have italicised, in which he speaks of pooling risks and advantages.
With regard to the latter, it is enough, apparently, to secure equal
opportunity. It is not very obvious why the principle should be so
rigidly enforced in the one case and so reluctantly in the other. If the
principle of solidarity holds me responsible for the degradation of the
drunkard in the one case, is there any reason why I should not be allowed
to share in the good fortune of the lucky speculator in another? Is it
because the logical application of this principle would directly lead to
communism?
[1265] One should add that the word “quasi-contract” is not so frequently
used by M. Bourgeois as it is by his disciples. As in many another
instance, the disciples have outdone the master. In his _Philosophie de
la Solidarité_ he scarcely uses the term at all, but seems to prefer to
speak of mutualisation.
[1266] Such seems to be the ideal of Guyau, the philosopher, in his
charming volume, _Esquisse d’une Morale sans Obligation ni Sanction_.
[1267] “The only thing that justice demands is the payment of debt;
beyond that we have no right to impose any obligation whatsoever.”
(Bourgeois, _op. cit._, pp. 45 and 56.)
[1268] “Thanks to this fact, rivals need not seek to eliminate one
another, but may well be content to exist side by side. Specialisation
is undertaken, our author thinks, not with the idea of producing more,
as the economists seem to teach, but merely with a view to enabling us
to exist under the new conditions of life which await us.” (_Division du
Travail._)
[1269] “Every brook that flows, every lamp that burns, every word spoken,
every gesture made, betokens a movement in the direction of the greater
uniformity of the universe.” (Lalande, _La Dissolution_.)
[1270] This is the sense in which solidarity has been understood by the
Lausanne philosopher Charles Secrétan, in his book _La Civilisation et
la Croyance_, and the same point of view has been adopted by M. Alfred
Fouillée. “Solidarity,” writes Fouillée, “has all the practical value of
an ideal force. The recognition of the profound identity which pervades
humanity and the adoption of an ideal of perfect unity as the supreme
object of rational desire must assume the form of a duty in the eyes of
every human being. We should anticipate the unity of the human race,
which is as yet far from being realised, and which will never be perfect
perhaps, by acting as if we were already one.” (_Revue des Deux Mondes_,
July 15, 1901.)
[1271] Auguste Comte, in his usual authoritative manner, declared that
solidarity rests upon the fact that men can represent one another, and
consequently may be held responsible for one another.
[1272] See a collection of addresses by various authors published under
the title of _Les Applications sociales de la Solidarité_ (1904).
[1273] These laws of public assistance are among the most remarkable
practical manifestations of the solidarist movement. They are quite a
new feature in French public life, and until their appearance relief,
whether given by the State, the department, or the commune, was purely
optional (except in a few isolated cases, such as in that of waifs and
strays). To mention only the principal ones in France, the law of July
15, 1893, made relief in the form of medical attendance for all destitute
invalids obligatory upon the communes. The law of July 14, 1905, extended
a similar benefit to all invalids and to all persons over seventy years
of age in the form of pensions varying in amount from 60 to 240 francs
per annum (360 in Paris). Finally, the law of April 5, 1910, secures a
pension to all workmen at the age of sixty, the charge being divided
between the State, the employers, and the workmen themselves. It is a
kind of payment made by the members of the present generation to the
survivors of a past one. This relief is clearly of the nature of a social
debt, and justifies us in treating it as the outcome of a quasi-contract,
for on the one hand it constitutes an obligation fixed by law on the
part of the commune, the department, or the State, as the case may be—an
obligation which they cannot escape—and on the other hand a right on the
part of the beneficiary, as in the case of a creditor in an action for
the recovery of debt.
[1274] A very curious application of this national solidarity has come to
light quite recently. Formerly the French Government would only sanction
foreign loans if the borrowing country promised to apply some part of its
funds to French industry. That meant linking the _rentier_ and the French
manufacturers by a forced kind of solidarity, the first being unwilling
to lend money unless that money in some way returned to the second person
for goods purchased. This is just where the claim of the workers, who
justly demand a minimum wage, comes in.
[1275] The doctrine of quasi-contract might lead to the one conclusion as
well as to the other. M. Bourgeois himself seems to incline rather in the
direction of associationism. “The Radical party has a social doctrine, a
doctrine that might be summed up in one word—association.” (Preface to M.
Buisson’s _La Politique radicale_.)
[1276] “The Apotheosis of Solidarity,” printed in large type, recently
appeared as a headline in one of the French morning papers. The reference
was to a banquet of 30,000 mutualists.
[1277] Mutualists are so taken up with the idea of solidarity that they
indignantly protest if any of their number happens to make use of the
term “beneficence” or “charity.” “Everyone has a right to demand his
own,” they say: that is clearly Bourgeois’s thesis. On the other hand,
their journal, _L’Avenir de la Mutualité_, for February 1909 claims
that societies for mutual help have a right to organise tombolas and
lotteries, and they base their care upon the law of May 21, 1836, which
reserves the right of lottery to “efforts of an entirely charitable
character.” In order to defend its claim, _L’Avenir de la Mutualité_ does
not hesitate to affirm that the societies for mutual help “recognise the
existence of an element of benevolence which is not exactly mutual and
which is rightly connected with the superior modern principle of social
solidarity, but which none the less justifies the application of the law
of 1836.”
[1278] “Solidarity is just an empty word if it is not supported by
special organisms which can render it effective. This is why workmen’s
associations have deemed it necessary to establish what they call
‘guarantism.’…
“The most unmistakable manifestation of solidarity consists in the
employment of a part of the wealth produced by labour in order to repair
the poverty caused by the deficient organisation of labour, which leaves
the worker and his family liable to the acutest suffering whenever
illness, old age, or misfortune crosses their paths.” (Programme on the
cover of a journal known as _L’Association ouvrière_, the organ of the
producers’ associations.)
[1279] This co-operatist programme is generally known in France as that
of the École de Nîmes. Really it is a development of the suggestions
thrown out by the Rochdale Pioneers in 1844. M. Bourgeois, who gives it
a place in his _Systèmes socialistes_, considers that it is a little
indefinite. It seems to us, on the other hand, to be about as precise as
any of the other socialist systems that attempt to envisage the future;
and it has this advantage, that its prophecies are already in process of
realisation in a fashion that is most unmistakable. See a brief _résumé_
of the programme in a lecture by Gide on the occasion of the centenary
of the French Revolution, published in the volume entitled _Co-opération
(Des Transformations que la Co-opération est appelée à réaliser dans
l’Ordre économique)_.
The task of reorganising society belongs, not to the producers, but to
the consumers, for while the former are inspired by the co-operative
spirit, the latter are imbued with enthusiasm for the general well-being.
Consumers have only to unite and all their wants are satisfied just in
the way they desire, for they can either buy directly from the producers
all that they need, or they can, when they have become sufficiently
rich and powerful, produce for themselves in their own factories and on
their own lands. This would mean the abolition of all profits, those of
middlemen and manufacturers alike. The societies would retain only as
much as would be necessary for the further extension of the movement,
returning all the rest to the consumers in proportion to the amount of
their purchases. We have already had occasion to note how this idea of
the abolition of profits had haunted John Stuart Mill, and how it seemed
linked with an entirely new phase of social evolution, to which he gave
the name of the “stationary State.” We have also witnessed the Hedonists’
arrival at exactly the same conclusion, though along a directly opposite
path, namely, that of absolutely free competition.
We must not lose sight of the fact that this revolution is accomplished
without affecting the foundations of the social order—property,
inheritance, interest, etc.—and without having recourse to any measure
of expropriation save such as naturally results from the free play of
present economic laws. Co-operators have no desire to interfere with
accumulated capital, their aim being merely to form new capital which
shall render the old useless. If existing capital is merely accumulated
profits made out of labour, why should not labour itself make a profit,
and this time keep it for its own use?
Complaints have been made that a system of this kind, even if it were
realised, would not result in the abolition of the wage-earner, seeing
that the workers would still be employed, the only difference being that
their employer would be a society instead of an individual. The reply is
that a person who works for a society of which he himself is a member is
very near to being his own master.
Moreover, has anyone a right to raise this objection? The upholder of
the present economic order certainly has not when we remember that he
considers the wage contract to be the definite type of pure contract.
Neither are the collectivists entitled to make it, for under their system
everybody would be a civil servant. Hence the only persons who are
really justified in making this criticism are those who believe that the
future will see an increase in the number of independent proprietors.
The reply that we would make to them is this: The only hope of seeing
this realised—which is also the ideal of some co-operators—is to set up
producers’ associations under the control and protection of consumers’
societies. In fact, a _régime_ of federated co-operative societies is
not incompatible with the maintenance of a certain amount of autonomous
production, thanks to various considerations which need not be detailed
here.
[1280] In France this rule of solidarity has as yet only been adopted by
a Catholic group of credit societies known as the Union Durand. It may
be practised by a few other societies there, but it is quite obviously
the exception, whereas in some German societies and in Italian and Swiss
associations the rule is always followed—another proof that although
the idea is French in origin we must look elsewhere for practical
applications.
[1281] _La Propriété sociale et la Démocratie._
[1282] The result is that masters are nowadays held responsible whenever
a workman meets with an accident, or falls ill even. They are also liable
to damages whenever they pay off their men. Owners of urban property are
no longer allowed to build according to their fancy, and any property
set up in contravention of the sanitary regulations is immediately
demolished. Further progress along these lines would lead to juridical
socialism. See _Les Transformations du Droit civil_, by M. Charmont, and
_Le Droit social et le Droit individuel_, by M. Duguit.
[1283] Anton Menger, of Vienna, is the protagonist of this view. See his
book, _Das bürgerliche Recht und die besitzlosen Volksklassen_ (1890).
Another of his works, _Das Recht auf den vollen Arbeitsertrag_, which has
been translated into English and contains a valuable preface by Professor
Foxwell Menger, maintains that at the basis of the economic order are
three fundamental rights which may be compared with the political demands
put forward in the Declaration of the Rights of Man. These rights are:
(1) the right to the whole produce of labour, (2) the right to work, (3)
the right to exist—all of which claims were put forward by Considérant,
Louis Blanc, and Proudhon, the French socialists of 1848.
