PROTECTION and COMMUNISM
From The French
By Frédéric Bastiat.
With a Preface, by The Translator
London:
John W. Parker And Son, West Strand
MDCCCLII.
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.
This translation will not, it is hoped, be unacceptable to the English
reader, particularly at the present moment, when it is not improbable
that, under certain circumstances, a great effort may be made in
this country to restore Protection--or, should that wild attempt be
considered impossible, to shift the public burdens in such a manner as
to effect, as far as possible, the same purpose in favour of what is
called the 'agricultural interest.' M. Bastiat's spirited little work
is in the form of a letter, addressed to M. Thiers--the archenemy of
free-trade, as he was of most propositions which had for their object
the true happiness of France. The present was only one of a series
of efforts made by M. Bastiat in favour of the cause of freedom of
commerce; and the English reader has already had an opportunity of
admiring the force of his arguments and the clearness of his style, in
Mr. Porter's* admirable translation of _Popular Fallacies_, which is,
indeed, a perfect armory of arguments for those 'who, although they may
have a general impression favourable to Free-trade, have yet some fears
as to the consequences that may follow its adoption.' What impression M.
Bastiat may have produced on the public mind of France it is not easy
to conjecture, or how far the recent violent changes in that country,
presuming them to be at all permanent, may prove favourable to
Free-trade or otherwise. But it is to be feared that there is an amount
of prejudice and ignorance in France, among the mass of her people, more
inveterate and more difficult to remove and enlighten than was the
case in this country. However, seed thus sown cannot remain altogether
without fruit, and the rapidity with which correct principles
spread through a great community, under apparently most unfavourable
circumstances, is such as frequently to astonish even those most
convinced of the vast power of truth.
* Secretary of the Board of Trade, and author of the
_Progress of the Nation_.
The real object of M. Bastiat is to expose the unsoundness and injustice
of the system of Protection. He does this partly by a dexterous
reference to the theory of Communism, and shows, with logical force and
neat application, that the principles of the two are in truth the same.
The parallel thus drawn, so far from being fanciful or strained, is
capable of easy demonstration. But, in drawing it, M. Bastiat rather
assumes than proves that Communism is itself wholly indefensible--that
its establishment would be destructive of security and property,
and, consequently, of society--in a word, that it is another term for
robbery.
This is true, and obviously so, of Communism, in its more extravagant
form; and it is to this, of course, that M. Bastiat refers. But it
cannot be denied that there are many modifications of the principle
which embrace more or less truth, and which _appear_ to offer a
corrective to that excessive competition or pressure of numbers, the
evils of which are patent, admitted, and deplored. That the specific
remedy proposed is vicious, that it would quickly make matters much
worse than they are, that it is, in fact, a fraud and a mockery, does
not prevent it from being, and naturally, captivating to many who at
present see no other way out of the difficulties and the struggles by
which they are surrounded: and who are tempted to embrace it, not only
as a relief to their present wants and anxieties, but because it would,
in their opinion, entail other consequences, as connected with their
social condition, particularly grateful to their feelings. We further
admit that such sentiments--not in themselves irrational--founded on
a legitimate desire for improvement, and entertained by large and
important classes--are entitled to the most respectful consideration.
Whether some considerable melioration in the condition of our labourers
and artisans may not by degrees be effected by means of combined labour,
or co-operation, and the principle of partnership, is no doubt one of
the great questions to be solved by modern society, but it is much too
wide a one to be entered upon, however cursorily, in this place. It is
understood, however, that one of the most original and powerful thinkers
within the domain of statistics is at the present moment engaged on this
subject; and, if this be so, we shall no doubt, before long, be in the
possession of views of extreme importance and interest.
We have, with deep regret, to add that M. Bastiat died during the autumn
of last year, after a long illness, in the south of Italy. By his death,
not only France, but the world also, has sustained a loss.
PROTECTION AND COMMUNISM.
TO M. THIERS.
Sir,
Do not be ungrateful to the revolution of February. It may have
surprised, perhaps disturbed you, but it has also afforded you, whether
as an author, an orator, or a practised statesman, some unexpected
triumphs. Amidst these successes, there is one certainly of no usual
character. We not long ago read in _La Presse_, 'The Association for the
Protection of National Labour (the ancient Mimerel Club)* is about
to address a circular to all its correspondents, to announce that a
subscription is opened for the purpose of promoting in manufactories the
circulation of M. Thiers's book upon Property. The association itself
subscribes for 5000 copies.' Would that I had been present when this
flattering announcement met your eyes. It should have made them sparkle
with joy. We have good reason to say that the ways of Providence are as
infallible as they are impenetrable. For if you will bear with me for a
moment I will endeavour to prove that Protection, when fully developed,
and pushed to its legitimate consequences, becomes Communism. It is
sufficiently singular that a champion of Protection should discover that
he is a promoter of Communism; but what is more extraordinary and more
consoling still, is the fact that we find a powerful association, that
was formed for the purpose of propagating theoretically and practically
the principles of Communism (in the manner deemed most profitable to
its members) now devoting the half of its resources to destroy the evil
which it has done with the other half.
