What is Property? An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government

heory of first occupancy as a too dangerous one, and have adopted that which regards property as born of l

s Jean Jacques, "have the arrogance to say, 'I built this wall; I earned this land by my labor.' Who set you the tasks? we may reply, and by what

om it, alone gives birth to property, the Civil Code lies, the charter is a falsehood, our whole social system is a violation of right. To this conclusion shall we come, at the end of the discussion which is to occupy our attention in this chapter and th

from the inequality of skill and faculties: directly his curiosity shall be satisfied. But it is proper that I should call his attention for a moment to this remarkable feature of the process; to wit, the substitution of labor for occ

acts the proprietor when called upon to defend his right. At first he refuses to reply, he exclaims, he threatens, he defies; then, forced to accept the discussion, he arms himself with chicanery, he surrounds himself with formidable artillery,-crossing his fire, opposing one by one and all together occupation, possession, limitation, covenants, immemorial custom, and universal consent. Conquered on this ground, the proprietor, like a wounded boar, turns on his pursuers. "I have done more than occ

r right, or did you hope to deceive men, and make justice an illusion? Make haste, then, to acquaint us w

perform, and the appropriation of things in which there is a common interest? Do you not k

or? Why, then, have they lost in laboring for yo

easure them. It will be the judgment of Balthasar; for I swear by balance, level, and square, that

began: fifty centuries required for the extirpation of a lie! During this lamentable period, how many usurpations have been sanctioned, how many invasions glorified, how many conquests celebrated! The absent dispossessed, the poor banished, the hungry excluded by wealth, which is so ready and bold in action! Jealousies and wars, incendiarism and bloodshed,

stry! to each according to his capacity; to each capacity according to its results!" And I see three-

d in the future only under the protection of the laws. It has its origin in natural law; it derives its power

onation, &c., if not the right to become a proprietor by simple occupancy? What are your laws concerning the age of majority, emancipation, guardian

nts oftenest resorted to in support of property. 1. APPROPRIATION, or the formation of property by possession; 2. THE CONSENT OF MA

d cannot be

wealth is not fugitive, like the air and water,-inasmuch as a field is a fixed and limited space which certain men have been able to appropriate, to the exclusion of all others who in t

at we scarcely know which the author lacks, sense or honesty. What, I ask, has the fixed and solid nature of the earth to do with the right of appropriation? I can understand that a thing LIMITED and STATIONARY, like the land, offers greater chances for appropriation than the water or the sunshine; that it is easier to exercise the right of domain over the

it is illogical, we should know no better than before who has a right to exact payment for the use of the soil, of this wealth which is not man'

sons. Why, then, are some of his children regarded as legitimate, while others are treated as bastards?

ppropriated. Let me observe in passing that this is more than an hypothesis; it is a reality. Men have appropr

t route; and Grotius, consulted in regard to this matter by the Dutch who refused to recognize this right, wrote expre

the government and communes to whoever can pay the license-fee and the rent. To regulate hunting and

rity for himself and his property. The treasury, whose nature it is to spoil the best things, h

r to pass a day on his premises without paying a tax; nor to look at a court, a garden, or an orchard, without the consent of the proprietor; nor to stroll in a park or an enclosure against the owner's will: every one is allowed to shut himself up

e surface carries with it property from zenith to nadir-Cujus est solum, ejus est usque ad caelum. Now, if the use of water, air, and fire excludes

ter.... To sustain life, then, man needs continually to appropriate many different things. But these things do not exist in like proportions. Some, such as the light of the stars, the atmosphere of the earth, the water composing the seas and oceans, exist in such large quantities that men cannot perceive any sensible increase or diminut

other's right. Why, then, is the earth appropriated? M. Ch. Comte's reply is a curious one. Say pretends that it is because it is not FUGITIVE; M. Ch. Comte assures us that it is because it is not INFINITE. The land is limited in amount. Then, according to M. Ch. Comte, it ought to be appropriated. It would seem, on the contrary, that he ought to say, Then it ought not to be appropriated. Because, no matter how large a quantity of air