See also Lassalle’s book, _Das System der erworbenen Rechte_. Mention
should also be made of M. Emmanuel Lévy de Lyon, who has published
several articles of this kind, especially the pamphlet entitled _Capital
et Travail_.
[1284] “The producer is concerned about the well-being of his clients
at every moment. His sympathies are wide enough to include the whole of
humanity. The merchant and the transport agent are always on the look-out
for what will prove most advantageous to those for whom they are working,
as well as for new clients—that is, for more persons to whom they can be
of service.” These words, which might have been written by Bastiat, are
taken from a small yet curious volume published by M. Yves Guyot, and
entitled _La Morale de la Concurrence_.
[1285] “Solidarity serves as a pretext for those people who want to enjoy
the fruits of the labour of others without taking a part in such labours
themselves, and for politicians who want to win adherents to their cause;
it is just a new name for an unhealthy kind of egoism.” (Vilfredo Pareto,
_Le Péril socialiste_, in the _Journal des Économistes_, May 15, 1900.)
“The solidarist theories would simply greatly increase the number
and incapacity of the unemployable.” (Demolins, _La Supériorité des
Anglo-Saxons_.)
[1286] “The distinctive feature of evolution seems to be the growing
tendency among organisms to attain to a position of independence by
acquiring a certain degree of specialised skill.” (De Launay, _L’Histoire
de la Terre_.) The crystal’s action, says de Launay, in grouping itself
in the form of a polyhedron is an expression of independence as well as
a means of defence. The crystal is simply the earliest individual to
break away from its environment. The animal form in the ocean depths
that carries in its own body the essentials of a new environment marks a
second step.
[1287] “The primitive era was an age of solidarity. Crime was no
individual thing then, and that the innocent should suffer for the sake
of the guilty seemed a part of the order of things. It is only in an age
of reflection that such dogmas appear absurd.” (Renan, _Avenir de la
Science_, p. 307.)
[1288] Anti-kissing leagues, inspired not by any puritan motives, but
arising solely out of fear of bacilli, have been formed in the United
States. One must not be surprised if a league against hand-shaking is
established next; although this would be rather a curious result of a
doctrine of solidarity that is always represented by the device of two
hands clasped in one another!
In Paul Bureau’s book _La Crise morale des Temps nouveaux_ there is a
lengthy, lively criticism of solidarism from the moral standpoint.
[1289] This is how we find it appraised in _Le Mouvement socialiste_:
“The development of solidarism is one of the most disquieting features
of the present time. It affords a proof as well as being a cause of a
considerable slackening of energy.” (Issue for July 1907; Paul Olivier in
a review of Bouglé’s book on solidarism.)
[1290] Association, even when the object in view is purely mercenary, has
a moral value superior to exchange:
(1) Inasmuch as it always implies, in addition to money payment, a
certain sacrifice of time and trouble, perhaps even of independence. It
involves something more than the obligation to attend meetings and to
conform to rules.
(2) It implies something more than a mere act of exchange which is
completed in an instant and at one stroke. It implies the indefinite
collaboration of the parties concerned.
[1291] The solidarist _régime_ must be distinguished from the exchange
_régime_ on the one hand and from charity on the other. Exchange implies
giving something with a view to obtaining the exact equivalent. Charity,
on the other hand, implies giving without expecting any return; hence
it involves a sacrifice. Solidarity also implies a sacrifice: every
appeal on behalf of solidarity is based upon the consciousness of a
certain amount of sacrifice, but a sacrifice that is not entirely
disinterested—it is the sacrifice of a part of the individual self in
order to gain an equal share in the collective being.
[1292] See his article on Government in the _Dictionnaire_ of Coquelin
and Guillaumin.
[1293] _Œuvres_, vol. i, p. 59 (_Fédéralisme, Socialisme, et
Antithéologisme_).
[1294] Adler in his article _Anarchismus_ in the _Handwörterbuch der
Staatswissenschaften_, and in his _Geschichte des Sozialismus und
Kommunismus_ (1899), shows the indebtedness of the anarchist ideal to
Greek philosophy.
[1295] The work was republished in 1882 and again in 1893, and translated
into French in 1902. There are also a few translations from the writings
of Smith and Say from his pen. A very interesting account of his life, to
which we must acknowledge our indebtedness for some of the information
given here, is to be found in J.H. Mackay’s _Max Stirner, sein Leben und
sein Werk_ (Berlin, 1898). Stirner’s real name was Kaspar Schmidt. Born
in 1806 at Bayreuth, in Bavaria, he died at Berlin in extreme poverty
and wretchedness in 1856. For an account of the “left Hegelian school”
and of Stirner himself see the very interesting articles of Saint-René
Taillandier published in the _Revue des Deux Mondes_, 1842-50.
[1296] Some may perhaps wonder why Nietzsche is not included, especially
as he was a successor of Stirner’s. But Nietzsche’s interests were always
exclusively philosophical and ethical. Stirner’s work, on the other hand,
is mainly social and political. We have already pointed out that even
Stirner’s book has only a rather remote connection with economics, and a
detailed study of it would be more in keeping with a history of political
ideas. Nietzsche’s work would lead us still farther afield, and would
force us to examine every individualistic doctrine as it cropped up.
[1297] _Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum_ (ed. Reklam), p. 164.
[1298] _Ibid._, p. 225.
[1299] “This man has a body, and so has this man, and that man, right
through society, so that you have a _collection of bodies_ and not one
_collective body_. Society has several bodies at its disposal, but has
no body of its own. Just like the parallel notion of a nation, this
corporate body is a mere phantom—an idea with no corporeal existence.”
(_Ibid._, p. 135.) To make the possession of a body the test of reality
is surely gross materialism. At this rate, law, custom, and language
would have to be considered unreal. A historical fact such as a battle or
a revolution has no body, but its _real_ consequences are often palpable
enough.
[1300] _Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum_, p. 222.
[1301] _Ibid._, p. 223.
[1302] _Ibid._, p. 164.
[1303] In a pamphlet called _Les Nouveaux Aspects du Socialisme_ (Paris,
1908), written by a syndicalist of the name of Berth, syndicalism and
anarchism are contrasted, Proudhon’s emphasis upon the reality of society
being adopted as the crucial test. Unfortunately, however, Berth confines
his examination to Stirner’s system. Had he applied the test to Bakunin
or Kropotkin he would have discovered that the emphasis laid by them upon
the reality of society constitutes the most original feature in their
theory. We are thus driven to the exactly opposite conclusion, and feel
bound to admit—M. Berth notwithstanding—that anarchism and syndicalism
in many respects closely resemble one another. Jean Grave, however, as
we shall see later, seems more favourably inclined towards the naïve
individualism of Stirner.
[1304] See Bakunin’s _Life_, written by his friend James Guillaume,
included in the two-volume edition of his works; or the notice
of him prefaced by Dragomanov to his volume _Michail Bakunin’s
sozial-politischer Briefwechsel mit Herzen und Ogareff_ (Stuttgart,
1895). A fairly full biography—not yet published—has been written by
Nettlau, and a copy of the MS. may be seen in the Bibliothèque Nationale
at Paris. See also M. Lagardelle’s article on Bakunin in the _Revue
politique et parlementaire_ (1909). Bakunin’s works have been published
in French in four volumes, the first of which was issued in 1895, and the
other three in 1907, 1908, and 1909 respectively (Paris, Stork). Some of
his writings, however, are not included among these, _e.g._ the _Statutes
of the International Alliance for Social Democracy_.
[1305] “I returned from that journey with very definite sociological
theories in my mind which I have ever since cherished, and I have
done everything I can to give them a more clear and a more concrete
expression.” Kropotkin’s principal works are: _Paroles d’un Revolté_
(1884); _In Russian and French Prisons_ (1887); _La Conquéte du Pain_
(1888; Engl. trans. 1906); _The State, its Part in History_ (1898);
_Fields, Factories, and Workshops_ (1899); _Memoirs of a Revolutionist_
(1900); _Mutual Aid_ (1902). He has also published a large number of
pamphlets, among them _L’Anarchie: sa Philosophie, son Idéal_ (1896).
Our quotations are taken from Eltzbacher’s _Der Anarchismus_, a work
that consists almost entirely of quotations from the various anarchist
authors, grouped under a few headings. [The references are to the French
translation, 1902.—Tr.] These writers, and Kropotkin among them, have
readily recognised the impartiality of the work.
[1306] Cf. _L’Évolution, la Révolution, et l’Idéal anarchique_, by Élisée
Reclus (Paris, 1898), and _La Société future_, by Jean Grave (1895).
[1307] On the present position of anarchist ideas in France see R. de
Marmande, _Les Forces révolutionnaires en France_, in the _Grande Revue_,
August 10, 1911.
[1308] _L’Évolution, la Révolution, et l’Idéal anarchique_, p. 88; and
he adds: “Our ideal implies the fullest and most absolute liberty of
expression of opinion on all matters whatsoever. It further involves
complete freedom to follow one’s own inclinations or to do as one likes”
(p. 143), with this single proviso: “that the individual is thereby
developing a healthy moral life” (p. 141).
[1309] Extract from _Carnets_, published in the _Figaro_, January 16,
1909.
[1310] _Œuvres_, vol. i, p. 281.
[1311] Jean Grave, _La Société future_, p. 157. Cf. also p. 199: “No
individual must accept any restriction that will check his development,
nor must he submit to the yoke of authority under any pretence
whatsoever.”
[1312] _Justice dans la Révolution_, vol. i, p. 185.
[1313] Bakunin, _Œuvres_, vol. i, p. 105.
[1314] Quoted by Eltzbacher, _loc. cit._, p. 199.
[1315] Bakunin, _Œuvres_, vol. i, p. 281. “I can be really free when
those around me, both men and women, are also free. The liberty of
others, far from limiting or negating my own, is, on the contrary, its
necessary condition and guarantee.”
[1316] _Ibid._, vol. i, p. 277.
[1317] The idea of respecting man’s humanity is vigorously criticised by
Stirner. Proudhon is expressly mentioned as the chief representative of
that view. The principle was also regarded with some favour by Feuerbach,
who wanted to substitute emphasis upon the human in man for the stress
generally laid upon the divine in his nature.