* An association, Mr. Porter informs us, composed like that
assembling (or that did assemble, for we are not quite sure
whether it still exists,) at No. 17, New Bond Street,
exclusively of producers, at least of the article sought to
be protected, and therefore of persons who believe
themselves to be interested in excluding from the home
market the productions of others.
I repeat it,--this is consoling. It assures us of the inevitable triumph
of truth, since it shows us the real and first propagators of subversive
doctrines, startled at their success, industriously correcting with the
proper antidote the poison they had spread.
This supposes, it is true, the identity of the principles of Communism
and of Protection, and perhaps you do not admit this identity, though,
to speak the truth, it seems to me impossible that you could have
written four hundred pages upon Property without being struck by it.
Perhaps you imagine that some efforts made in favour of commercial
freedom, or rather of free trade, the impatience of a discussion without
results, the ardour of the contest, and the keenness of the struggle,
have made me view (what happens too often to all of us) the errors of my
adversaries in exaggerated colours. But, beyond question, according to
my idea, it requires but little effort to develop the principles you
have been advocating into those of Communism. How can it be that our
great manufacturers, landed proprietors, rich bankers, able statesmen,
have become, without knowing or wishing it, the introducers, the very
apostles of Communism in France? And why not, I would ask? There
are numerous workmen fully convinced of the _right of labour_, and
consequently Communists also without knowing or wishing it, and who
would not acknowledge the title. The reason of this is, that amongst all
classes interest biases the will, and the will, as Pascal says, is
the chief element of our faith. Under another name, many of our working
classes, very honest people be it observed, use Communism as they have
always used it, namely, on the condition that the wealth of others
should alone be liable to the law. But as soon as the principle,
extending itself, would apply the same rule to their own property--oh!
then Communism is held in detestation, and their former principles
are rejected with loathing. To express surprise at this, is simply
to confess ignorance of the human heart, its secret workings, and how
strong its inclination is to practise self-deception.*
* The truth of this is found on all occasions where the
interests or the passions of men are concerned, and was
rather amusingly shown in many ways when the free-trade
measures of Sir R. Peel were being carried through. Then
every interest desired free-trade, except with reference to
the articles produced by itself.
No, Sir; it is not the heat of controversy, which has betrayed me in
seeing the doctrine of Protection in this light, for, on the contrary,
it was because I saw it in this point of view before the struggle
commenced that I am thus engaged. Believe me that to extend somewhat
our foreign commerce--a consequential result which, however, is far
from despicable--was never my governing motive; I believed, and I still
believe, that property itself was concerned in the question; I believed,
and I still believe, that our tariff of customs, owing to the principle
which has given it birth, and the arguments by which it is defended, has
made a breach in the very principle of property itself, through
which all the rest of our legislation threatens to force itself. In
considering this state of things, it seems to me that a Communism, the
true effect and range of which, (I must say this to be just,) was not
contemplated by its supporters, was on the point of overwhelming us.
It seems to me that this particular species of Communism (for there
are several kinds of it) flows logically from the arguments of the
protectionists, and is involved when those arguments are pressed to
their legitimate conclusion. It is upon this ground, therefore, that it
seems to me of the utmost importance to meet the evil, for, fortified as
it is by sophistical statements, and sanctioned by high authority, there
is no hope of eradicating the error while such statements are permitted
to take possession of and to distract the mind of the public. It is
thus that we view the matter at Bordeaux, Paris, Marseilles, Lyons,
and elsewhere, where we have organized the free-trade association.
Commercial freedom, considered by itself, is without doubt a great
blessing to the people; but if we had only this object in view, our body
should have been named the _Association for Commercial Freedom_, or,
more accurately, _for the Gradual Reform of the Tariffs_. But the word
'free-trade' implies the _free disposal of the produce of labour_,
in other terms '_property_' and it is for this reason that we have
preferred it. We knew, indeed, that the term would give rise to many
difficulties. It affirmed a principle, and from that moment all the
supporters of the opposite one ranged themselves against us. More than
this, it was extremely objectionable, even to some of those who were
the most disposed to second us, that is to say, to merchants and traders
more engaged in reforming the Customs than in overthrowing Communism.
