its natural state, is preserved, or that an «EQUIVALENT
RIGHT» is conferred on every individual born within the territory;
“2d, That the ‹created capital› is continually distributed among
men, ‹as it is produced›, in proportion to the co-operation of each
in the production of that capital;
“If, we say, the mechanism of the social organization shall satisfy
these two conditions, «PROPERTY», under such a régime, would be
established «IN ITS ABSOLUTE LEGITIMACY», and ‹Fact› would be in
unison with ‹Right›.”—(‹Théorie du droit de propriété et du droit au
travail›, 3^e edition, p. 17.)
We see here that the socialist author distinguishes between two
kinds of value, ‹created value›, which is the subject of legitimate
property, and ‹uncreated value›, which he denominates the ‹value of
land in its natural state›, ‹primitive capital›, ‹natural capital›,
which cannot become individual property but by usurpation. Now,
according to the theory which I am anxious to establish, the ideas
expressed by the words ‹uncreated›, ‹primitive›, ‹natural›, exclude
radically these other ideas, ‹value›, ‹capital›. This is the error in
M. Considérant’s premises, by which he is landed in this melancholy
conclusion:
“That, under the régime of Property, in all civilized nations, the
common fund, over which the entire species has a full right of
usufruct, has been invaded—has been confiscated—by the few, to the
exclusion of the many. Why, were even a single human being excluded
from his Right to the Usufruct of this common fund, that very
exclusion would of itself constitute an attack upon Right by the
Institution of Property, and that institution, by sanctioning such
invasion of right, would be unjust and illegitimate.”
M. Considérant, however, acknowledges that the earth could not be
cultivated but for the institution of individual property. Here,
then, is a ‹necessary monopoly›. What can we do, then, to reconcile
all, and preserve the rights which the ‹prolétaires›, or men of no
property, have to the primitive, natural, uncreated capital, and to
the value of the land in its rough and uncultivated state? [p259]
“Why, let Society, which has taken possession of the land, and taken
away from man the power of exercising, freely and at will, his four
natural rights on the surface of the soil,—let this industrious
society cede to the individual, in compensation for the rights of
which it has deprived him, the ‹Right to Employment›.”—[«Le Droit au
Travail.»]
Now, nothing in the world is clearer than that this theory, except
the conclusion which it seeks to establish, is exactly the theory
of the Economists. The man who purchases an agricultural product
remunerates three things: 1st, The actual labour—nothing more
legitimate; 2dly, the ‹additional value› imparted to the soil by
anterior labour—still nothing more legitimate; 3dly, and lastly, the
‹primitive›, or ‹natural›, or ‹uncreated capital›,—that gratuitous
gift of God, which M. Considérant denominates the ‹value of the land
in its rough and natural state›; Adam Smith, the ‹indestructible
powers of the soil›; Ricardo, the ‹productive and indestructible
powers of the land›; Say, ‹natural agents›. ‹This› is the part
which has been ‹usurped›, according to M. Considérant; ‹this› is
what has been ‹usurped›, according to J. B. Say. It is ‹this› which
constitutes ‹illegitimacy› and ‹spoliation› in the eyes of the
Socialists; which constitutes ‹monopoly› and ‹privilege› in the
eyes of the Economists. They are at one as to the ‹necessity› and
the utility of this arrangement. Without it the earth would produce
nothing, say the disciples of Smith; without it we should return to
the savage state, re-echo the disciples of Fourier.
We find that in theory, and as regards right (at least with reference
to this important question), the understanding between the two
schools is much more cordial than we should have imagined. They
differ only as to the legislative consequences to be deduced from
the fact on which they agree. “Seeing that property is tainted with
illegitimacy, inasmuch as it assigns to the proprietor a part of the
remuneration to which he has no right; and seeing, at the same time,
that it is necessary, let us respect it, but demand indemnities.
No, say the Economists, although it is a monopoly, yet seeing that
it is a necessary monopoly, let us respect it, and let it alone.”
And yet they urge this weak defence but feebly; for one of their
latest organs, M. J. Garnier, adds, “You have reason on your side, as
regards human right, but you are wrong practically, inasmuch as you
have failed to point out the effects of a better system.” To which
the Socialists immediately reply, “We have found it; it is the Right
to Employment—try it.”