[1318] Proudhon is the model here. “To be governed,” says he (_Idée
générale de la Révolution_) “is to have every deed of ours, every action
and movement, noted, registered, reviewed, docketed, measured, filed,
assessed, guaranteed, licensed, authorised, recommended, prohibited,
checked, reformed, redressed, corrected; under pretence of public policy,
to be taxed, dragooned, imprisoned, exploited, cajoled, forced, cheated,
robbed; at the least sign of resistance or complaint to be repressed,
convicted, vilified, vexed, hunted, mauled, murdered, stripped,
garrotted, imprisoned, shot, slaughtered, judged, condemned, deported,
sacrificed, sold, betrayed, and finally mocked, flouted, outraged and
dishonoured. That is government, such its justification and morality.”
[1319] Bakunin, _Œuvres_, vol. i, pp. 143, 227, 151.
[1320] _Ibid._, vol. i, p. 228.
[1321] _Ibid._, vol. i, p. 176; vol. iii, p. 53.
[1322] _L’Évolution, la Révolution, et l’Idéal anarchiste_, p. 164.
[1323] Bakunin, _Œuvres_, vol. i, p. 280.
[1324] _Wealth of Nations_, vol. ii, p. 207. Cf. _supra_, p. 79,
footnote. Adam Smith, it is true, did write that “civil government, so
far as it is instituted for the security of property,” etc.; but that
does not imply that the great economist regarded this as the only object
of government, although it certainly is one of its chief aims.
[1325] “The million and one laws that govern humanity naturally fall into
one or other of three categories: laws for the protection of property,
of government, or of individuals. If we take these three divisions and
analyse them we are inevitably forced to realise how futile and even
injurious all legislation is.” (_Memoirs of a Revolutionist_, p. 236.)
[1326] “Society itself is every day creating beings imbued with
anti-social feelings and incapable of leading honest, industrious lives.”
(Kropotkin, quoted by Eltzbacher, _loc. cit._, p. 221.) “Seeing that
the organisation of society is always and everywhere the one cause of
all the crimes committed by men, its conduct in punishing criminals is
clearly absurd or obviously insincere. Every punishment implies guilt,
but the criminals in this case are never guilty. We deny the so-called
right of society to bestow punishment in this arbitrary fashion. A
human being is simply the unwilling product of the natural or social
environment in which he was born and reared and under whose influence
he still remains. The three great causes of human immorality are
inequality, whether political, economic, or social; ignorance, which is
its natural result; and slavery, its inevitable consequence.” (Bakunin,
_Programme de l’Alliance internationale de la Démocratie socialiste_, in
_Sozial-politischer Briefwechsel_, pp. 332-333.)
“Property and want are the great incentives to crime. But if defective
society organisation is the cause of crime, an improvement in
organisation should cause a disappearance of crime.” (Jean Grave, _La
Société future_, pp. 137-138.)
[1327] “Is it necessary,” asks Bakunin, “to repeat the arguments of
socialism, which are still unanswerable and which no _bourgeois_
economist has ever attempted to disprove? What are we to make of
property and capital as they exist at the present moment? In both cases
it practically means a right or a power guaranteed and protected by
society to live without working; and since property and capital produce
absolutely nothing unless fertilised by labour, it means power and the
right to live upon the labour of others and to exploit the labour of
those who have neither property nor capital and are compelled to sell
their productive force to the fortunate owner of the one or other of
these.” Cf. Kropotkin’s _Conquest of Bread_, p. 56: “Multiply examples,
choose them where you will, consider the origin of all fortunes, large
or small, whether arising out of commerce, finance, manufactures, or the
land. Everywhere you will find that the wealth of the wealthy springs
from the poverty of the poor.” In this sentence he sums up a long
demonstration which he gives in proof of this contention.
[1328] Bakunin, _Œuvres_, vol. i, p. 324.
[1329] _Idée générale de la Révolution_, p. 119.
[1330] “Law is simply an instrument invented for the maintenance of
exploitation and the domination of the idle rich over the toiling masses.
Its sole mission is the perpetuation of exploitation.” (Kropotkin,
_Memoirs of a Revolutionist_, p. 235.)
[1331] Bakunin, _Programme de l’Alliance_, in _Sozial-politischer
Briefwechsel_, p. 339.
[1332] Kropotkin, _Conquest of Bread_, pp. 61-62.
[1333] “The anarchists want to see free unions established, resting
upon mutual affection and based upon respect for one’s self and for the
dignity of others. And in that sense, in their desire to show respect and
affection for all the members of the association, they are inimical to
the family,” (Élisée Reclus, _loc. cit._, pp. 145-146.)
[1334] _Der Einzige_, p. 229.
[1335] Cf. _Idée générale de la Révolution_, p. 281, and p. 342:
“Revolution follows revelation. Reason aided by experience reveals to us
the nature of the laws which govern society as well as nature, and which
in both cases are simply the laws of necessity. They are neither made by
man nor imposed by his authority. They have only been discovered step by
step, which is a proof of their independent existence. By obeying them a
man becomes just and noble. Violation of them constitutes injustice and
sin. I can suggest no other motive for human actions.”
[1336] Bakunin, _Œuvres_, vol. iii, p. 51.
[1337] Bakunin, _Œuvres_, vol. iii, p. 55.
[1338] “In general we may say that man’s general life is almost entirely
governed by what we call good sense.” (_Ibid._, vol. iii, p. 50.)
[1339] _Ibid._, vol. iii, p. 51.
[1340] _La Société future_, p. 303.
[1341] Bakunin, _Œuvres_, vol. i, pp. 286, 298, 277.
[1342] Bakunin on his death-bed confessed to his friend Reichel that “all
his philosophy had been built upon a false foundation. All was vitiated
because he had begun by taking man as an individual, whereas he is
really a member of a collective whole” (quoted by Guillaume, _Œuvres_,
preface to vol. ii, p. 60). In his _Philosophie du Progrès_ (_Œuvres_,
vol. xx, pp. 36-38) Proudhon writes as follows: “All that reason knows
and maintains is that the individual, like an idea, is really a group.
All existence is in groups, and whatever forms a group also forms a
unit, and consequently becomes perceptible and is then said to exist. In
accordance with this general conception of being, I think it possible
to prove the existence of positive reality and up to a certain point to
demonstrate the laws of the social being or of the humanitarian group,
and to establish a proof of the existence of an individuality superior to
collective man and still quite other and different from his individual
self.” The same idea frequently comes up in different connections,
_e.g._, in the _Petit Catéchisme politique_ at the end of vol. i of _La
Justice dans la Révolution_, and in _Idée générale de la Révolution_.
Kropotkin thinks that man has always lived in society of one kind or
another. “As far back as we can go in the palæo-ethnology of mankind, we
find men living in societies, in tribes similar to those of the highest
mammals.” (_Mutual Aid_, p. 80). “Man did not create society; society is
older than man.” (_The State, its Historic Rôle_, p. 6; London, 1898.)
Jean Grave, on the other hand, thinks that “the individual was prior
to society. Destroy the individual, and there will be nothing left of
society. Let the association be dissolved and the individuals scattered,
they will fare badly and will possibly return to savagery, their
faculties will decay and not progress, but still they will continue to
exist.” (_La Societé future_, pp. 160-162.) Grave’s view is essentially
his own and does not square with those of either Kropotkin, Bakunin, or
Proudhon, the real founders of anarchy. It is, moreover, quite obvious
that their theories are really much nearer the truth, for it is as
impossible to conceive of society without the individual as it is to
conceive of the individual without society. The individual, as Bakunin
emphatically declares, is a fiction, or an abstraction, as Walras would
say. Many people find it difficult to accept this doctrine. But it
seems the only one that tallies with the facts, whether of nature or of
history. We can no more imagine the individual without society than we
can a fish without water. Deprived of water, it is not only less of a
fish, but it is no longer a fish at all—except a dead one.
[1343] Bastiat speaks of this error of confusing government and society
as being the worst that has ever befallen the science. The State problem
he defines as follows: “How to inscribe within the great circle which we
call society that other circle called government.” Dunoyer in so many
words expresses the same idea.
[1344] _Memoirs of a Revolutionist_, p. 414. Cf. also _Paroles d’une
Révolté_, p. 221.
[1345] This idea finds frequent expression both with Reclus and
Kropotkin. “The fact that we have instituted, regulated, codified, and
encompassed with constraints and penalties, with gendarmes and jailers,
the larger part of our more or less incoherent collection of political,
religious, moral and social conceptions of to-day in order to enforce
them upon the citizens of to-morrow is in itself sufficiently absurd,
and it is bound to have contradictory results. Life, which is always
improving and renewing itself, can never submit to regulations which
have been drawn up in some period now past.” (Reclus, _loc. cit._, pp.
108-9.) “Anarchist society,” writes Kropotkin, “is one to which any
pre-established, crystallised form of law will always be repugnant.
It is also one which looks for harmony, which can only be temporary
and fugitive perhaps, in the equilibrium between the mass of different
forces and influences of every kind which pursue their course without the
slightest deflection, and which because they are quite untrammelled beget
reaction and arouse those activities which are favourable to them when
they move in the direction of progress.” (_L’Anarchie_, pp. 17, 18.)
[1346] _Memoirs of a Revolutionist._
[1347] Proudhon had already set the problem as follows: “Can we find a
method of transacting business that will unite divergent interests and
identify individuals with the general well-being, replace the inequality
of nature by equality of education, and remove all political and economic
contradictions; when each individual will be at once both producer and
consumer, citizen and sovereign, ruler and ruled; when liberty will
always expand without involving any counter-loss; when the well being of
each will grow indefinitely without involving any damage to the property,
the labour, or the revenue of any of his fellow-citizens, or of the
State itself, without weakening the interests he has in common with his
fellow-men, without alienating their good opinion or destroying their
affection for him?” (_Idée générale_, p. 145.) Says Jean Grave: “Were
society established on natural bases, individual and general interests
would never conflict.” (_Société future_, p. 156.)