here are some which exist in such large quantities that they are inexhaustible; others which exist in lesser quantiti

e has created them in quantities almost infinite, in order that their plentifulness might prevent their appropriation. Likewise the land is indispensable to our existence,-consequently a common thing, cons

ights, in the case of a commodity which is limited in amount, can be realized on

ch are in THE MARKET, it always does so without enumerating or describing them. However, light is not wanting. There are some few maxims such as these: Ad reges potestas omnium pertinet, ad singulos proprietas; Omnia rex imperio possidet, singula dominio. Social sovereignty opposed to private property!-might not that be called a prophecy of equality, a republican oracle? Examples crowd upon us: once the possess

nsent no Justific

en have granted to this appropriation. His language is such that it may mean either of these things, or both at once; which entitles us to assume that the author intended to say, "The right

by the whole human race, would be null in the eyes of justice, and an act to enforce it would be illegal. Man can no more give up labor than liberty. Now, to recognize

ge. We thus come back to equality again,-the sine qua non of appropriation; so that, after having justified property by universal consent, that is, by equality, we are obliged to justify the inequality of conditions by property. Never shall we extricate ourselves from

on Gives No Tit

h the human race has endured since its birth. The delusion of prescription is the fatal charm thrown over the intellect, t

he opposition, often furious and bloody, with which new light has always been received, and which makes the sage a martyr. Not a principle, not a discovery, not a generous thought but has met, at its entrance into the world, with a formidable barrier of preconceived opinions,

ription in favor of the Aristotelian philosophy; when our fathers of '89 demanded liberty and equality, there was prescription in favor of tyranny and privilege. "There always have been proprietors and there always will be:" it is with this

iple, a law hitherto undiscovered. We take care to repel no idea, no fact, under the pretext that abler men than ourselves lived in former days, who did not notice the same phenomena, nor grasp the same analogies. Why do we not preserve a like attitude towards political

agination has been exhausted in guessing out social and psychological laws; all systems have been proposed. Looked at in this light, it is probably true that EVERY THING HAS BEEN SAID; but it is no less true that EVERY THING REMAINS TO BE PROVED. In politics (to take only this branch of philosophy), in politics every one is governed in his choice o

requires certain conditions, the omission of one of which renders it null. If it is true, for example, that the proprietor's possession has been CIVIL, PUBLIC, PEACEABLE, and UNINTERRUPTED, it is none the less true that it is not based on a just title; since the only titles which it can show-occupation and labor-prove as much for the proletaire who demands, as for the proprietor who defends. Further, this po

to possess real estate is a part of a universal right which has never been totally destroyed even at the most critical periods;

e has never shown his authority in any other manner. Likewise we shall see that EQUALITY OF POSSESSIONS, EQUALITY OF RIGHTS, LIBERTY, WILL, PERSONALITY, are so many identical expressions of one a

will never be prescribed. For principles of jurisprudence and axioms of reason are different from accidental and contingent facts. One man's possession can prescribe against another man's possession; but just as the possessor cannot prescribe against himself, so reason has always the faculty of change and reformation. Past error is not binding on t

e first place, that appropriation of land is illegal; and that, supposing it to be legal, it must be accompanied by equality of property. I have shown, in the second place, that universal consent

difficult. I need only to call attention to

had received a thing from its rightful owner, or who had been legitimately relieved from all obligations, would, on losing his title, be liable to be dispossessed or subjected again,-the public welfare demanded that a term should be fixed, after the expiration of which no one should be allowed to disturb actual possessors, or reassert rights too long neglected.