Havre, while sympathizing with our views, refused to enlist under our
banner. On all sides I was told, 'Let us obtain without loss of time
some modification of our tariff, without publishing to the world our
extreme pretensions.' I replied, 'If you have only that in view,
exert your influence through your chambers of commerce.' To this
they answered, 'The word free-trade frightens people, and retards our
success.' Nothing is more true; but I would derive even from the terror
inspired by this word my strongest arguments for its adoption. The
more disliked it is, say I, the more it proves that the true notion of
property is obscured. The doctrine of Protection has clouded ideas, and
confused and false ideas have in their turn supported Protection. To
obtain by surprise, or with the consent of the Government, an accidental
amelioration of the tariff may modify an effect, but cannot destroy a
cause. I retain, then, the word _Free-trade_, not in the mere spirit of
opposition, but still, I admit, because of the obstacles it creates or
encounters--obstacles which, while they betray the mischief at work,
bear along with them the certain proof, that the very foundation of
social order was threatened.
It is not sufficient to indicate our views by a word; they should be
defined. This has been done, and I here transcribe, as a programme, the
first announcement or manifesto of this association.
'When uniting for the defence of a great cause, the undersigned feel
the necessity of declaring their creed: of proclaiming the _design, the
province, the means and the principles of their association_.
'Exchange is a natural right, like property. Every one who has made
or acquired any article should have the option either to apply it
immediately to his own use, or to transfer it to any one, whomsoever
he may be, who may consent to give him something he may prefer to it
in exchange. To deprive him of this power when he makes no use of
it contrary to public order or morality, and solely to gratify the
convenience of another, is to legalise a robbery--to violate the
principle of justice.
'Again, it is to violate the conditions of social order--for what
true social order can exist in the midst of a community, in which each
individual interest, aided in this by law and public opinion, aims at
success by the depression of all the others?
'It is to disown that providential superintendence which presides over
human affairs, and made manifest by the infinite variety of climates,
seasons, natural advantages and resources, benefits which God has so
unequally distributed among men to unite them by commercial intercourse
in the ties of a common brotherhood.
'It is to retard or counteract the development of public prosperity,
since he who is not free to barter as he pleases, is not free to select
his occupation, and is compelled to give an unnatural direction to his
efforts, to his faculties, to his capital, and to those agents which
nature has placed at his disposal.
'In short, it is to imperil the peace of nations, for it disturbs
the relations which unite them, and which render wars improbable in
proportion as they would be burdensome.
'The association has, then, for its object Free-trade.
'The undersigned do not contest that society has the right to impose on
merchandise, which crosses the frontier, custom dues to meet national
expenses, provided they are determined by the consideration of the wants
of the Treasury alone.
'But as soon as a tax, losing its fiscal character, aims at the
exclusion of foreign produce, to the detriment of the Treasury itself,
in order to raise artificially the price of similar national products,
and thus to levy contributions on the community for the advantage of a
class, from that instant Protection, or rather robbery, displays itself,
and _this_ is the principle which the association proposes to eradicate
from the public mind, and to expunge from our laws, independently of all
reciprocity, and of the systems which prevail elsewhere.
'Though this association has for its object the complete destruction of
the system of protection, it does not follow that it requires or expects
such a reformation to be accomplished in a day, as by the stroke of
a wand. To return even from evil to good, from an artificial state of
things to one more natural, calls for the exercise of much prudence and
precaution. To carry out the details belongs to the supreme power--the
province of the association is to propagate the principle, and to make
it popular.
'As to the means which the association may employ to accomplish its
ends, it will never seek for any but what are legal and constitutional.
'Finally, the association has nothing to do with party politics. It does
not advocate any particular interest, class or section of the country.
It embraces the cause of eternal justice, of peace, of union, of free
intercourse, of brotherhood among all men--the cause of public weal,
which is identical in every respect with that of the _public consumer_.'
Is there a word in this programme which does not show an ardent wish to
confirm and strengthen, or rather perhaps to re-establish, in the minds
of men the idea of property, perverted, as it is, by the system of
Protection? Is it not evident that the interest of commerce is made
secondary to the interest of society generally? Remark that the tariff,
in itself good or evil in the financial point of view, engages little
of our attention. But, as soon as it acts _intentionally_ with a view
to Protection, that is to say, as soon as it develops the principle of
spoliation, and ignores, in fact, the right of property, we combat it,
not as a tariff, but as a system. _It is there_, we say, that we must
eradicate the principle from the public mind, in order to blot it from
our laws.*
* As Mr. Porter says, in one of his excellent notes on M.
Bastiat's work on _Popular Fallacies_, 'The true history of
all progress in regard to great questions, involving change
in social policy, is here indicated by M. Bastiat. It is in
vain that we look for such change through the enlightenment
of what should be the governing bodies. In this respect, all
legislative assemblies, whether called a Chamber of Deputies
or a House of Commons, are truly representatives of the
public mind, never placing themselves in advance, nor
lagging much behind the general conviction. This is not,
indeed, a new discovery, but we are much indebted to Mr.