[1348] _La Société future_, p. 16. “We cannot disguise the fact,”
says Kropotkin, “that if complete liberty of thought and action
were once given to the individual we should see some exaggerations,
possibly extravagant exaggerations, of our principles.” (_Memoirs of a
Revolutionist_, p. 413.)
[1349] “The only great and all-powerful authority at once rational
and natural that we can respect is the public spirit of a collective
society founded upon equality and solidarity, upon liberty and respect
for the human qualities of all its members. It will be a thousand times
more powerful than all your authorities, whether divine, theological,
metaphysical, political, or juridical, whether instituted by Church or by
State; more powerful than all your criminal codes, all your jailers and
hangmen.” (Bakunin, _Œuvres_, vol. iii, p. 79.)
[1350] _Memoirs of a Revolutionist_, p. 414. This is also one of the
favourite doctrines of the Liberals.
[1351] Kropotkin, _Conquest of Bread_, p. 206.
[1352] Grave, _op. cit._, p. 297. Proudhon is even more severe. “By
making a contract you become a member of the fraternity of free men.
In case of infringement, either on their side or on yours, you are
responsible to one another, and the responsibility might even involve
excommunication and death.” (_Idée générale_, p. 343.)
[1353] Kropotkin, _Mutual Aid_, p. 17.
[1354] “In our opinion, and speaking strictly, there is no such thing
as a really idle person. There are a few individuals, perhaps, who have
not developed as they might have done and whose activity has never found
a proper outlet under existing conditions. In a society where everyone
would be allowed to choose his own sphere of work the idlest people would
be found doing something.” (J. Grave, _La Société future_, pp. 277-278.)
Kropotkin writes in the same strain (_Conquest of Bread_, chapter on
_Objections_).
[1355] Kropotkin, _Memoirs of a Revolutionist_, p. 414; _Conquest of
Bread_, p. 156. The anarchists show no desire to expand the Phalanstère,
but prefer the family life.
[1356] _Conquest of Bread_, p. 204.
[1357] _Conquest of Bread_, p. 130.
[1358] _Ibid._, p. 133.
[1359] Élisée Reclus, _L’Évolution_, etc., pp. 136-137.
[1360] _Conquest of Bread_, p. 83.
[1361] Cf. Grave, _La Société future_, ch. 14, _La Valeur_. The
anarchists frequently complain that their ideas are generally mutilated
by the economists. To read this chapter is to realise the amount of
intelligence which they display when interpreting their adversaries’
doctrines!
[1362] _L’Évolution_, p. 154. Kropotkin says: “Those who wish the
triumph of justice, who really want to put the new ideas into practice,
understand the necessity for a terrible revolution which would sweep
away this canker and revive the degenerate hearts with its invigorating
rush, bringing back habits of devotion, of self-negation, and of heroism,
without which society becomes vile, degraded, and rotten.” (_Paroles d’un
Révolté,_ p. 280.)
[1363] Bakunin, in _Sozial-politischer_, p. 297.
[1364] _Memoirs of a Revolutionist_, p. 297.
[1365] Kropotkin, quoted by Eltzbacher, p. 236. “Revolution, once it
becomes socialistic, will cease to be sanguinary and cruel. The people
are not cruel. It is the privileged classes that are cruel. People are
ordinarily kind and humane, and will suffer long rather than cause others
any suffering.” (Bakunin, _Œuvres_, vol. iii, pp. 184-185.) The same idea
runs through Sorel’s _Réflexions sur la Violence_.
[1366] Bakunin, _Sozial-politischer_, pp. 335 and 353.
[1367] _Sozial-politischer_, p. 361. The proclamation was addressed to
Young Russia just after the Tsar Alexander II had accepted the challenge
of Liberalism by emancipating the serfs. But he immediately proceeded to
revive the cruel system of espionage and repression carried out by his
father Nicholas I, and so roused the indignation of the more advanced
leaders, who thought that they had in him a hero who would open the
golden gates of liberty. Bakunin at the time was under the influence
of an unscrupulous fanatic of the name of Netchaieff, whose savage and
revolting passion for the execution of criminal deeds in the name of
revolution had completely captivated him. Later on he vigorously reproved
such acts, and declared that they ought to be suppressed.
[1368] _Ibid._
[1369] Bakunin, _Sozial-politischer_, p. 332.
[1370] _Réflexions sur la Violence_, p. 253.
[1371] _Paroles d’un Révolté_, pp. 17-18.
[1372] _Réflexions sur la Violence_, p. 218.
[1373] Berth, _Les Nouveaux Aspects du Socialisme_, p. 3.
[1374] _Réflexions sur la Violence_, introduction.
[1375] _Ibid._, p. 237.
INDEX
In the longer paragraphs a number standing alone, and separated by a
semicolon from the preceding sentence, indicates a reference of smaller
importance. Such numbers are, of course, not connected with the sentence
preceding them.
“Abbots’ Party,” 508
Ability, rent of, 549-552, 582, 583
“Abstinence,” 350
“Abuse of rights,” 606
Act of Union of 1707, Adam Smith on, 266
Act of Union of 1800, 104
Adamson, Professor, 529 _n._
Adler, G., 615 _n._
Aftalion, A., 184 _n._
Agneta Park, 255
Agoult, Mme. d’, 292 _n._
Agriculture, the sole source of the “net product,” 12, 14;
the Physiocratic influence upon the conception of, 17;
the inherent distinction between industry and, 17-18;
workers in, ignored by the Physiocrats, 22 _n._;
Condillac on, 49 _n._;
viewed by Quesnay as the source of all wealth, 56;
Smith and the superior productivity of, 64, 90, 112;
Smith’s admiration for, 67-68;
Buchanan on, 143;
the future of, 155-157;
List and Protection and, 276 _and n._;
Carey and Protection and, 283
Agriculturist, the, predominant importance of, in the Physiocratic
hierarchy of classes, 61
Aix-la-Chapelle, 281 _n._
Alexander II, Tsar, 639 _n._
Algeria, 339 _n._
Allgemeiner deutscher Arbeiterverein, 432
Allix, M., 117 _n._, 207 _n._
_Alton Locke_, 504
America—_see_ United States
Anarchism, vii, xv;
the development of, 516;
a fusion of Liberal and socialist doctrines, 614;
and the State, 615, 623-624, 625, 626, 627;
Proudhon the father of, 615;
indebtedness of, to Greek philosophy, 615 _n._;
philosophical and literary anarchism, 615, 619;
Stirner and the cult of the individual, 615-619;
and syndicalism, 619 _n._;
Bakunin, 619-620;
Kropotkin, 621-622;
the principles of social and political anarchism, 622-629;
and the individual, 622-623;
and humanity, 623;
and government, 624-627;
and property, 626-627;
and marriage, 627;
and free contract, 627-628;
and reason and science, 628-629, 641;
the anarchist conception of society, 629-636;
criticism of the social ideal, 634-636;
and revolution, 637-640, 641;
its influence, 640-642;
and individualism and socialism, 640;
and syndicalism, 641;
the moral element in the doctrine, 641
Anarchists, and the cult of the “noble savage,” 7
Anarchy, Proudhon and, 311 _n._
Anderson, J., 148 _n._-149 _n._
Andler, C., 321 _n._, 416 _n._, 435 _n._
Antoine, Father, 499 _n._
Antonelli, É., 251 _n._, 537 _n._
Argenson, Marquis d’, 11 _n._
Aristotle, 401;
on value, 451 _n._; 590 _n._
Arkwright, R., 65
Ashley, W. J., v, vi, xi, 385 _n._, 387, 391 _n._, 406
Association, 231, 233;
Robert Owen and, 237;
Blanc and, 256, 257, 260, 263;
Buchez and, 258;
Leroux and, 263;
Cabet and, 263-264;
Proudhon and, 297 _and nn._, 315 _n._; 300;
the French Liberal school and, 325;
Stuart Mill and, 370;
Le Play and, 491 _n._;
the Christian Socialists and, 504-506, 507 _n._;
Kingsley on, 505 _n._;
solidarity and, 602, 613-614;
and exchange, 613 _n._
Associative socialists, 227, 231-235;
and the Physiocrats, 232-233;
and competition, 233-234;
Blanc and, 263
Auburtin, F., 487 _n._
Aucuy, M., 316 _n._
Aulard, F., 200 _n._
Aupetit, J. J., 529 _n._, 530 _n._, 537 _n._, 539 _n._, 543 _n._
Auspitz, Herr, 529 _n._
Austria, and the Zollverein, 268;
Social Catholicism in, 499 _n._;
anarchism in, 640
Austrian school, xv, 48, 397 _n._, 521, 522 _n._, 541, 544 _and n._, 581
_Avances foncières_, 22, 23 _n._, 25
