[1] “If Tolstoy’s teaching is not systematic, two facts may be urged in
extenuation: his doctrines, so far as he expounds them, are consistent
in themselves”--says T. S. Knowlson in his biographical and critical
study on _Leo Tolstoy_, ch. VII, p. 143. [London, 1904].
[2] See J. W. Harper, _Money and Social Problem_, ch. V, sec. I, p. 98.
[3] _What Shall We Do Then_, ch. XIX, p. 127. [Wiener’s ed. 1904].
[4] _Loc. cit._, ch. XVII, p. 100.
[5] Cf. for instance, Plato, _Laws_, ch. XI, and Aristotle’s
_Politics_, bk. I, ch. 9; _Nicomachean Ethics_, by Aristotle, bk. V,
ch. 5.--Roman authors defined money as a “just medium and measure
of commutable things” _Moneta est justum medium, et mensura rerum
commutabilium_, quoted in H. C. Black, _Dictionary of Law_, p. 785.
[1891].
[6] _Wealth of Nations_, bk. II, ch. II.
[7] _Principles of Political Economy and Taxation_, ch. XXI.
[8] _Principles of Political Economy_, bk. III, ch. VII.
[9] _Principles of Social Science_, vol. II, ch. XXX, 1.
[10] _Die Philosophie Heracleitos des Dunkeln_, vol. I, p. 22. [1845].
[11] _Capital_, English ed. part I, ch. III.
[12] _The Purchasing Power of Money_, ch. II, ces. 1. [New York, 1911].
[13] D. Kinley, _Money_, a Study of the Theory of the Medium of
Exchange, ch. V, 6. [New York, 1913].
[14] Some excellent hints as to the money-commodity, compare H. White,
_Money and Banking_, bk. I, ch. I. [New York, 1908].
[15] Valuable suggestions on standard money, see W. A. Scott, _Money
and Banking_, ch. I, sec. I.--J. L. Laughlin, _The Principles of
Money_, ch. III.--J. B. Clark, _The Ultimate Standard of Value_,
in _Yale Review_, Nov. 1892, vol. 1, p. 258-74.--The same subject
is well treated by C. Manger in an article entitled “Geld” in the
_Handwoerterbuch der Staatswissenschaften_, bd. IV. [1900], and
L. Nasse, “Das Geld und Muenzwesen” in Schoenberg, _Handbuch der
Politischen Oekonomie_, bd. I. [1896].
[16] _What Shall We Do Then_, ch. XXI, p. 164. [Wiener’s ed.]
[17] _Id. Ibid._ ch. XXII, p. 161.
[18] _What Shall We Do Then_, ch. XXI, p. 158.
[19] _Op. cit._, p. 160.
[20] _Loc. cit._ ch. XXI, p. 159.
[21] _Id. Ib._ ch. XIX, p. 126.
[22] _Op. cit._ ch. XVIII, p. 122.
[23] _Id. ib._ ch. XIX, p. 126.
[24] _Patriotism and Government._ Complete Works, vol. XXIII, p. 538.
[Wiener’s ed. 1904].
[25] _The Slavery of Our Times._ Comp. Works, vol. XXIV, p. 128.
[26] _What Shall We Do Then_, ch. XVIII, p. 122.
[27] _Id. Ibid._ ch. XIX, p. 127.
[28] _Loc. cit._ ch. XVIII, p. 121.
[29] _Op. cit._ ch. XX, p. 145.
[30] _Loc. cit._ ch. XX, p. 145.
[31] _Id. Ibid._ ch. XVIII, p. 121.
[32] _The Kingdom of God is Within You_, ch. IX, p. 237.
[33] _The Slavery of Our Times_, ch. X, p. 41.
[34] The first method of the enslavement of men is by means of personal
violence, according to Tolstoy, and second is by depriving people of
their land. [Cf. _What Shall We Do Then_, ch. XX, p. 142-43].