Cobden and the leading members of the Anti-Corn-Law League
for having placed it in a point of view so prominent that it
can no longer be mistaken. Hereafter, the course of action
is perfectly clear upon all questions that require
legislative sanction. This can only be obtained through the
enlightenment of the constituency; but when such
enlightenment has been accomplished--when those mainly
interested in bringing about the change have once formed
their opinion in its favour, the task is achieved.'
It will be asked, no doubt, why, having in view a general principle
of this importance, we have confined the struggle to the merits of a
particular question.
The reason of this, is simple. It is necessary to oppose association to
association, to engage the interests of men, and thus draw volunteers
into our ranks. We know well that the contest between the Protectionists
and Free-traders cannot be prolonged without raising and finally
settling all questions, moral, political, philosophical, and economical,
connected with property. And since the Mimerel Club, in directing its
efforts to one end, had weakened the principle of property, so we aimed
at inspiring it with renewed vigour, in pursuing a course diametrically
opposite.
But what matters it what I may have said or thought at other times? What
matters it that I have perceived, or thought that I have perceived, a
certain connexion between Protection and Communism? The essential thing
is to prove that this connexion exists, and I proceed to ascertain
whether this be so.
You no doubt remember the time when, with your usual ability, you drew
from the lips of Monsieur Proudhon this celebrated declaration, 'Give
me the right of labour, and I will abandon the right of property.'
M. Proudhon does not conceal that, in his eyes, these two rights are
incompatible.
If property is incompatible with the right of labour, and if the
right of labour is founded upon the same principle as Protection, what
conclusion can we draw, but that Protection is itself incompatible with
property? In geometry, we regard as an incontestable truth, that two
things equal to a third are equal to each other.
Now it happens that an eminent orator, M. Billault, has thought it right
to support at the tribune the right of labour. This was not easy, in
the face of the declaration which escaped from M. Proudhon. M. Billault
understood very well, that to make the state interfere to weigh in the
balance the fortunes, and equalize the conditions, of men, tends towards
Communism; and what did he say to induce the National Assembly to
violate property and the principles thereof? He told you with all
simplicity that he asked you to do what, in effect, you already do
by your tariff. His aim does not go beyond a somewhat more extended
application of the doctrines now admitted by you, and applied in
practice. Here are his words:--
'Look at our custom-house tariff? By their prohibitions, their
differential taxes, their premiums, their combinations of all kinds, it
is society which aids, which supports, which retards or advances all the
combinations of national labour; it not only holds the balance between
French labour, which it protects, and foreign labour, but on the soil
of France itself it is perpetually interfering between the different
interests of the country. Listen to the perpetual complaints made by one
class against another: see, for example, those who employ iron in their
processes, complaining of the protection given to French iron over
foreign iron; those who employ flax or cotton thread, protesting
against the protection granted to French thread, in opposition to the
introduction of foreign thread; and it is thus with all the others.
Society (it ought to be said, the government) finds itself then forcibly
mixed up with all these struggles, with all the perplexities connected
with the regulation of labour; it is always actively interfering between
them, directly and indirectly, and from the moment that the question of
custom duties is broached, you will see that you will be, in spite of
yourselves, forced to acknowledge the fact and its cause, and to take on
yourself the protection of every interest.
'The necessity which is thus imposed on the government to interfere in
the question of labour, should not, then, be considered an objection to
the debt which society owes to the poor workmen.'
And you will remark well that in his arguments, M. Billault has not the
least intention of being sarcastic. He is no Free-trader, intentionally
disguised for the purpose of exposing the inconsistency of the
Protectionists. No; M. Billault is himself a Protectionist, _bonâ fide_.
He aims at equalizing our fortunes by law. With this view, he considers
the action of the tariffs useful; and being met by an obstacle--the
right of property--he leaps over it, as you do. The right of labour is
then pointed out to him, which is a second step in the same direction.
He again encounters the right of property, and again he leaps over it;
but turning round, he is surprised to see you do not follow him. He asks
the reason. If you reply--I admit in principle that the law may violate
property, but I find it _inopportune_ that this should be done under
the particular form of the right of labour, M. Billault would understand
you, and discuss with you the secondary question of expediency. But you
raise up, in opposition to his views, the principle of property itself.
This astonishes him; and he conceives that he is entitled to say to
you--Do not act with inconsistency, and deny the right of labour on the
ground of its infringement of the right of property, since you violate
this latter right by your tariffs, whenever you find it convenient to do
so. He might add, with some reason, by the protective tariffs you often
violate the property of the poor for the advantage of the rich. By
the right of labour, you would violate the property of the rich to the
advantage of the poor. By what chance does it happen that your scruples
stop short at the point they do?