_Avances souveraines_, 38 _n._
Avenel, M. d’, 546
Babeuf, F., 200 _and nn._, 256, 436 _n._
“Back to the land,” in Fourier’s system, 251-252;
Tolstoy and, 513
Baden, 268 _n._
Baden, the Margrave of (Abbé Roubaud), and the Physiocrats, 4 _n._, 5;
the Physiocratic experiment of, 44
Bakunin, M., 449 _n._, 459 _n._, 615, 616, 619-620, 621, 622, 623, 624,
626 _and nn._, 627, 628, 630, 631 _n._, 634 _n._, 637-640, 641
“Balance of trade” theory, Mercier de la Rivière on, 31;
David Hume and, 53;
Adam Smith and, 98;
Ricardo and, 163-165; 285;
List and, 285 _n._
Bank Act, English, of 1822, 166;
of 1844, 166
Bank of Amsterdam, 85
Bank, Bonnard’s, 316 _n._-317 _n._
Bank of England, 166
Bank of Exchange—_see_ Exchange Bank
Bank of France, 305, 311, 312, 314, 638
Bank-notes, Adam Smith and, 85, 96;
Ricardo and, 165-167;
and Proudhon’s exchange notes, 311-312
Banks, Adam Smith and, 85, 96;
Ricardo and, 138, 139 _n._, 163, 167;
in the Saint-Simonians’ system, 218-219 _and n._, 226;
Fourier’s co-operative, 251 _n._;
influence on crises in the money market, 285 _n._;
Count Mollien and, 314;
the Raiffeisen agricultural credit banks, 503 _n._
Barone, Signor M., 529 _n._
Barrès, A. M., 254 _n._
Bastiat, F., xv, 92, 93, 115, 117, 118 _n._, 146 _n._, 156, 160,
163 _n._, 223 _n._, 277 _n._;
and the Classical school, 322;
and Protection, 323, 328 _n._, 329; 324;
and liberty, 324 _n._;
and State intervention, 325 _n._, 408-409;
and the Liberal school, 327;
Carey and, 327-328;
his career, 328 _n._;
and socialism, 328 _n._, 329;
criticism of, 329;
estimate of his work, 329 _and n._;
and individualism, 330;
his theory of universal harmony, 330-346;
and the Providential order, 331;
his theory of service-value, 332-335;
and Proudhon, 333 _n._-334 _n._;
his law of free utility, 335-337;
and the proprietor, 336;
and rent, 337-340, 425, 545, 546;
and the relation of profits to wages, 340-342, 427;
on the subordination of producer to consumer, 342-343;
and solidarity, 344-345; 363 _n._;
and international exchange, 365;
and Optimism, 377;
and the State, 438 _n._, 439; 459 _n._, 516, 572, 589;
his fable, _The Blind and the Paralytic_, 608; 617, 624;
and government and society, 631 _n._
Baudeau, the Abbé, on the Physiocrats, 3 _n._;
a member of the Physiocratic school, 4 _n._;
on the “natural order,” 10;
on the productivity of agriculture, 13 _n._;
on industry and commerce, 13;
on the _Tableau économique_, 18 _n._, 20 _n._;
on the dependence of the productive classes on the landed proprietors,
22 _n._;
on the landed proprietors as nobility, 22 _n._;
and the origin and justification of private property, 22;
on the _avances foncières_, 23 _n._, 25 _n._;
on the duties of landed proprietors, 25;
on the regard to be paid to the peasants, 26;
on useless laws, 33 _n._;
on the Greek states, 34 _n._;
on the sovereignty of the people, 36 _n._;
on the supreme will, 36 _n._;
on education, 37;
on international antagonism, 37 _n._;
on the three errors of States, 37 _n._-38 _n._;
on _avances souveraines_, 38 _n._;
on the revenue from land, 40 _n._;
on the sovereign, 41 _n._;
on the gross and net revenue, 43 _n._; 118 _n._
Bauer, Bruno, 616
Bauer, Professor S., 19 _nn._
Bavaria, Tariff Union between Würtemberg and, 268
Bazard, St. A., 201 _n._, 211, 212, 213
Bebel, F. A., 437
Bentham, J., 96 _n._, 586
Béranger, J. P. de, 331
Berens, E., 547 _n._
Bergson, H., 403 _n._
Bernstein, E., 473, 474 _n._, 475 _and n._, 479, 480 _n._
Berth, É., 479 _n._, 619 _n._, 642 _n._
Berthélemy, H., 569 _n._
Biological method, 544 _n._
Biological Naturalism, the school of, 593 _n._
Bismarck, Prince, and Lassalle, 414; 436;
and State Socialism, 445
Blanc, Louis, 169, 198, 227, 235;
quality of his work, 255-256;
and competition, 256-257, 260;
and association, 257-261, 263;
and interest, 259-260;
a pioneer of State Socialism, 261, 262, 414;
and State intervention, 262, 414; 290;
Proudhon and, 296 _n._; 300;
and the Revolution of 1848, 300-306;
Lassalle and, 434; 599, 607 _n._
Blanqui, A., 197, 295
_Blind and the Paralytic, The_, Bastiat’s fable, 608
Block, M., 375
Böhm-Bawerk, E. von, on capital, 71 _n._;
on Adam Smith’s conception of the determinant of value, 78 _n._-79
_n._; 150;
and Bastiat, 329; 474 _n._, 516;
on the Classical school, 518 _n._;
on wages, 520; 522 _n._;
on final utility, 523 _n._;
his theory of interest, 530, 540; 541 _n._, 583
Boisguillebert, P., 29 _n._, 33 _n._, 54
_Bon prix_, the, 15-16, 29, 45
Bonar, J., 52 _n._, 121
Bonnard’s Bank, 316 _n._-317 _n._
Booth, C., 388
Bortkevitch, V., 529 _n._
Bouglé, C., 594 _n._
Bourgeois, L., 593-599, 603 _nn._, 605 _n._
Bourgin, H., 201 _n._, 246 _n._, 265 _n._
Bourguin, M., 231 _n._, 320 _n._, 449 _n._
Bournville, 255, 513 _n._
Bouvier, M., 538 _n._
Boyve, M. de, 508 _n._
Brandes, G., 432 _n._
Brants, V., xi
Braun, K., 368
Bray, J. F., 315, 316
“Brazen law of wages,” the, 361, 426, 433, 453 _n._, 541
Brentano, L., 386, 389 _n._
Briand, M., 251 _n._
Bright, John, 366
Brissot de Warville, J. P., 200 _n._, 292 _n._
Brodnitz, Herr, 445 _n._
Brook Farm, 255 _n._
Brunetière, F., 485 _n._
Brunhes, Mme., 510 _n._
Brunswick, 268 _n._
Buccleuch, Duke of, and Adam Smith, 51 _n._
Buchanan, J., 52 _n._, 143
Bücher, K., 252 _n._, 271 _n._, 386, 397
Bucher, L., 414
Buchez, P., 258, 259, 306, 496 _and n._, 505
Buffon, the Comte de, 121, 523 _n._
Buisson, M., 249 _n._, 603 _n._
Buonarotti, F., 256 _and n._
Bureau, P., 493 _n._, 495 _n._
Buret, A. E., 197
Burgin, M., 95 _n._
Cabet, É., 233, 235, 246, 263-264, 290, 296 _n._, 297
Cairnes, J. E., 329, 374-375, 387
Calvin, John, 503 _n._
Cameralists, 110, 383
Campanella, T., 200 _n._, 246
Cannan, Dr. E., v, 52 _n._, 56 _n._, 71 _n._, 79 _n._, 145 _and n._,
427 _n._, 549 _n._
Canonists, the, 110
Cantillon, R., 46
Capital, Adam Smith and, 56, 71-73, 89-91;
Ricardo and the identification of, with labour, 149-150;
the law of the concentration of, 187;
Saint-Simon and, 206, 214;
the Saint-Simonians and, 214;
Proudhon and, 293, 308-309, 310, 313-314;
Bastiat and, 340-342;
Colson and, 342 _n._;
Dunoyer on, 347 _n._;
Senior and, 350;
Marx and, 455-465;
Marx’s law of the concentration of, 459-465, 475-476;
the socialist’s conception of, 459-460;
the Marxian school and, 467 _n._;
the productivity theory of, 502;
final utility and, 528;
the rent of, 548-549 _n._, 558 _n._;
the rent of fixed, 556, 583;
Henry George on the relation of labour to, 564-565;
co-operators and, 605 _n._
Capitalism, Marx and, 461-462
Carey, H. C., and trade, 28;
and rent, 115, 338-340, 425, 545, 546; 156, 278;
and Protection, 282-284;
and Free Trade, 282-283;
and List, 284; 289 _n._;
and the Optimistic school, 327;
and Bastiat, 327-328, 340;
and the Ricardian theory of value, 332; 333 _n._;
and Bastiat’s profits theory, 342 _n._;
and solidarity, 345;
his population theory, 346; 549, 572
Carey, M., 278
Carlyle, T., 196, 511, 512 _n._
Carnot, H., 212, 213 _n._
Carnot, S., 367 _n._
Carrel, A., 212
Cartwright, E., 65
Carver, J. N., 522 _n._
Catherine, Empress of Russia, and the Physiocrats, 5;
and Mercier de la Rivière, 34
Catholic Church, Roman, 485
Catholic Socialism, 495
Catholicism, and the economic order, 483 _n._, 484 _n._;
Social Catholicism, 495-503
Cauwès, P., 285 _n._
Cazamian, L., 510 _n._
Chambre consultative des Associations de Production, 257 _n._
Channing, W. E., 255 _n._, 504 _n._
Chapelier, Le, decree of, 233 _n._
Chaptal, J. A., 112, 277 _n._, 278 _n._, 281 _n._
Charity, solidarism distinguished from, 614 _n._
Charléty, S., 226 _n._
Charmont, M., 607 _n._
Charter of 1814, 205
Chartist movement, the, 235
Chatelain, M., 50 _n._, 369 _n._, 415 _n._, 427 _n._
Cherbuliez, A. É., 376, 541 _n._
Chevalier, M., 212, 213, 226, 289 _n._, 366, 375, 411-412, 444
Child, Sir J., 54
Chrematistic school, 178-179
Christian Social Union, 506 _n._
Christian Socialism (Social Protestantism), xv, 378, 495, 503-509;
origin of the movement, 503-504;
and association, 504-506;
and moral reform, 505, 509;
