System of Economical Contradictions; Or, The Philosophy of Misery

ween FACT and RIGHT

EALITY of an e

, that a philosopher ever maintained; and the inquiries to follow will prove, I hope

s: a new proposition, which alters this science into logic or metaphysics in concreto, and radically changes the basis of ancient philosophy. In other words, economic science is to me the objective form

realize the eternal laws of reason. Economic science is, then, necessarily and at once a theory of ideas, a natural theology, and a psychology. This general outline alone would have sufficed t

l but the code, or immemorial routine, of property. These theories offer us only the rudiments, or first section, of economic science; and that is why, like property, they are all contradictory of each other, and half the time inapplicable.

of opposition to the statu quo, and have devoted themselves to persevering, and systematic ridicule of civilization and its customs. Property, on the other hand, the basis of all social institutions, has never lacked zealous defenders, who, proud t

, in the quarrel between realists and nominalists; it is almost useless to add that, on both sides, right and wrong are

, and cursing each other with the fervor of two hostile religi

plicit terms, political e

phenomena of the production and distribution of wealth; that is, in regard to the m

heir contingencies and relations; they have observed in them, in many cases, a quality of necessity which has given them the nam

n of wealth. By this title, political economy considers itself legitimate in FACT and in RIGHT: in fact, because the phenomena which it studies are constant, spontaneous, and universal; in right, because these phe

affirms the irregularity of the present constitution of society, and, consequently, of all its previous forms. It asserts, and proves, that the order of civilization is artificial, contradictory, inade

few to exploit the many; and applying the maxim A fructibus cognoscetis, it ends with a demonstration of the

thine and mine, it supposes the legitimacy of the facts described and classified by political economy. The theories of public and international law, with all

e rubrics of legal and official spoliation,-in a word, of property. Considered in their relations, these two pretended sciences, political economy and law, form, in the opinion of socialism, the complete theory of iniquity and discord. Passing then from negation to affirmation

n socialism and political economy i

lorification of selfishness; sociali

y deem it their duty to blame governments, are optimists with regard to ac

s contemporary with, and conservative of, property,-although their criticism, based solely on reason, deals frequent blows at their own prejudices,-the second reject authority and faith, a

ver ceases to accuse the othe

nstrous union, perpetually give birth to luxury and misery; they reproach economic theories, always modeled after the past, with leaving the future hopele

they prove, with documents in hand, that all reformatory projects have ever been nothing but rhapsodies of fragments borrowed from the very system

is grave suit accumulating, and

tical economy. A few attempts at association in accordance with their views have even been made here and there: but as yet these exceptional undertakings, lost in the ocean of property, have been without result; and, as if desti

al economy fills its brief with socialistic systems, all of which, one after another, pass away and die, despised by common sense. The persistence of evil nourishes the complaint of the one, while the constant succession of reformatory checks

he realities of the world, the antagonism w

which was charged with being developed at last to its ultimate, was cursed and driven back. This accusation of the conservatives against the democrats was a libel. Democracy is by nature as hostile to the socialistic idea as incapable of filling the place o

less distinct from socialism, no less ho

nd to the priests who represent him; just as finally in the economic world property-that is, exclusive control by the individual of the instruments of labor-is the point of departure of every theory,-so philosophy, in basing itself upon the a pr

ubstitute as sole truth the relation of facts; which broke with tradition, and consented to make use of the past only as a point from which to launch forth into the future,-such a doctrine could not fail to s

the tender souls who, having lost their ancient faith, ask the reason and end of their existence, religion proposes the unfathomable secrets of Providence, and philosophy holds doubt in reserve. Subterfuges always; complete ideas, in which heart and mind find rest, nev

ect it is considering, calls itself by turns royalty or democracy, philosophy or religion, in short, property; the other socialism, which, coming to li

or in a complex formula, which harmonizes the opposing factors by absorbing them, so to speak, in each other. Can we not, then, men of common sense, while awaiting the solution which the future will undoubtedly bring forth, prepare ourselves for this great transition by an analysis of the struggling powers, as well as

what are its powers; what are its wishes? It is this which I propose to determine in this