[35] _What Shall We Do Then_, ch. XX. p. 144.
[36] _Id. Ibid._ ch. XVIII, p. 111.
[37] For the sound discussion on function of money, which is avowedly
opposite to Tolstoy’s theory, see W. S. Jevons, _Money and the
Mechanism of Exchange_, ch. III.--J. L. Laughlin, _The Principles
of Money_, ch. I.--F. A. Walker, _Money_, ch. I. [1883].--E. B.
Bawerk, _Positive Theorie des Capitals_, bch. II, abt. II-III.
[1902].--C. Jannet, _Capital_, ch. II-III. For a different and
sounder interpretation of taxes and taxation, see the excellent book,
_Introduction to Public Finance_, by Prof. C. C. Plehn. N. York, 1896.
[38] _What Shall We Do Then_, ch. XVII, p. 102.
[39] _Loc. cit._ ch. XVII, p. 109.
[40] _Id. Ibid._ ch. XVIII, p. 124.
[41] _Op. cit._ ch. XVIII, p. 117.
[42] Cf. W. Roscher, _System der Volkswirtschaft_, bd. I, kap. I, 31.
[1906]. J. S. Mill, _Political Economy_, bk. I, ch. I, sec. 1.
[43] Cf. A. Marschal, _Principles of Economics_, bk. IV, ch. VII, sec.
1. p. 300. [London, 1898].
[44] _Cours d’Economie Politique_, p. 310. [Paris, 1911].
[45] Cp. _The Complete Works_, vol. XIV, p. 109. [Wiener’s ed. 1905].
[46] _Id. Ibid._ p. 288.
[47] _Political Economy_, ch. II, p. 60. [London, 1912].
[48] Cf. _Histoire de L’Economie Politique en Europe_, par J. A.
Blanqui, ch. III.--See also _Des Raports de L’Economie Politique et de
la Morale_, par M. H. Baudrillard, lec. II. [Paris, 1883].
[49] See J. N. Keynes, _The Scope and Method of Political Economy_, ch.
II, sec. 1, p. 62. [London, 1897].
B. Interpretation of Property.
I
When two Greek law-givers, Lycurgus and Solon, imposed their laws
upon the Greek nation, they both had the same purpose--to establish
the equal right of all men to the use of land and other properties.
Plutarch, speaking of Lycurgus, observes that at that time “some were
so poor that they had no inch of land, and others, of whom there were
but few, so wealthy that they possessed all”. Lycurgus persuaded the
citizens to restore the land to common use, and they did so. Solon had
no other end in giving laws to the Athenians but to set up justice
among all his fellow-citizens. He says that ambition of the rich
knows no bounds, that they respect neither sacred property nor public
treasure, plundering all in defiance of the holy laws of justice. “I
had commanded the wealthiest and most powerful to refrain from harming
the weak,” says he further, “I had protected great and humble with
a double buckler, equally strong both sides, without giving more to
one than to the other. My advice has been disdained. Today they are
punished for it”[50].
Taken as a whole this doctrine of Lycurgus and Solon is not in
accordance with Tolstoy’s teaching on laws and property. But
nevertheless it shows clearly that law and property are two indivisible
civil institutions which can not exist separately[51]. Tolstoy is in
opposition to both of them, law and property, because they offend
against humanity, especially against the commandment not to resist evil
by force.