and private property, 506;
the movement in America, 506;
in Germany and in Switzerland, 507;
in France, 508;
and solidarity, 508;
and individualism, 509
Christian Socialists, 111, 196, 370, 483;
and socialism, 483-485;
and Classical Liberalism, 484;
and the “natural order,” 484;
and Marx’s collectivism, 485;
and State Socialism, 485;
their doctrines, and their influence, 486;
and economic theory, 515
Christianity, economic doctrines inspired by, 483-514
Christliche Gewerkvereine, 501
Civitas Solis, 246
Clark, J. B., 522 _n._, 527, 542 _n._, 552, 564 _n._
“Class war,” 465 _n._, 471, 478, 479, 481-482
Classical school, doctrine of, xv;
the Physiocratic doctrine and, 10;
List and, 169;
and the critical school, 170;
Sismondi and, 174, 177, 179, 195-196;
and machinery, 180, 182;
and over-production, 181;
resemblance of doctrines of, to those of Marx, 181;
and competition, 182;
and the beneficence of the spontaneous economic forces, 230;
and Free Trade, 264;
List and, 289, 290;
severance of, into English and French schools, 322;
apogee and decline of, 348-376;
Senior and, 349-350;
spread of the doctrines of, 351-352;
Stuart Mill and, 352, 353, 354, 368, 374;
and natural laws, 354-366;
called the Individualist school, 355;
and individualism, 355-356;
and liberty, 356;
definition of, 356 _n._, 357 _n._;
and _laissez-faire_, 357;
and international exchange, 363;
doctrines of, in the middle of the nineteenth century, 366-367;
and peasant proprietorship, 371 _n._;
decline of the Classical doctrine, 378;
Roscher and Hildebrand and, 383-385;
Knies and, 384;
the Historical school’s criticism of, 385, 389-398, 517;
and self-interest, 393-394;
and the deductive method, 395-396; 407;
Hermann and, 410-411;
and distribution, 422;
State Socialism and, 438;
and Marxism, 467, 472;
Carlyle and, 511;
the Hedonists and, 518-521, 539, 541 _n._, 544;
and rent, 520, 547;
and price, 520;
and value, 530 _n._, 558
Clavières, É., 107
Cobden, R., 280, 323, 328 _n._, 360, 366, 375
Colbert, J. B., 11 _n._, 280
Colbertian system, Physiocracy antagonistic to, 29;
and agriculture and industry, 30 _n._; 97, 178
Colins, Baron, 155, 560
Collectivism, xv;
the Saint-Simonians and, 201, 202, 211, 218-221, 231;
of Marx, 250, 459 _n._, 485;
development of, 378;
origin of the term, 459 _n._;
and property, 464 _and n._;
and Christian Socialism, 509;
the working-class ideal, 516, 579;
the Fabian, 581;
Kropotkin and, 627
Collinsists, 465 _n._
Colson, L. C., 342 _n._, 427 _n._, 537 _n._
Combination Laws, 361
Commerce, regarded as unproductive by the Physiocrats, 13
Communism, Sismondi and, 194;
Marx and, 221, 459 _n._, 464;
Cabet and, 264;
Proudhon and, 298, 300;
Bastiat and, 337;
Stuart Mill and, 353, 367;
Ruskin and, 513;
Tolstoy and, 513;
Kropotkin and, 627
Communists, the, Proudhon and, 296 _and n._
Competition, Sismondi and, 182-184, 186, 193 _n._, 198;
Adam Smith and, 182;
the Associationists and, 233-234;
Robert Owen and, 240;
Blanc and, 256-257, 260;
Ollivier on, 325;
Stuart Mill on, 353, 358;
free, the Classical school and, 358, 544;
Cairnes and, 375;
the State Socialists and, 440;
F. D. Maurice and, 504 _n._;
free, the Hedonists and, 518, 541-542, 605 _n._;
free, Walras and, 541-542; 543
Composite rent, 552
_Comptabilisme sociale_, 242
Comte, A., 36 _n._, 201 _n._, 203 _and n._, 211;
and Saint-Simon, 222;
and the spontaneity of the “natural order,” 331; 335, 352, 367,
374 _n._;
and the Historical method, 404-405;
and the equality of men, 486 _n._;
and solidarity, 589, 601 _n._;
and the sociological analogy, 590 _n._; 595
Comte, C., 207
Condé-sur-Vesgres, Fourier colony at, 255 _n._
Condillac, É. B. de, xiii, 46, 47, 48-50, 74, 75, 109 _and n._, 117,
118 _n._, 523 _n._
Condorcet, M. C., 122, 224
Confédération général du Travail, 480, 502, 640
Congress of Catholic Circles, 498 _n._
Considérant, V., 234 _n._, 255, 264, 296 _n._, 301, 303, 304, 599,
607 _n._
Consumer, Bastiat and the subordination of producer to, 342-343
Consumer’s rent, 527 _n._
Consumers and social reorganisation, 605 _n._
Consumption, the Psychological school and, 526-527;
the Mathematical school and, 530
Continental Blockade, the, 266, 279
Cooper, W., 244
Co-operation, Fourier and Owen and, 234, 257;
in Fourier’s Phalanstère, 246-252, 257;
Blanc and, 257-263, 306;
Buchez and, 258;
Proudhon and, 315;
Stuart Mill and, 353, 370;
the Social Catholics and, 496-500;
F. D. Maurice and, 504 _n._;
the Christian Socialists and, 505, 506;
Tomy Fallot and, 508 _n._;
solidarity and, 588, 604;
the École de Nîmes and, 605 _n._;
co-operators and capital, 605 _n._
Co-operative societies, beginnings of, 243;
Robert Owen and, 243-244, 504;
character of, 250 _n._, 504-505
Co-partnership, 251 _n._
Corn, high price of, in England, in the early nineteenth century, 145-146
Corn Laws, English, Sismondi and, 175; 269, 277, 280, 354, 361, 366
Corporative associations, the Social Catholics and, 496-500, 501 _and n._
Cossa, L., xi, 367, 376
Cost of production theory, Adam Smith’s, 78-79, 80
Courcelle-Seneuil, J. G., 118 _n._, 316 _n._, 317 _n._, 375, 541 _n._
Cournot, A., x, 265 _n._, 349, 360 _n._, 412-413, 420 _n._, 444, 519,
520, 529 _n._, 531 _nn._
Coux, de, 483 _n._
Credit, Enfantin on, 213 _n._, 226 _n._;
the Saint-Simonians and, 226;
Proudhon and, 313 _n._, 314
Crémieux, H. J., 303
Crises, J. B. Say and, 115-117;
industrial, in England, 172;
Sismondi and, 173, 190-192, 426;
Robert Owen and, 239;
Rodbertus and, 426;
Marx and, 462-463, 478-479;
Henry George and, 566
Croce, B., 474 _n._
Crompton, S., 65
Cunningham, W., v, vi, 387
Curmond, M., 13 _n._
Darimon, A., 316 _n._
Darwin, Charles, his debt to Malthus, 121;
the French Liberal school and his doctrine of the survival of the
fittest, 326;
Kidd and the Darwinian theory, 485 _n._;
Kropotkin and, 621
Dechesne, M., 498 _n._
Declaration of the Rights of Man, 233
Deductive method, the, 387, 395-398
Deherme, G., 587 _n._
Demand and supply, Adam Smith and, 73-74, 80-85, 89;
the law of, of the Classical school, 359-360;
the Hedonists and, 519-520
Demand, price and, 519-520
Demography, 121, 645
Demolins, E., 494 _and n._, 495, 608 _n._
Denis, Professor H., xi;
on Physiocracy, 2 _n._, 8 _n._;
on the _Tableau économique_, 19 _and n._; 140 _n._, 141 _n._,
164 _n._, 184 _n._, 404
Denis, M., 242 _n._
Descartes, 629
Deschamps, M., x _n._, xi _n._
Despotism, the Physiocrats and, 35-37
Destutt de Tracy, 118 _n._
_Dictionnaire d’Économie politique_, 354, 358
Diehl, K., 317 _n._
Differential rents, 546-558
Discount, in Proudhon’s Exchange Bank scheme, 310 _n._, 313;
normal, 312
Distribution, the Physiocrats and, 18, 21, 113, 114;
Adam Smith and, 55, 80, 93, 113, 114, 228;
J. B. Say and, 93, 113-114, 228;
Ricardo and, 114, 139-140, 162-163, 228;
Sismondi and, 177-178, 185, 186, 198;
the Saint-Simonians and, 229;
Fourier and, 245;
Vidal and, 259;
Stuart Mill and, 368, 369;
Rodbertus and, 421-429, 430-431;
State Socialism and, 443-444;
the Hedonists and, 527, 529-530, 541;
Henry George and, 565 _n._-566 _n._;
Mr. and Mrs. Webb and, 583;
the anarchists and, 636;
development of the theory, 645
Distributive societies, 604
Dolléans, É., 236 _n._, 239 _n._, 244 _n._
Dollfus, J. H., 490
Doubleday, T., 137 _n._
Dove, P. E., 560 _and n._
Dragomanov, M. P., 619 _n._
Drôme, M. de la, 303
Droz, N., 197 _and n._
Drysdale, Dr., 134 _n._
Dubois, J. B., xi
Duguit, L., 607 _n._
Dühring, E., 117, 208 _n._, 289 _n._, 420 _n._
Dumas, G., 202 _n._
Dumont, M., 137
Dumoulin, C., 503 _n._
Dumping, 275
Dunoyer, C., 207, 325 _n._, 326 _n._, 327, 346-348 _and n._, 363, 439,
614-615, 631 _n._
Dupin, C., 277
Dupont de Nemours, P. S., on Quesnay’s “rural economy,” 2;
as a member of the Physiocratic school, 3 _n._-4 _n._;
originator of the term “Physiocracy,” 4 _n._;
his definition of Physiocracy, 5;
on natural society, 6 _n._;
on the “natural order,” 7 _n._, 8 _n._, 9 _n._;
on the “net product,” 12 _n._;
on the productive and non-productive classes, 14 _n._;
on the need for the security of property, 24 _n._;
