It is not needful here to go with historians and jurists far beyond the
Greek and Roman lawyers in this inquiry. Let us begin the discussion
with Plato and Aristotle. We know already that Plato in his _Republic_
is a communist. He permits no citizen to have any property of his own
beyond what is absolutely necessary. The land is divided into equal
parts among all the citizens, in order that all may be interested in
the defence of the country[57]. This communism of Plato was vigorously
combated by Aristotle in a brief passage of _The Politics_, which
contains many of the best arguments since used on that side of the
controversy[58]. However, Aristotle was not an exclusive individualist.
He wants in a state, _Private property and common use_. In Plato’s
judgment, the state should be governed in the reverse way, _Common
property and private use_. In Greek history we find a constant struggle
about these questions of inequality among people and private dominion
of land. But the ideas of communism and social possessions among
ancient nations are prevalent. The learned historian, Theo. Mommsen, in
his _Roemische Geschichte_ stated that in the earliest times the arable
land was cultivated in common, and it was not till later that land
came to be distributed among the burgesses as their own property[59].
Mommsen’s thesis is based on the quotations of Cicero[60], Dionysius
of Halicarnassus, and Plutarch. In later time it is supported by the
historian, P. Viollet[61], economist E. de Laveley[62], sociologists
Ch. Letourneau[63], Sir Henry Main[64], and almost all socialist
writers[65].
During the Middle Ages the idea of common ownership was theoretically
maintained by church Fathers and their followers, on the basis of
Christ’s teaching which perpetually sympathized with the poor. St.
Fathers regarded community of goods as the ideal order of society,
private property as a necessary evil, trade as an occupation hardly
compatible with the character of a devout Christian, and the receipt
of interest for the use of money as altogether sinful. They said that
individual property is contrary to the Divine Law, therefore _Omnia
debent esse communia_. These principles could never be applied with
logical severity. Ecclesiastics theoretically preached equality of men,
and in practice they were the wealthiest class among other classes.
Roderigo Borgia, later Pope Alexander VI, was one of the richest men of
his time[66]. The luxury, immorality and privileged wealth of clergy
caused the Reformation, but the Reformation could not restrain the
clergy from acquiring immense private possessions. Communism of the
Middle Ages was then a pure utopia, as it is today.
In the philosophy of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries the institution
of private property was justified by many jurisconsults, reformers,
and philosophers who, based their teachings on human nature. Among
these are significant theories of Grotius, Locke, Hobbes, Thiers[67],
and Coulanges[68]. In opposition to these writers we find, throughout
the French Revolution and later on, the writers who assailed private
property as pernicious. Rousseau expressed himself with all his fervid
eloquence upon this theme, and he found a large public to sympathize
with his declamations. Rousseau was the inspirer of those revolutionary
writers, inferior in genius but equally daring, who helped to diffuse
his doctrines. Mirabeau and Robespierre were also Rousseau’s adherents.
Even the socialists, though they have dropped some of his first
principles and have adopted some of the conclusions of modern science,
have inherited no small portion of his spirit[69].
In America we find many of Rousseau’s followers who were inspired
by philosophers of the French Revolution. Among these followers is
Henry George[70], and in Russia, Tolstoy. The difference between these
two reformers is that George would put the rent of real property
in the hand of government for better and more righteous taxation
than is now the case. Tolstoy, meanwhile, is against all taxation,
because it can only be collected by force, and all force is forbidden
by Christ. George is for nationalization of land, Tolstoy for full
communalization, against all government and all state ownership[71].
Tolstoy is, indubitably, influenced by Rousseau, Proudhon, and
anarcho-communistic writers of the nineteenth century. His teaching
of property has many elements of chimerical schemes, sometimes
confounded with mediaeval communism and Christian primitive utopias,
sometimes with anarchistic principles which reject both private and
social property. The labor question is solved by Tolstoy simply in the
destruction of private ownership and in the distribution of land to
the people who work manually. Mental labor and intellectual production
are ignored and disdained. In many books printed during Tolstoy’s life
we find “no rights reserved”. Literary property, accordingly, is the
common property of mankind. Ideas and facts are free to all men. There
are no patents and copyrights of mental exertions _cum privilegio_.
The author of a work has no right of property in the book he has made;
he took the common stock and worked it over, and one man has just as
good a right to it as another. If the author is allowed to be the owner
of his works, the public are deprived of their rights. The immaterial
property in writing is in the same degree a robbery as it is material.
Finally, literary labor does not belong to this question. According to
Tolstoy’s interpretation, inventions, arts, literature, and science,
are privileged only to the higher classes. The class of people
exclusively occupied with physical labor nowhere read books, neither
have the masses learned from books to plough, to make _kvas_, to weave,
to make shoes, to build huts, to sing songs, or even to pray.
Of this Tolstoy’s criticism of literature, science, and private
property, were cogent objections. He was called an utopian, a sophist,
an inconsistent author who speaks one thing and works something else.
Some called him charlatan, destroyer of sacred institutions, and a
man who did not know what he was preaching. These epithets remind one
of that which Jean Bodin gave to Machiavelli calling him a “butt of
invective”, and “wretched man”, or of those names which Voltaire gave
Rousseau honoring him as a “Punchinello of letters”, “the fanfaron
of ink”, “arch-madman”, “scoundrel”, “mountebank”, and other choice
epithets.
Such criticism might be valuable and apropos to a certain sort of
newspapers, but not to serious investigators and critics. Throwing
this kind of adjectives at an author, does not mean that he is really
wrong. Indeed, Tolstoy’s doctrine of abolishing individual ownership
constitutes no valid grounds for criticism of the historic right of
private property in land. Most of his great expectations would not
be realized. The problems of wealth distribution, land, and money,
are much deeper and more complex than he presumed. They cannot be
explained solely by a theory, nor solved by refusing to serve in
military and state obligations. They are the inheritance of the present
generation from a long past, the resultant of a complex of forces,
material and spiritual, political, economic, moral, and social. They
can only be unraveled by a most minute and careful study of historical
records, interpreted by the aid of the best results of the thought
of economists, sociologists, and politicians. And yet, in many ways,
Tolstoy aided the solution of these problems. He helped to accelerate
it by the example he set of earnestness, altruism, and intense devotion
to ideals which he made the creed of future society.
[Illustration: Line]