, and that it remains only to examine the methods attempted or proposed by either party. But since, moreover, it has been given thus far to political economy alone to translate its ideas into acts, while socialism has scarcely done more than indulge in perpetual satire

a few examples, before entering fully up

y of theories

e contending parties agree in acknowledging a com

c utopia in the name of the same philosophy. Thus the social war has continued since Plato and Aristotle. The modern socialists refer all things to science one and indivisible, b

then, to ascertain what a

ogically arranged and systema

for there alone can it have reason and system. Social science must include human order, not alone in such or such a period of duration, nor in a few of its elements; but in all its principles and in the totality of its existence: as if social evolution, spread throughout time a

is point of view, the progress of humanity, proceeding from the simple to the complex, would be entirely in harmony with the progress of science; and the conflicting and so often desolating facts, which are today the basis and object of political economy, would have to be considered by us as so many speci

ake this cle

t disputed is unques

ATION O

first to recognize,-labor. They have replied, therefore, to the attack of their adversaries, first by maintaining that labor is organized, that there is no other organization of labor than liberty to produce and exchange, either on one's own personal account, or in association with others,-in which case the course to be pursued has been prescribed by the civil and commercial codes. Then, as this ar

ation of charity, organization of war. In this respect, the argument of the economists is deplorably irrational. No less certain is it that the organization of labor cannot be a utopia and chimera; for at the moment

ow, this is utterly untenable, since it is notorious that in labor, supply, demand, division, quantity, proportion, price, and securi

ll affirm, against the socialists and against the economists, not that labo

teaches us the primary elements of this organization; but socialism is right in asserting that, in its present form, the organization is inadequate and transitory; and the w

le waging a burlesque war, pursue in reali

l economy, mistaking for science its scraps of theory, denies the possibility of further progress

, Nihil est in intellectu, quod non prius fuerit in sensu, there is nothing in the socialistic hypotheses which is not duplicated in economic practice. On

d than the preceding one, is that

anization, and whose analysis discloses the profound laws of civilization. The ancient philosophers and the Fathers of the Church, who must be regarded here as the representatives of socialism in the early centuries of the Christian era, by a singular fallacy,-which arose however from the paucity of economic knowled

title payment for privilege, indemnity for loan. It required more than fifteen centuries to get this idea accepted, and to reassure the consciences that had been terrified by the anathemas pronounced by Catholicism against usury. But finally the weight of evidence and the general desire favored the usurers: they won the battle against socialism; and from this legitimation

stify farm-rent in itself, and to establish this theory of the product of capital. It may be said

AN EXCESS. But in the face of this theory, or rather this fiction, of the productivity of capital, arises another thesis no less certain, which in these latter days has struck the ablest economists: it is that all value is born of labor, and is composed essentially of wages; in other words, that no wealth has its origin in privilege, or acquires any value except through work; and that, consequently, labor alone

t and usury, so the socialists have taken their revenge by causing the seignorial rights of capital to vanish before the still more general principle of labor. Property has been demolished from top to bottom: the economists could only keep silent; but, powerless to arrest itself in this new descent,

on what is the ma

he real productivity of labor, and that of the fictitious productivity of capital, are both essentially economical: socialism has endeavored only to show the contradiction between them, without regard to experience or logic; for it appears to be as destitute of the one as of the other. Now, in law, the litigant who accepts the authority of a title in one particular must accept it in all; it is not allowable to d

rly we see that the whole trouble is due to the fact that one of th

of his property except for the sake of general utility, a

ce of the article taken, is fixed, not by the intrinsic value of the article, but by the general law of commerce,-supply and demand; in a word, by opinion. Expropriation in the name of society may be likened to a contract of convenience, agreed to by each with all; not only then

on of the social right of

rails; it did nothing for the multitude of industries dependent upon the previous method of conveyance, whose losses far exceeded the value of the lands whose owners received compensation. Similarly, when the question of indemnifying the manufacture

whose capital is rendered unproductive by the same railroad, is entitled to indemnification. Why, then, is he not indemnified? Alas! because to indemnify him is impossible. With such a system of justice and impartiality society would

e interests of the masses and create privileges; then, finding in the law of expropriation the rudiment of an

ty, before commencing the work the character of this new organization must be understood; now, socialism, I repeat, has no science save a few bits of physiology and political economy. Further, it is necessary in accordance with the principle of indemnity, if not to c

cussion ends always in fire and the guillotine. Here, as everywhere, two rights, equally sacred, stand in the presence of each other, the right of the citizen and the right of the State; it is enough to say that there is a superior formula which reconciles the socialistic utopias and the mutilated theories of political economy, and that the problem is to discover it. In this emergency what are the contending parties doing? Nothing. We might say rather that the

tition a question the terms of which it does not und

by myths and allegories, which always reproduce the problems but never solve them, the economists reply to the questions which they ask