Between you and M. Billault there is only one point of difference. Both
of you proceed in the same direction--that of Communism: only you have
taken but one step, and he has taken two. On this account the advantage,
in my eyes at least, is on your side; but you lose it on the ground of
logic.
For since you go along with him, though more slowly than he does, he
is sufficiently well pleased to have you as his follower. This is an
inconsistency which M. Bitlault has managed to avoid, but, alas! to
fall himself also into a sad dilemma! M. Billault is too enlightened not
to feel, indistinctly perhaps, the danger of each step that he takes
in the path which ends in Communism. He does not assume the ridiculous
position of the champion of property, at the very moment of violating
it; but how does he justify himself? He calls to his aid the favourite
axiom of all who can reconcile two irreconcilable things--_There are no
fixed principles_. Property, Communism--let us take a little from both,
according to circumstances.
'To my mind, the pendulum of civilization which oscillates from the one
principle to the other, according to the wants of the moment, but which
always makes the greater progress if, after strongly inclining towards
the absolute freedom of individual action, it fells back on the
necessity of government interference.'
There is, then, no such thing as truth in the world. No principles
exist, since _the pendulum ought to oscillate from one principle to the
other, according to the wants of the moment._ Oh! metaphor, to what a
point thou wouldst bring us, if allowed!
But as you have well said, in your place in the Assembly, one cannot
discuss all parts of this subject at once, I will not at the present
moment examine the system of Protection in the purely economic point of
view. I do not inquire then whether, with regard to national wealth, it
does more good than harm, or the reverse. The only point that I wish
to prove is, that it is nothing else than a species of Communism. MM.
Billault and Proudhon have commenced the proof, and I will try and
complete it.
And first, What is to be understood by Communism? There are several
modes, if not of realizing community of goods, at least of trying to
do so. M. de Lamartine has reckoned four. You think that there are a
thousand, and I am of your opinion. However, I believe that all these
could be reduced under three general heads, of which one only, according
to me, is truly dangerous.
First, it might occur to two or more men to combine their labour and
their time. While they do not threaten the security, infringe the
liberty, or usurp the property of others, neither directly nor
indirectly, if they do any mischief, they do it to themselves. The
tendency of such men will be always to attempt in remote places the
realization of their dream. Whoever has reflected upon these matters
knows these enthusiasts will probably perish from want, victims to their
illusions. In our times, Communists of this description have given
to their imaginary elysium the name of Icaria,* as if they had had a
melancholy presentiment of the frightful end towards which they were
hastening. We may lament over their blindness; we should try to rescue
them if they were in a state to hear us, but society has nothing to fear
from their chimeras.
* This, as most of our readers are aware, is an imaginary
country at the other side of the world, where a state of
circumstances is supposed to exist productive of general
happiness--moral and physical--to all. The chief creator of
this modern Utopia, from which indeed the idea is
confessedly taken, is M. Cabet, whose book was published
during the year of the late revolution in France. It is
meant to be a grave essay on possible things, but could only
be considered so, we venture to think, in Paris, and only
there in times of unusual excitement. The means by which M.
Cabet and his followers suppose their peculiar society could
be established and maintained, are beyond conception false,
ludicrous, and puerile.
M. Cabet was obliged to leave France for a grave offence,
but found a refuge and no inconsiderable number of followers
in America, where, by the side of much that is excellent and
hopeful, flourishes, perhaps, under present circumstances,
as a necessary parallel, many of the wild and exploded
theories of the world.
Another form of Communism, and decidedly the coarsest, is this: throw
into a mass all the existing property, and then share it equally. It
is spoliation becoming the dominant and universal law. It is the
destruction, not only of property, but also of labour and of the springs
of action which induce men to work. This same Communism is so violent,
so absurd, so monstrous, that in truth I cannot believe it to be
dangerous. I said this some time ago before a considerable assembly of
electors, the great majority of whom belonged to the suffering classes.
My words were received with loud murmurs.
I expressed my surprise at it. 'What,' said they, 'dares M. Bastiat
say that Communism is not dangerous? He is then a Communist! Well, we
suspected as much, for Communists, Socialists, Economists, are all of
the same order, as it is proved by the termination of the words.' I had
some difficulty in recovering myself; but even this interruption proved
the truth of my proposition. No, Communism is not dangerous, when it
shows itself in its most naked form, that of pure and simple spoliation;
it is not dangerous, because it excites horror.
I hasten to say, that if Protection can be and ought to be likened to
Communism, it is not that which I am about to attack.