injure the public welfare, disturbing the peace of families and the stability of social transactions, the law has fixed a time

om the tempests of chicanery and the gales of avarice-Hic unus inter humanas pro cellas po

civil law which derives all its force from the necessity of settling differences which otherwise would never end. For, as Grotius says, time has no power to produce effects; all t

prescription, or, as the Latins say, in u

est possessor who has held his position for many years,-that only confirms a right already respected; and prescription, applied in this way, simply means that possession which has continued for twenty, thirty, or a hundred years shall be retained by the occupant. But when the law declares that the lapse of time changes possessor into proprietor, it supposes that a right can

when accompanied by equality, prescription is but another of the thousand forms which the necessity of maintaining this p

to exercise his right of possession? No. Also, at the same time that prescription was introduced into the laws, it was admitted that property is preserved by intent alone,-nudo animo. Now, if property is preserved by intent alone, if it can be lost only by the action of the proprietor, what can be the use of prescription? How does the law dare to presume that the proprietor,

ne sperandum de hominibus, ac propterea non putandum eos hoc esse animo ut, rei caducae causa, homine

in hell, I lay the blame on them for depriving me of my portion of this world's goods. To this powerful consideration Grotius rejoins, that it is better to abandon a disputed right than to go to law, disturb the peace of nations, and stir up the flames of civil war. I accept, if you w

and possession only an asylum for absentees, orphans, and all who do not know, or cannot maintain, their rights; in prescription only a means, either of defence against unjust pretensions and encroachments, or of settlement of the differences caused by the removal of possessors,-we shall recognize in these various forms of human justice the spontaneous efforts of the mind to come to the aid of the social instinct; we shall see in this protection of all rights the sentiment of equality, a constant levelling tendenc

and faulty, for axioms of eternal and unquestionable truth,-influenced by public opinion, enslaved by the popular religion,-they have invariably started with the principle (following in this respect the example of the theologians) that that is infallibly true which has been admitted by all persons, in all places, and at all times-quod ab omnibus, quod ubique, quod semper; as if a general but spontaneous opinion was any thing more than an indication of the truth. Let us not be deceived: the opinion of all natio

s No Inherent Power to A

ical economy and law, that is, by th

nherent power to appro

ectly to equality of property,-whatever the kind of labor, how

er of justice, labo

we may leave no obstacles in the path, let us exa

s, in his "Treat

a nation, has a terri

are: they are commoners and workers; it is an abuse of language to call them proprietors. The right of use and abuse belongs no more to nations

nd who starts with the supposition that a nation is a proprietor-falls into that

f the fact that at all ages the results of the fictitious right of national property have been pretensions to suzerainty, tributes, monarchical privilege

individual property. These lands, which consist mainly of forests, belong to the whole population,

ell said: a lie i

e offered f

row? The nation, in its function of usufructuary, possesses them; the government rules, superintends, and protects them. If it also granted lands, it

would be no usurpation, since the public would receive the exact value throu

The guardians of the nation waste its substance, and it has no redress! I have received, you tell me, through the hands of the government my share of the proceeds of the sale: but, in the first place, I did not wish to sell; and, had I wished to, I could not have sold. I had not the right. And the

s; which can benefit nobody, save the proprietor and his servants. Let these sales multiply, and soon the people-who have been neither able nor willing to sell, and who have received none of the proceeds of the sale-will have nowhere to

pation, M. Ch. Comte assumes the lands t

they should be measured by the number of men which the occupied

y the value of five centimes. A square league of earth would be hardly sufficient to support a savage in distress; to-day it supplies one thousand persons with the

debtor to the amount of three hundred francs. Said the father confessor, "You must return these

t in our work. Destroy a bill of exchange, a promissory note, an annuity deed,-as a paper you destroy almost no value at all; but with this paper you destroy your title, and, in losing your title, you deprive yourself of your g

a necessary part of his position. As he rejected the theory of occupancy, and as he knew, moreover, that labor could not constitute the right in the absence of a previous permission to occupy, he was obliged to

labor material on which to exercise itself, is, if I am not mist

sor, through his labor, discovers some method of making it produce enough for two days, he doubles

skill of the fisherman, who on the same coast can catch more fish than his fellows, make him proprietor of the fishing-grounds? Can the expertness of a hunter ever be regarded as a property-title to a game-forest? The analogy is perfect,-the industrious cultivator finds the reward of his

escription. Labor is only the sensible sign, the physical act, by which occupation is manifested. If, then, the cultivator remains proprietor after he has ceased to labor and produce; if his possession, first conceded, then tolerated, finall