he can obtain; that is, again, we do not know. Political economy prohibits the supposition that the prices of merchandise and labor can be FIXED, although it admits that they can be ESTIMATED; and that for the reason, say the economists, that estimation is essentially an arbitrary operation, which never can lead to sure and certain conclusions. How, then, shall we find the relation between

ll be a stoppage and forced sales, consequently no profit for the manager and a danger of idleness for the laborer; that then the latter will offer his labor at a reduced price; that, if a machine is invented, it will first extinguish the

ot thus that the question should be understood, although the Academy has given it no other meaning. The RELATION OF PROFITS AND WAGES should be considered in an absolute sense, and no

other which represents his profit, according to the axiom that all labor should leave an excess,-we have to determine the relation of one of these parts to the other. This done, it will be easy to deduc

ages and prices; and since, in the present state of things, wages and prices vary and oscillate continually, we must ask wha

ALUE. Now that is precisely what the gentlemen of the Academy deny: they are unwilling to admit that, if value is variable, it is for that very reason determinable; that variability is the sign and condition of determinability. They pretend that value, ever varying, can never be determined. This is like

e problem by substituting division for distribution,-that is, by banishing number and measure from the social organism: others relieve themselves of the emba

political economy ha

this famo

say, has not the least right to claim any nourishment whatever: he is really one too many on the earth. At the great banquet of Nature

rds used by Malthus, it having reached its present sha

nomy,-a conclusion which I shall demonstrate by evidence hitherto

, let us translate it into philosophical propos

ich is its expression, are economical

or himself: labor, like all merchandise, is subject

mand anything of others: his misfortune falls on his own

ormulated them with such alarming exactness, is secure against all reproach. From the point of view of

ation: such is, on the one hand, the law of our existence; such is, on the other, the consequence of property; and M. Rossi has taken altogether too much trouble to justify the good sense of Malthus on this point. I suspect, indeed, that M. Rossi, in making so lengthy and loving an apology for Malthus, intended to recommend political econ

ty into patricians and proletaires; and, particularly, in saying that in an organized, and consequently solidaire, society, there may be some who possess, labor, and consume, while others have neither possession, nor labor, nor bread. Finally Malthus, or political economy, reasons erroneously when seeing in t

this writer, a merit which none of his colleagues has dreamed of at

since by Plato and Thomas More in a single

this must be said: neither could economic and legislative science have had any ot

eking to ascertain how things OUGHT TO TAKE PLACE in society, had to tell us how things DO TAKE PLACE; and all these processes which the authors speak of so pompously in their books as LAWS, PRINCIPLES, and THEORIES, in spite of their incoherence and inc

litical economy; and I believe that I express the general sentiment in saying that this opinion has become that of the vast majority of minds. The present finds few defenders, it i

iquitous customs, respected so long as the obscurity which sustained their life lasted, with difficulty dragged to the daylight, are expiring beneath the general reprobation; it is suspected that the government of society must be learned no longer from an empty ideology, after the fashion of the Contrat social, but, as Montesquieu foresaw, from the RELATION OF THINGS; and already

s prepared for an edifice. The laborers await the signal, full of ardor, and burnin

earned, and how much the stone-cutters: they do not know the destination and the place of anything. The economists cannot deny that they have before them the fragments, scattered pell-mell, of a chef-d'oeuvre, disjecti membra poetae; but it has been impossible for them as yet to recover the general design, and,

enment, on needs and interests." Thus expressed itself, in December, 1844, one of the clearest minds that France contained, M. Leon Faucher. Expla

ds in oppression; taxation, the material bond of society, is generally a scourge dreaded equally with fire and hail; credit is necessarily accompanied by bankruptcy; property is a swarm of abuses; commerce degenerates into a game of chance, in which it is sometimes allowable even to

ls collected for a magnificent temple, property, ignorant and barbarous, has built huts. The work before us, then, is not only to recover the plan of the edifice, but to dislodge the occupants, who maintain that their c

e Greeks, the Italians, labored in their day as we do in ours: they invested their money, paid their laborers, extended their domains, made their expeditions and recoveries, kept their books, speculated, dabbled in stocks, and ruined themselves according to all the rules of economic

but now the economists claim all the honor for their own principles. For after all, they say, what has been the influence of Christianity upon society? Thoroughly utopian at its birth, it has been able to maintain

ne cannot be invoked by the latter in its own support. The effects of charity and self-sacrifice are outside of the domain of economy, which must bring about social happiness through justice and the organization of labor. For the rest, I am ready to admit the beneficial effects of the system of property; but I observe that these effects are entir

ced, then, to resume the examination of political economy, since it alone contains, at least in part, the materials of social science; and to ascertain whether its the