But Communism assumes a third form:--
To make the state interfere to, let it take upon itself to adjust
profits and to equalize men's possessions by taking from some, without
their consent, to give to others without any return, to assume the task
of putting things on an equality by robbery, assuredly is Communism to
the fullest extent. It matters not what may be the means employed by the
state with this object, no more than the sounding names with which they
dignify this thought. Whether they pursue its realization by direct or
indirect means, by restriction or by impost, by tariffs or by the right
of labour; whether they call it by the watchword of equality, of mutual
responsibility, of fraternity, that does not change the nature of
things; the violation of property is not less robbery because it is
accomplished with regularity, order, and system, and under the forms of
law.
I repeat that it is here, at this juncture, that Communism is really
dangerous. Why? Because under this form we see it incessantly ready to
taint everything. Behold the proof! One demands that the state should
supply gratuitously to artisans, to labourers, the _instruments of
labour_,* that is, to encourage them to take them from other artisans
and labourers. Another wishes that the state should lend without
interest; this could not be done without violating property. A third
calls for gratuitous education to all degrees; gratuitous! that is to
say, at the expense of the tax-payers.**
* By this phrase we believe is meant much more than the
English words might indicate--the supplying all the capital
necessary to start the artisan in the world.
** We think, with Adam Smith and most others, that education
and religious instruction may fairly and properly, if the
occasion requires, be excepted from this rule, on the ground
that as they are most beneficial to the whole of society--
their effects not stopping short with the persons receiving
the immediate benefits--'they may, without injustice, be
defrayed by the general contribution of the whole society.'
We by no means say, however, that this public support should
supersede voluntary contribution.
A fourth requires that the state should support the associations of
workmen, the theatres, the artists, See. But the means necessary for
such support is so much money taken from those who have legitimately
made it. A fifth is dissatisfied unless the state artificially raises
the price of a particular product for the benefit of those who sell it;
but it is to the detriment of those who buy. Yes, under this form, there
are very few people who at one time or an other would not be Communists.
You are so yourself; M. Billault is; and I fear that in France we are
all so in some degree. It seems that the intervention of the state
reconciles us to robbery, in throwing the responsibility of it on all
the world; that is to say, on no one; and it is thus that we sport with
the wealth of others in perfect tranquillity of conscience. That
honest M. Tourret, one of the most upright of men who ever sat upon the
ministerial bench, did he not thus commence his statement in favour
of the scheme for the advancement of public money for agricultural
purposes? 'It is not sufficient to give instruction for the cultivation
of the arts. We must also supply the instruments of labour.' After this
preamble, he submits to the National Assembly a proposition, the first
heading of which runs thus:--
'First--There is opened, in the budget of 1849, in favour of the
Minister of Agriculture and Commerce, a credit of ten millions, to meet
advances to the proprietors and associations of proprietors of rural
districts.' Confess that if this legislative language was rendered with
exactness, it should have been:--
'The Minister of Agriculture and Commerce is authorized, during the year
1849, to take the sum of ten millions from the pocket of the labourers
who are in great want of it, and _to whom it belongs_, to put it in the
pocket of other labourers who are equally in want of it, and _to whom it
does not belong_.'
Is not this an act of Communism, and if made general, would it not
constitute the system of Communism?
The manufacturer, who would die sooner than steal a farthing, does not
in the least scruple to make this request of the legislature--'Pass me a
law which raises the price of my cloth, my iron, my coal, and enable me
to overcharge my purchasers.' As the motive upon which he founds
this demand is that he is not content with the profit, at which trade
unfettered or free-trade would fix it, (which I affirm to be the same
thing, whatever they may say,) so, on the other hand, as we are all
dissatisfied with our profits, and disposed to call in the aid of the
law, it is clear, at least to me, that if the legislature does not
hasten to reply, 'That does not signify to us; we are not charged to
violate property, but to protect it,' it is clear, I say, that we are in
downright Communism. The machinery put in motion by the state to effect
the object may differ from what we have indicated, but it has the same
aim, and involves the same principle.
Suppose I present myself at the bar of the National Assembly, and say,
'I exercise a trade, and I do not find that my profits are sufficient:
consequently I pray you to pass a law authorizing the tax-collectors to
levy, for my benefit, only one centime upon each French family,' If the
legislature grants my request, this could only be taken as a single
act of legal robbery, which does not at this point merit the name of
Communism. But if all Frenchmen, one after the other, made the same
request, and if the legislature examined them with the avowed object of
realizing the equality of goods, it is in this principle, followed by
its effects, that I see, and that you cannot help seeing, Communism.
Whether, in order to realize its theory, the legislature employs
custom-house officers or excise collectors, imposes direct or indirect
taxes, encourages by protection or premiums, matters but little. Does it
believe itself authorized to _take_ and to _give_ without compensation?