In the meantime M. Proudhon steps in. You imagine, perhaps, that
this redoubtable objector is about to question the premises on which
the Economists and Socialists ground their agreement. Not at all.
He can demolish property without that. [p260] He appropriates the
premises, grasps them, closes with them, and most logically deduces
his conclusion. “You grant,” he says, “that the gifts of God are
possessed not only of utility but of ‹value›, and that these gifts
the proprietor usurps and sells. Then Property is theft; and it
is not necessary to maintain it; it is not necessary to demand
compensation for it; what ‹is› necessary is to ‹abolish› it.”
M. Proudhon has brought forward many arguments against landed
Property. The most formidable one—indeed the only formidable one—is
that with which these authors have furnished him, by confounding
utility with value.
“Who has the right,” he asks, “to charge for the use of the
soil,—for that wealth which does not proceed from man’s act? Who
is entitled to the rent of land? The producer of the land, without
doubt. Who made it? God. Then, proprietor, begone.
“ . . . . But the Creator of the earth does not sell it—he gives
it; and in giving it he shows no respect of persons. Why, then,
among all his children, are some treated as eldest sons, and some
as bastards? If equality of inheritance be our original right, why
should our posthumous right be inequality of conditions?”
Replying to J. B. Say, who had compared land to an instrument, he
says:
“I grant it that land is an instrument; but who is the workman? Is
it the proprietor? Is it he who, by the efficacious virtue of the
right of property, communicates to it vigour and fertility? It is
precisely here that we discover in what consists the monopoly of
the proprietor,—he did not make the instrument, and he charges for
its use. Were the Creator to present Himself and demand the rent
of land, we must account for it to Him; but the proprietor, who
represents himself as invested with the same power, ought to exhibit
his procuration.”
That is evident. The three systems in reality make only one.
Economists, Socialists, Egalitaires, all direct against landed
proprietors the same reproach, that of charging for what they have
no right to charge for. This wrong some call ‹monopoly›, some
‹illegitimacy›, others ‹theft›—these are but different phases of the
same complaint.
Now I would appeal to every intelligent reader whether this complaint
is or is not well founded? Have I not demonstrated that there is but
one thing which comes between the gifts of God and the hungry mouth,
namely, human service?
Economists say, that “Rent is what we pay to the proprietor for the
use of the productive and indestructible powers of the soil.” I say,
No—Rent is like what we pay to the water-carrier for the pains he
has taken to construct his barrow, and the water would cost us more
if he had carried it on his back. In the same way, corn, flax, wool,
timber, meat, fruits, would have cost us more if the proprietor had
not previously improved the instrument which furnishes them.
Socialists assert that “originally the masses enjoyed their right
[p261] to the land on condition of labour, but that now they are
excluded and robbed of their natural patrimony.” I answer, No—they
are neither excluded nor robbed—they enjoy, gratuitously, the utility
contributed by the soil on condition of labour, that is to say, by
repaying that labour to those who have saved it to them.
Égalitaires allege that “the monopoly of the proprietor consists in
this, that not having made the instrument, he yet charges for its
use.” I answer, No—the land-instrument, so far as it is the work of
God, produces ‹utility›, and that utility is gratuitous; it is beyond
the power of the proprietor to charge for it. The land-instrument, so
far as it is prepared by the proprietor,—so far as he has laboured
it, enclosed it, drained it, improved it, and furnished it with other
necessary instruments, produces ‹value›, and that value represents
actual human ‹services›, and for these alone is the proprietor paid.
You must either admit the legitimacy of this demand, or reject your
own principle—the ‹mutuality of services›.
In order to satisfy ourselves as to the true elements of the value of
land, let us attend to the way in which landed property is formed—not
by conquest and violence, but according to the laws of labour and
exchange. Let us see what takes place in the United States.
Brother Jonathan, a laborious water-carrier of New York, set out for
the Far-west, carrying in his purse a thousand dollars, the fruit of
his labour and frugality.