on representation in the State, and on the parliamentary _régime_,
34 _n._;
on despotism, 35 _n._;
on the duty of the sovereign, 37;
on taxation, 38 _n._, 40 _n._;
on the landowner, 39 _and n._;
on the relation of expenditure to production, 41 _n._-42 _n._;
on regulating national expenditure, 44 _n._;
on the amount of the tax, 44 _n._;
and “proportionality,” 45 _n._;
on natural law, 354 _n._
Dupont-White, C., 221, 304;
on the State, 408 _n._, 409, 440, 441;
on the State and the individual, 440;
and individualism, 443 _n._;
and distribution, 443-444
Dupuit, A. J., 521 _n._, 531 _n._
Durand Union, 606 _n._
Durkheim, É., 61, 388 _n._;
and solidarity, 599-600
Duverger, 213
East India Company, 96
École de Nîmes, 605 _n._
“Economic chivalry,” 335
Economic equilibrium, theory of, 474, 521 _n._, 555 _n._, 558 _n._
Economic forces, Proudhon and, 296-297, 315
“Economic law,” 69, 70
Economic liberty, Adam Smith and, 93-98;
the consummation of, 326-327
“Economic rent,” 582 _n._, 583 _n._
Economics, Senior and, 349-350;
Stuart Mill’s influence upon, 367;
theory of the universality of the laws of, 390;
relativity of the laws of, 390-395;
the deductive method in, 395-398;
the Historical school and, 398-407;
the varied scope of, 399;
environment a principal factor in, 400;
the place of history in, 400-407;
and statistics, 407 _n._;
as a science, 543 _n._, 644;
the separation between pure and descriptive, 645
Economics, pure, 392-393, 515, 517, 541 _and n._, 645
_Economie sociale_, 178
“Economistes,” 4 _n._
Eden, Lord, 105 _n._
Eden, Treaty of, 105, 269
Edgeworth, Maria, 119 _n._
Edgeworth, Professor, 529 _n._, 536 _n._
Education, Adam Smith on compulsory, 60, 96;
Robert Owen and, 238 _n._;
Fourier and, 253
Effertz, O., 420 _n._
Eheberg, K. T., 266 _n._
Eichthal, G. d’, 374, 594 _n._
Einaudi, L., 546 _n._, 567
Eisenach, Congress of, 354, 417, 436, 437, 438
Eltzbacher, P., 621 _n._, 625 _n._, 638 _n._
Ely, R. T., 351 _n._, 507 _n._
Enclosure Acts, in England, 145
Enfantin, B. P., 201 _n._, 203 _n._, 211, 212 _and n._, 213, 216 _n._,
226 _and n._, 229, 230 _n._, 231
Engels, F., 208 _n._, 209, 228, 449 _n._, 450 _n._, 464 _n._, 616
Ensor, R. C., 449 _n._
_Entrepreneur_, the, J. B. Say and, 65 _n._, 113-114;
Sismondi and, 183;
the Saint-Simonians and, 215, 216;
French and English economists’ conception of the income of, 373 _n._,
550;
and production, 426;
in Walras’s system, 533-534;
and Walker’s conception of profit, 550;
distinguished from the capitalist, 550 _and n._;
a “captain of industry,” 550
Environment, Robert Owen and, 238, 239;
Fourier and, 247;
the Associationists and, 259;
Le Play and, 494
Equalitarians, 200
Equilibrium, the Mathematical school and, 533-536, 539
Erfurt, Congress of, 507
“Ergonomy,” 375
Escarra, É., 560 _n._, 577 _nn._
Esmein, A., 34 _n._, 35 _n._
Espinas, A., xi
Etiology, Robert Owen regarded as the father of, 238
Evolution, and solidarity, 609
Exchange, the Physiocratic view of, 27, 46, 49, 114;
Condillac on, 50;
Proudhon and, 299-300, 309-314;
Dunoyer and, 348;
Marx and, 450;
the final utility theory and, 523-524, 525, 526;
the Mathematical school and, 528-530;
and solidarity, 607, 613-614;
and association, 613 _n._
Exchange Bank, Proudhon’s, 242, 243, 291, 293 _n._, 308-320, 334 _n._,
627
Exchange banks, 316
Exchange notes, Proudhon’s, 309-314, 316, 317 _n._
Exchange value, profit dependent on, 90
“Exploitation,” the Saint-Simonians and, 214, 215, 216;
Sismondi and, 215, 216;
Marx and, 215, 216;
Bakunin and, 626;
Kropotkin and, 627 _n._
Fabian socialists, 221, 465 _n._, 475, 579-587
Fabian Society, vii, 579-581
_Fable of the Bees, The_, 54, 70 _n._
Factory legislation, beginnings of, in England, 171;
Act of 1819, 171, 237
Faguet, M., 251 _n._
Fallot, Pastor Tomy, 508 _and n._, 509
Familistère, 255
Faucher, J., 616
February Revolution—_see_ Revolution of 1848
Ferrara, F., 333 _n._
Ferrier, F., 278 _n._
Festy, O., 258 _n._
Fetter, Professor F. A., 522 _n._
Feuerbach, L. A., 616, 623 _n._
Fichte, J. G., 435-436 _n._
Final utility theory, 474, 521-528, 539, 583
Finance, the science of, 645
Fiscal reform, and solidarity, 602
Fisher, Irving, 71 _n._, 522 _n._, 529 _n._, 541 _n._, 583
Fix, T., 197
Fleurant, M., 594 _n._
Fontenay, R. de, 146 _n._, 156, 338 _n._
Fouillée, A., 560, 600 _n._, 606
Fourier, C., 137 _n._, 169, 194;
and the Saint-Simonians, 201 _n._; 231;
on association, 232 _n._; 233;
and Robert Owen, 234-235, 245;
his work and ideas, 245-246;
his Phalanstère, 246-251, 257;
“Back to the land,” 251-252;
and the attractiveness of labour, 252-253;
and education, 253;
and the sex question, 253-254;
and anti-militarism, 254;
his influence and following, 254-255;
Stuart Mill on Fourierism, 255;
and interest, 259; 261, 264;
and Free Trade, 265 _n._; 290;
Proudhon and, 296, 297 _n._; 300;
and “the right to work,” 301; 323, 378, 465, 470, 486, 544, 589;
and guarantism, 599, 604;
claimed as an anarchist, 615
Fournière, E., 465 _n._, 469 _n._
Foville, M. de, 156 _nn._
Foxwell, Professor, 231 _n._, 244 _n._, 316 _n._, 607 _n._
France, population in, 125, 136 _n._, 137;
economic unity of, achieved, 266;
and tariffs, 269, 280;
List on Protection and, 276 _n._;
the classic land of socialism, 323;
Protection in, 323;
the Classical doctrines in, 352;
Stuart Mill on the growth of population in, 359;
Christian Socialism in, 508;
anarchism and, 640
Frankfort, 268 _n._
Franklin, B., 329;
Bastiat and, 329 _n._
Free contract, the anarchists and, 627-628
“Free credit,” 307, 319, 320
Free Trade, the Physiocrats and, 17, 29-31, 98, 153;
the Physiocrats the founders of, 29;
Adam Smith and, 98-102, 153;
J. B. Say and, 115;
Ricardo and, 153, 154, 163;
the theory in the middle of the nineteenth century, 264-265;
Fourier and, 265 _n._;
Cournot and, 265 _n._;
and agriculture, List on, 276;
Carey and, 282-283;
List and, 287-288; 298;
follows the interest of the consumer, 343;
Dunoyer and, 347;
Stuart Mill and, 365, 411 _n._;
and the Corn Laws, 366;
Prince Smith and, 376
Free utility theory, Bastiat’s, 335-340
Frézouls, P., 547 _n._, 554 _n._
Froebel, F., a disciple of Fourier, 253
Galiani, the Abbé, his criticism of the Physiocratic doctrine, 32; 46, 47
_Garantisme_, Fourier’s, 254.
_See_ Guarantism
Garçon, M., 44 _n._
Garden cities, 251, 513
Garnier, G., 103, 106, 108, 115, 295, 379 _n._
Garnier, J., 379
Gendre, F. Le, 11 _n._
George, Henry, and the Physiocrats, 45 _n._;
and rent, 141, 565-568, 575;
and land nationalisation, 141, 155, 577 _n._; 376, 465 _n._, 506;
and man’s right to the land, 561;
his career and his works, 563-564; 569, 573;
and _laissez-faire_, 573 _n._
Germany, political and economic condition of, in the nineteenth century,
265, 266;
tariffs in, 266, 280, 281;
the movement for economic unity in, 267-268;
List and the claim of, to Holland and Denmark, 272;
the English Corn Laws and, 276-277;
and Protection, 281 _n._, 289;
the Classical doctrines in, 352;
State Socialism in, 445-446;
Christian Socialism in, 507
Gervinus, G. G., 383 _n._
Gibbon, E., 105
Gide, C., 245 _n._, 246 _n._, 334 _n._, 342 _n._, 522 _n._, 576 _n._,
592 _n._, 605 _n._
Godin, A., 255
Godwin, Wm., 122, 131, 136 _n._, 200 _and n._, 579, 615
Goehre, Pastor, 507
Goethe, 400
“Good price”—_see_ _Bon prix_
Gossen, H. H., 155, 349, 474 _n._, 522 _n._, 529 _n._;
and land nationalisation, 571-577;
and the confiscation of rent, 574-575
Gounelle, E., 506 _n._, 508 _nn._, 509
Gournay, V. de, 4 _n._;
and the origin of the term _laissez-faire_, 11 _n._
Gouth, Pastor, 508
Government, in Saint-Simon’s system, 207-209;
Adam Smith on, 217, 625;
Proudhon and, 310-311, 624 _n._;
Chevalier and, 412;
the State Socialists and, 439-440, 441;
the anarchists and, 624-627;
and society, 631;
and the social instinct, 632
Grand, G., 482 _n._
Grave, J., 615, 619 _n._, 622, 626 _n._, 628, 629, 630, 631 _n._,
633 _n._, 634, 635 _n._, 636 _n._
Great Britain, growth of wealth and population in, 131
Grün, K., 298 _n._, 323 _n._
Guarantism, 599, 604.