Does it believe that its province is to regulate profits? Does it act in
consequence of this belief? Do the mass of the public approve of it?--do
they compel this species of action? If so, I say we are upon the descent
which leads to Communism, whether we are conscious of it or not.
And if they say to me, the state never acts thus in favour of any one,
but only in favour of some classes, I would reply--Then it has found the
means of making Communism even worse than it naturally is.
I know, Sir, that some doubt is thrown on these conclusions by the aid
of a ready confusion of ideas. Some administrative acts are quoted, very
legitimate cases in their way, where the intervention of the state is
as equitable as it is useful; then, establishing an apparent analogy
between these cases, and those against which I protest, they will
attempt to place me in the wrong, and will say to me--'As you can only
see Communism in Protection, so you ought to see it in every case where
government interferes.'
This is a trap into which I will not fall.
This is why I am compelled to inquire what is the precise circumstance
which impresses on state intervention the communistic character.
What is the province of the state? What are the things which individuals
ought to entrust to the Supreme Power? Which are those which they ought
to reserve for private enterprise? To reply to these questions would
require a dissertation on political economy. Fortunately I need not do
this for the purpose of solving the problem before us.
When men, in place of labouring for themselves individually, combine
with others, that is to say, when they club together to execute any
work, or to produce a result by an united exertion, I do not call
that _Communism_, because I see nothing in this of its peculiar
characteristic, _equalizing conditions by violent means_. The state
_takes_, it is true, by taxes, but it _renders_ service for them in
return. It is a particular but legitimate form of that foundation of all
society, _exchange_. I go still further. In intrusting a special service
to be done by the state, it may be made beneficial, or otherwise,
according to its nature and the mode in which it is effected.
Beneficial, if by this means the service is made with superior
perfection and economy, and the reverse on the opposite hypothesis:
but in either case I do not perceive the principle of Communism. The
proceeding in the first was attended with success; in the second, with
failure, that is all; and if Communism is a mistake, it does not follow
that every mistake is Communism.
Political economists are in general very distrustful on the question
of the intervention of government. They see in it inconveniences of all
sorts, a discouragement of individual liberty, energy, foresight,
and experience, which are the surest foundations of society. It often
happens, then, that they have to resist this intervention. But it is
not at all on the same ground and from the same motive which makes them
repudiate Protection. Our opponents cannot, therefore, fairly turn any
argument against us in consequence of our predilections, expressed,
perhaps, without sufficient caution for the freedom of private
enterprise, nor say, 'It is not surprising that these people reject the
system of Protection, for they reject the intervention of the state in
everything.'
First, it is not true that we reject it in everything: we admit that it
is the province of the state to maintain order and security, to enforce
regard for person and property, to repress fraud and violence. As to the
services which partake, so to speak, of an industrial character, we have
no other rule than this: that the state may take charge of these, if the
result is a saving of labour to the mass of the people. But pray, in
the calculation, take into account all the innumerable inconveniences of
labour monopolized by the state.
Secondly, I am obliged to repeat it, it is one thing to protest against
any new interference on the part of the state on the ground that, when
the calculation was made, it was found that it would be disadvantageous
to do so, and that it would result in a national loss; and it is another
thing to resist it because it is illegitimate, violent, unprincipled,
and because it assigns to the government to do precisely what it is
its proper duty to prevent and to punish. Now against the system called
Protection these two species of objections may be urged, but it is
against the principle last mentioned, fenced round as it is by legal
forms, that incessant war should be waged.
Thus, for example, men would submit to a municipal council the question
of knowing whether it would be better that each family in a town should
go and seek the water it requires at the distance of some quarter of
a league, or whether it is more advantageous that the local authority
should levy an assessment to bring the water to the marketplace.
I should not have any objection in _principle_ to enter into the
examination of this question. The calculation of the advantages and
inconveniences for all would be the sole element in the decision. One
might be mistaken in the calculation, but the error, which in this
instance may involve the loss of property, would not be a systematic
violation of it.
But when the mayor proposes to discourage one trade for the advantage
of another, to prohibit boots for the advantage of the shoemaker, or
something like it, then would I say to him, that in this instance he
acts no longer on a calculation of advantages and inconveniences; he
acts by means of an abuse of power, and a violent perversion of the
public authority; I would say to him, 'You who are the depositary of
power and of the public authority to chastise robbery, dare you apply
that power and authority to protect it and render it systematic?'
Should the idea of the mayor prevail, if I see, in consequence of this
precedent all the trading classes of the village bestirring themselves,
to ask for favours at the expense of each other--if in the midst of this
tumult of unscrupulous attempts I see them confound even the notion of
property, I must be allowed to assume that, to save it from destruction,
the first thing to do is to point out what has been iniquitous in the
measure, which formed the first link of the chain of these deplorable
events.