He journeyed across many fertile provinces, where the soil, the sun,
and the rain worked wonders, but which nevertheless ‹were entirely
destitute of value› in the economical and ‹practical› sense of the
word.
Being a little of a philosopher, he said to himself—“Let Adam Smith
and Ricardo say what they will, ‹value› must ‹be something else than
the natural and indestructible productive power of the soil›.”
At length, having reached the State of Arkansas, he found a beautiful
property of about 100 acres, which the government had advertised for
sale at the price of a dollar an acre.
A dollar an acre! he said—that is very little, almost nothing. I
shall purchase this land, clear it, and sell the produce, and the
drawer of water shall become a lord of the soil!
Brother Jonathan, being a merciless logician, liked to have a reason
for everything. He said to himself, But why is this land worth even
a dollar an acre? No one has yet put a spade in it, or has bestowed
on it the least labour. Can Smith and Ricardo, and the whole string
of theorists down to Proudhon, be right after all? Can land have
a value independent of all labour, all service, [p262] all human
intervention? Must I admit that the productive and indestructible
powers of the soil ‹have value›? In that case, why should they have
no value in the countries through which I have passed? And, besides,
since the powers of the soil surpass so enormously the powers of men,
which, as Blanqui well remarks, can never go the length of creating
the phenomena of germination, why should these marvellous powers be
worth no more than a dollar?
But he was not long in perceiving that this value, like all other
values, is of human and social creation. The American government
demanded a dollar for the concession of each acre; but, on the
other hand, it undertook to guarantee to a certain extent the
security of the acquirer; it had formed in a rough way a road to
the neighbourhood, facilitated the transmission of letters and
newspapers, etc. Service for service, said Jonathan;—the government
makes me pay a dollar, but it gives me an adequate equivalent. With
deference to Ricardo, I can now account naturally for the value
of this land, which value would be still greater if the road were
extended and improved, the post more frequent and regular, and the
protection more efficacious and secure.
While Jonathan argued, he worked; for we must do him the justice to
say that he always made thinking and acting keep pace.
He expended the remainder of his dollars in buildings, enclosures,
clearances, trenching, draining, improving, etc.; and after having
dug, laboured, sowed, harrowed, reaped, at length came the time to
dispose of his crop. “Now I shall see,” said Jonathan, still occupied
with the problem of value, “if in becoming a landed proprietor I
have transformed myself into a monopolist, a privileged aristocrat,
a plunderer of my neighbour, an engrosser of the bounties of divine
Providence.”
He carried his grain to market, and began to talk with a
Yankee:—Friend, said he, how much will you give me for this Indian
corn?
The current price, replied the other.
The current price! but will that yield me anything beyond the
interest of my capital and the wages of my labour?
I am a merchant, said the Yankee, and I know that I must content
myself with the recompense of my present and former labour.
And I was content with it when I was a mere drawer of water, replied
the other, but now I am a landed proprietor. The English and French
Economists have assured me that in that character I [p263] ought,
over and above the double remuneration you point at, to derive a
profit from the ‹productive and indestructible powers of the soil›,
and levy a tax on the gifts of God.
The gifts of God belong to all, said the merchant. I avail myself of
the ‹productive power› of the wind for propelling my ships, but I
make no one pay for it.
Still, as far as I am concerned, I expect that you will pay me
something for these powers, in order that Messieurs Senior,
Considérant, and Proudhon, should not call me a monopolist and
usurper for nothing. If I am to have the disgrace, I may at least
have the profit, of a monopolist.
In that case, friend, I must bid you good morning. To obtain the
maize I am in quest of, I must apply to other proprietors, and if I
find them of your mind, I shall cultivate it for myself.
Jonathan then understood the truth, that, under the empire of
freedom, a man cannot be a monopolist at pleasure. As long as there
are lands in the Union to clear, said he, I can never be more
than the simple setter in motion of these famous ‹productive and
indestructible forces›. I shall be paid for my trouble, that is all,
just as when I was a drawer of water I was paid for my own labour,
and not for that of nature. I see now very clearly that the true
usufructuary of the gifts of God is not the man who raises the corn,
but the man who consumes it.