_See_ _Garantisme_
Guesde, J., 453 _n._, 465 _n._
Guillaume, J., 459 _n._, 619 _n._, 631 _n._
Guillaumin, U. G., 295
Gustavus III, of Sweden, and the Physiocrats, 5
Guyau, J. M., 598 _n._
Guyot, Y., 343 _n._, 358 _n._, 608 _n._
Halévy, É., 104 _n._, 119 _n._, 141 _n._, 207 _n._, 230 _n._
Hall, C., 579
Hamilton, A., 277
Hanover, 268 _n._
Hardie, J. Keir, 506
Hargreaves, J., 65
Harmel, L., 499 _n._
Harmony, Bastiat’s doctrine of, 330-346
Harmony, Fourier’s ideal city, 249 _and n._, 254
Hasbach, W., 69 _n._
Hawthorne, N., 255 _n._
Hedonism, xv, 10;
Adam Smith’s Optimism distinct from that of, 93; 355;
Ruskin and Tolstoy and, 510;
definition of, 518
Hedonistic school, and free competition, 91, 240, 373 _n._, 518, 543,
605 _n._; 335, 395, 407;
its doctrines, 518-544;
and the Classical school, 518-521, 539, 541 _n._, 544;
and wages, 520-521, 541;
and interest and rent, 520-521;
France and, 529, 537;
criticism of its doctrines, 537-544;
and distribution, 541
Heeren, A. H. L., 383 _n._
Hegel, 435 _and n._, 619
“Hegelian school, left,” 616 _n._
Hegelian terminology, Proudhon and, 298 _n._
Held, A., 386
Heredity, and solidarity, 588
Hermann, F., 410-411, 548 _n._, 551, 556
Herron, G. D., 507 _n._
Hesse-Darmstadt, Tariff Union between Prussia and, 268
Higgs, H., 5 _n._
Hildebrand, Bruno, 196, 271 _n._, 380 _n._, 381 _n._, 383-384, 385,
389 _and n._, 390, 394, 400 _and n._, 404, 405
Hirst, Miss M. E., 275 _n._, 277 _n._, 278 _nn._
Historical school, vi-vii, xv, 111;
and political economy, 175, 222;
Sismondi and, 196;
List and, 287; 368, 374, 377;
origin and development of, 379, 380-388;
the newer school, 385-386;
influence of, in England, and in France, 387-388;
critical ideas of, 388-398;
the positive ideas of, 398-407;
A. Comte and, 404-405;
and Le Play’s school, 493-494;
and economic theory, 515;
and the Classical school, 517; 648
History, the consideration of economic reforms based upon, 221, 222;
the philosophy of, in economics, 221, 224;
the place of, in economics, 400-403
Hitze, the Abbé, 496
Hobbes, T., 630
Holyoake, G. J., 244 _n._
_Homo œconomicus_, Adam Smith and, 86; 399;
Carlyle and, 511;
the Hedonists and, 518, 543
Howarth, C., 244
Huet, F., 495, 560
Hughes, T., 504
Humanity, in the anarchist doctrine, 623
Hume, David, Adam Smith and, 50 _n._, 53, 64 _n._, 105, 106, 273 _n._;
and money, 85; 120 _n._, 149 _n._, 165
Huskisson, W., 265, 267
Hutcheson, F., 50 _n._, 53
Hyndman, H. M., 579 _n._
Ibsen, H., 511
Icaria, Cabet’s ideal State, 246, 263, 264 _n._
Identity of interests, Adam Smith and, 185, 410;
Sismondi and, 185-186, 410, 413;
Malthus and Ricardo and, 410;
Hermann and, 410-411;
Stuart Mill and, 411;
Cournot and, 413
_Immortale Dei_, Encyclical, 501
_Impôt unique_, 45, 61, 567
Indirect and direct taxation, the Physiocrats and, 44-45
Individual, the State and, 442-443;
Walras on the State and, 573-574;
in philosophical anarchism, 615;
Stirner and the cult of the, 617-619, 622-623;
Proudhon and the anarchists and, 622-623, 630;
and society, the anarchists and, 629-631;
Bakunin on, 630, 631 _n._;
Jean Grave and, 631 _n._
Individualism, xi, 263;
List and, 270;
the Classical school and, 322, 355, 356;
Bastiat and, 330;
Stuart Mill and, 355, 356 _and n._;
Ricardo and Malthus and, 355;
Herbert Spencer and, 356;
and solidarity, 356 _n._;
and liberty, 356;
the Liberal school and, 357 _n._;
Dupont-White and, 443 _n._;
Wagner and, 443 _n._;
Christian Socialism and, 509;
modern development of, 516;
anarchism and, 640, 642;
syndicalism and, 642
Individualist school, 355;
known also as the Liberal school, 356;
definition of, 356 _n._;
and inheritance, 372 _n._
Individuality, solidarity and, 612-613
Induction, 395, 397-398
Industrial and Provident Societies Acts of 1852-62, 505
Industrial Revolution, 65, 104, 111
Industrialism, of Saint-Simon, 202-211, 224;
Fourier and, 251
Industry, regarded as sterile by the Physiocrats, 13;
the inherent distinction between agriculture and, 17-18;
the Physiocrats’ erroneous view of, 46;
Sismondi and, 194;
Saint-Simon and, 204, 205 _and n._, 206;
List and, 274, 286, 287
Ingersoll, C., 278
Ingram, J. K., v, xi, 385 _n._, 404
Inheritance, the Saint-Simonians and 217-218, 223, 224;
the State to be sole inheritor of property, 223;
the French Revolution and, 223;
the Phalanstère and, 246;
Dunoyer and, 347 _n._;
Senior and, 351 _and n._, 372;
Stuart Mill and, 372
Institutional Church, 506
Interest, the Physiocrats and, 32-33;
Condillac and, 50;
Adam Smith and, 65 _n._, 92, 96;
Bentham and, 96 _n._;
Sismondi and, 176 _n._, 192-193 _n._;
Marx and, 184-185;
the Saint-Simonians and, 213 _n._, 214;
downward trend of the rate of, 223;
Robert Owen and, 240 _n._;
Blanc and, 259-260;
Fourier and, 259;
Proudhon’s Exchange Bank and, 298 _n._, 308-310, 312, 313, 314, 319;
Solway’s scheme and, 319;
the People’s Bank and, 319;
Bastiat and Proudhon’s controversy as to the legitimacy of,
333 _n._-334 _n._;
Bastiat and, 340-342;
Senior and, 350;
the term as used by the French economists, 373 _n._;
final utility and, 528;
Böhm-Bawerk and, 530, 540;
and wages, Henry George on, 565;
the proposed confiscation of, 568;
“the remuneration of sacrifice,” 568;
the Fabian school and the confiscation of, 582
Interests, the spontaneous harmony of, 633.
_See_ Identity of Interests
International trade, Adam Smith and, 98-100;
Stuart Mill and, 98-100;
Ricardo and, 98, 138, 163, 363 _and n._-364 _and n._;
List and, 290;
Bastiat and, 330;
Dunoyer and, 363
International Working Men’s Association (the “International”), 321,
449 _n._, 620
Internationalism, Marx’s, 465 _n._
Interventionism, 407
Interventionists, Sismondi the first of the, 192, 196; 601
Ireland, 104
“Iron law,” the, 42, 342 _n._
Italy, xii;
anarchism and, 640
Janet, P., 254
Jannet, C., 490 _n._, 592 _n._
Jaurès, J., 469 _n._
“Jeunes Abbés, Les,” 502
Jevons, Stanley, 46 _n._, 48, 75, 78, 117;
on the Ricardian school, 118 _n._;
and the law of indifference, 148, 525 _n._;
his economic method, 380; 406, 474 _n._;
on the purpose of economics, 518 _n._;
and the final utility theory, 521 _n._, 522 _n._;
and Cournot, 529 _n._;
a member of the Mathematical school, 529 _n._;
and value, 530 _n._; 537 _n._, 541, 572 _n._, 581
Joint-stock companies, Marxism and, 463, 476
Joint-stock principle, 248
Joseph II, Emperor of Austria, and the Physiocrats, 5
“Juridical socialism,” 606, 607 _n._
Jurisprudence, solidarity and, 606-607
Justice, Proudhon on, 298-299
_Kapital_, Marx’s, 354, 386, 449 _n._;
Labriola on, 467
Kautsky, K., 480 _n._
Ketteler, Monseigneur von, 496
Kidd, B., 485 _n._
King, G., 54
Kingsley, C., 504 _and n._, 505 _n._
Knies, K., 89, 196 _and n._, 380 _n._, 381 _n._, 382 _n._, 384-385, 389,
390-391, 392, 393, 400 _n._, 402, 403 _n._, 404, 405
Kohler, C., 277 _n._
Kraus, Professor, 106 _n._
Kropotkin, Prince, 459 _n._, 615, 616, 619 _and n._, 621-622, 623, 625,
627 _and n._, 628, 630, 631 _n._, 632, 633, 634 _and n._, 635, 636,
637-638, 641
Kurella, Herr, 584 _n._
Kutter, Pastor, 507
Labour, regarded by Adam Smith as the true source of wealth, 56-57;
regarded as the measure of value, 77, 149;
regarded by Marx as the cause of value, 77, 151 _n._, 184-185;
regarded by Ricardo as the cause and measure of value, 140, 144 _n._,
149, 201 _n._, 332;
Ricardo and the territorial division of, 164;
Sismondi and, 176 _n._;
Saint-Simon on, 206 _n._;
Fourier and the attractiveness of, 252-253;
Proudhon on the organisation of, 291 _n._;
Proudhon and the productiveness of, 293 _and nn._;
regarded by Bastiat as the determinant of value, 332;
Carey on, as the measure of value, 332;
and value, Ferrara and, 333 _n._;
Dunoyer on, 347-348 _and n._;
Rodbertus and, 423;
Marx’s theory of surplus labour, 450-459;
rent of, 558 _n._;
Henry George and the relation of capital to, 564-565
Labour, division of, Adam Smith and, 56-62, 91;
the outcome of personal interest, 70-71;
dependent upon capital, 90;
Ricardo and the territorial division of labour, 164;
Tolstoy and, 514;
solidarity and, 607
Labour notes, Robert Owen’s, 315, 316
Labour-value theory, Marx’s, 474-475, 581
Labriola, A., 36 _n._, 449 _n._, 462 _n._, 464 _n._, 465 _and n._, 467,
469 _n._, 470 _n._, 473 _n._, 474 _n._
Lacordaire, J., 262
Lafargue, P., 465 _n._
Lafayette, G., 267
Lagardelle, H., 482 _n._, 619 _n._
_Laissez-faire_, in the Physiocratic doctrine, 11;
the origin of the formula, 11 _n._; 170, 173, 197;
List and, 277;
the Classical school and, 322, 357, 390;
the right interpretation of, 324;
Stuart Mill and, 357;
Cairnes and, 374;
the Christian schools and, 377;
the Historical school and, 389;
Adam Smith and, 408, 410;
Carlyle and, 511;
the Hedonists and, 541;
Henry George and 573 _n._
Lalande, A., 600 _n._
Lamartine, A., 302 _n._, 303
Lammenais, the Abbé de, 496