It would not be difficult, Sir, to find in your work passages which
support my position and corroborate my views. To speak the truth, I
might consult it almost by chance for this purpose. Thus, opening the
book at hap-hazard, I would probably find a passage condemning, either
expressly or by implication, the system of Protection--proof of the
identity of this system in principle with Communism. Let me make the
trial. At page 283, I read:--
'It is, then, a grave mistake to lay the blame upon competition, and not
to have perceived that if the people are the producers, they are also
the consumers, and that receiving less on one side,' (which I deny,
and which you deny yourself some lines lower down,) 'paying less on
the other, there remains then, for the advantage of all, the difference
between a system which restrains human activity, and a system which
places it in its proper course, and inspires it with ceaseless energy.'
I defy you to say that this argument does not apply with equal force to
foreign as to domestic competition. Let us try again. At page 325, we
find:
'Men either possess certain rights, or they do not. If they do--if these
rights exist, they entail certain inevitable consequences....
But more than this, they must be the same at all times; they are entire
and absolute--past, present, and to come--in all seasons; and not only
when it may please you to declare them to be, but when it may please the
workmen to appeal to them.'
Will you maintain that an iron-master has an undefined right to hinder
me for ever from producing indirectly two hundredweight of iron in my
manufactory, for the sake of producing one hundred-weight in a direct
manner in his own? This right, also, I repeat, either exists, or it
does not. If it does exist, it must be absolute at all times and in all
seasons; not only when it may please you to declare it to be so, but
when it may please the iron-masters to claim its protection.
Let us again try our luck. At page 63, I read,--
'Property does not exist, if I cannot _give_ as well as _consume_ it.'
We say so likewise. 'Property does not exist, if I cannot _exchange_
as well as _consume_ it;' and permit me to add, that the _right of
exchange_ is at least as valuable, as important in a social point of
view, as characteristic of property, as the _right of gift_. It is to be
regretted, that in a work written for the purpose of examining property
under all its aspects, you have thought it right to devote two chapters
to an investigation of the latter right, which is in but little danger,
and not a line to that of exchange, which is so boldly attacked, even
under the shelter of the laws.
Again, at page 47:--
'Man has an absolute property in his person and in his faculties. He has
a derivative one, less inherent in his nature, but not less sacred, in
what these faculties may produce, which embraces all that can be called
the wealth of this world, and which society is in the highest degree
interested in protecting; for without this protection there would be
no labour; without labour, no civilization, not even the necessaries of
life--nothing but misery, robbery, and barbarism.'*
* This is a happy exposure of the inconsistency of M.
Thiers. But we have had recently, and in the sitting of the
late National Assembly, a curious example of the perversion
of his extraordinary powers, in the speeches, full of false
brilliancy, to the legislature of France, in condemnation of
the principles of Free-trade. His statements were coloured,
or altogether without foundation; the examples which he
adduced, when looked into, told against him, and his logic
was puerile. Yet he found an attentive and a willing
auditory. Indeed, the prejudices of the French on this
subject, mixed up as they are with so many influences
operating on their vanity, are still inveterate; and it was,
as it always has been, M. Thiers's object to reflect
faithfully the national mind. His aim never was the noble
one of raising and enlightening the views of his countrymen,
but simply to gain an influence over their minds, by
encouraging and echoing their prejudices and keeping alive
their passions.
Well, Sir, let us make a comment, if you do not object, on this text.
Like you, I see property at first in the free disposal of the person;
then of the faculties; finally, of the produce of those faculties, which
proves, I may say as a passing remark, that, from a certain point of
view, Liberty and Property are identical.
I dare hardly say, like you, that property in the produce of our
faculties is less inherent in our nature than property in these
faculties themselves. Strictly speaking, that may be true; but whether a
man is debarred from exercising his faculties, or deprived of what
they may produce, the result is the same, and that result is called
_Slavery_. This is another proof of the identity of the nature of
liberty and property. If I force a man to labour for my profit, that man
is my slave. He is so still, if, leaving him personal liberty, I find
means, by force or by fraud, to appropriate to myself the fruits of his
labour. The first kind of oppression is the more brutal, the second
the more subtle. As it has been remarked that free labour is more
intelligent and productive, it may be surmised that the masters have
said to themselves, 'Do not let us claim directly the powers of our
slaves, but let us take possession of much richer booty--the produce of
their faculties freely exercised, and let us give to this new form of
servitude the engaging name of _Protection_.'
You say, again, that society is interested in rendering property secure.
We are agreed; only I go further than you; and if by _society_ you mean
_government_, I say that its only province as regards property is to
guarantee it in the most ample manner; that if it tries to measure and
distribute it by that very act, government, instead of guaranteeing,
infringes it. This deserves examination.