Under the term of property here must be understood private or
individual property. The notion of property, however, is not clear
either in ancient or modern writers. In the course of human evolution
property has many times changed its form and its substance, its meaning
and its scope. In the societies that preceded ours, property embodied
itself in a form of oppression which has been definitely abolished
once for all. As it is known slavery was one of the forms of private
property[52]. In Greece and Rome there were public slaves, _i.e._
slaves of the city, and slaves of the state; but most of the slaves
were simply a part of the patrimony of the citizens. Masters had the
right to use them for cultivation of land, or to give them away as
presents, or to sell them, or to leave them to their heirs. They had
the legal right of imprisoning and fettering the slaves, or separating
them from their wives, or forbidding them to marry. The slaves were
part of the master’s private ownership, and he disposed of them as he
pleased. In the Roman laws, and also in the laws of Athens, we find
that a father could sell his son. This was because the father might
dispose of all the property of the family, and the son might be looked
upon as property, since his labor was a source of income[53]. The
best Greek and Roman philosophers saw nothing unlawful in that. Their
conceptions of the respective rights and duties of masters and slaves
would not clash in the least with the ideas even now in equatorial
Africa, and some other European colonies elsewhere.
Between these old institutions of slavery and modern capitalistic
systems, Tolstoy was not able to find any great differences. To him the
institution of slavery existed even in his time only in other form than
it was in Greece, India, and Rome. And the reason why this slavery
existed lies in the institution of private property. If it be true,
Tolstoy suggests, that property has its origin only in labor, why so
many combats, revolutions, and wars? Why so many luxuries, robberies,
and debaucheries? Are these vices not originated in personal or
private property? Is it true that property and money represent labor?
By no means, answers our philosopher. Property may be represented by
money, and _vice versa_, but money has in our time completely lost
that desirable significance as a representative of labor; such a
significance it has only exceptionally, for as a general rule it has
become a right or a possibility for exploiting the labor of others.
Money is a new form of slavery, which differs from the old only in
being impersonal, and in freeing people from the human relations of the
slave[54].
In a revolutionary article, _To the Working People_, written in
1902, three years before the Russian Revolution, Tolstoy attempted
to open the eyes of the people stating that they were deprived of
the land which they formerly possessed and were forced to come to
the cities, as wage-workers, or practically, as slaves. The working
people in manufacturing cities are in complete slavish dependence on
their masters. These slaves may be liberated from the chains in which
they are fettered in no way, except by the abolition of private and
capitalistic property, that is, giving the land to the people who work,
and not to the people who live by the unearned increment. He adds
that rural laborers have nothing to do with socialistic doctrinaires
who propose the diminution of hours of work and raising of wages, by
strikes, unions, and childish processions with flags on the first of
May. They need not send into parliaments the representatives who fight
there “about words, with words, and for words”, as sometimes Lassalle
reproached the “bourgeois” representatives. The working men who leave
the land and live by factory labor must find some other means to rid
themselves of the slavery. They should ask and demand of their masters
and rulers the right to settle on the land, and to work there. In
demanding this, they will not be demanding something not their own, not
belonging to them, but the restitution of their most unquestionable and
inalienable right, which is inherent in every living being, to live on
the land and get their sustenance from it, without asking permission
from anyone else to do so. To be sure, masters and rulers will not give
the people the land which they demand. Governments are in power to
prevent this claim. But governments have no power without police and
army, and who are the constituents of this army and police? People,
workingmen. When these laborers refuse to serve the unchristian and
brutal commands of the governments, then people can divide and take as
much land as they need for cultivation and their living.
Should it not be robbery to take the possessions of people who
accumulated them for hundreds and thousands of years? Yes, but how
did these upper classes accumulate their property and riches? Tolstoy
replies on this question together with his teacher Proudhon: They
heaped up their properties by theft from other people. _La propriété
c’est le vol_, said Proudhon[55]. _Sobstvenost est koren zla_ (Property
is the root of evil), continues his disciple, by the same axiomatic
language as the master[56].
Is this statement categorical? From the standpoint of Proudhon and
Tolstoy it is, but from the point of view of economists this doctrine
is at fault. The Russian iconoclast, Tolstoy, like the American
advocate of Single Tax, George, maintains that the land question may
be solved simply by restoration of the land to the people who work on
it. This is, undoubtedly, the best, the easiest, and quickest way to
make private property common and equitable, but what do history and
economics say of this _quaestio vexata_.