nd francs, &c.; which means, in other words, that in twenty or twenty-five years' time the purchaser would recover in full the amount originally paid for the land. If, then, after a certain length of ti

ion of the Code; and when the partisans of this theory pret

tive, or even death-producing, like certain swamps, t

which formerly did not exist; but this capacity cannot be created without material to support it. The substance of the soil remains the same; only its qualities and modifications are changed. Man has created every thing

e between the soldier who possesses his arms, the mason who possesses the materials committed to his care, the fisherman who possesses the water, the hunter who possesses the fields and forests, and the cultivator

leads to Equal

labor gives a right o

ly out of the earth warmed by the rays of the sun, almost like mushrooms, on being asked why the earth no longer yielded crops of that nature, replied: "Because it is old, and has lost its

ing this product by raising the rent, but allows the cultivator to enjoy the results of his labor; even then justice is not satisfied. The tenant, by improving the land, has imparted a new value to the property; he, therefore, has a right to a part of the property. If the farm was originally worth one

arth are no less useful to their fellow-

the former makes the land worth one; that of the latter makes it worth two: both create equal values. Why not accord to

ver; after two or three seasons it attains its maximum fertility. That which is added by the agricultural art results rather from the progress of science and the diffus

ivilege and industrial monopoly; in emancipating only a few hundred laborers out of the millions of proletaires. B

renewed creation, to prevent the diminution or destruction of the value of a piece of land. Admitting, then, that property is rational and legitimate,-admitting that rent is equitable and just,-I say that he who cultivates acquires property by as good a title as he who clears, or he who improve

and jurisprudence. And when I say proprietor, I do not mean simply (as do our hypocritical economists) proprietor of his

on will not be useless to the work in hand. Many persons talk of admitting working-people to a share in the products and profits; but in their minds this participation is pure benevolence:

N AFTER HE HAS RECEIVED HIS WAGES, A NATURAL RIG

uote M. C

ing up the soil. They increase the value, they make the amount of property larger; they are paid for the

he production, you ought to share in the enjoyment. But your right does not annihilate that of the laborers, who, in spite of you, have been your colleagues in the work of production. Why do you talk of wages? The money with which you pay the wages of the laborers remunerates them for only a few years of the perpetual possession which they have abandoned to you. Wages is the cost o

arer by another and

lated man would perish before he could put the soil in a condition to yield him even the most meagre living. To that end are needed the united and combined efforts of society, a

t amount of capital, of such a nature as a colonist would be apt to choose,-animals, seeds, tools, and a little money and food. The land having been divided, each one settles himself as comfortably as possible, and begins to clear away the portion allotted t

begins in a very benevolent tone, "how much trouble it costs you to do a little work and live uncomfortably! A fortnight of labor has reduced you to your last extremity!... Let us make an

utual assistance double their strength; the work can be seen to advance. Singing and laughing, they subdue Nature. In a short time, the soil is thoroughly changed; the mellowed earth w

hey have created for another the means wherewith to produce, and have created nothing for themselves. The difficulties of clearing remain the same; their clothing wears out, their provisions give out; soon their purse becomes empty for the profit of the individual for whom they have worked, and who alone can furnish the provisions which they need, since he alone is in a position to produce them. Then, when the poor grubber has exhausted his resources, the man with the provisions (like the wolf in the fable, who sc

he secret of taxing others that he may establish himself; then, once enriched by their united efforts, he refuses, on the very conditions which he himself dictated, to advance the well-being of those who made his fortune for him: and you ask how such conduct is fraudulent! Under the pretext that he has paid his laborers, that he owes them nothing more, that he has nothing to gain by putting himself at the service of

of a guilty conscience, much more clearly than th

. Two hundred grenadiers stood the obelisk of Luxor upon its base in a few hours; do you suppose that one man could have accomplished the same task in two hundred days? Nevertheless, on the books of the capitalist, the amount of wages paid would have been the same. Well, a desert to prepare for cultivation, a house to build, a factory to run,-all these are obelisks to erect, mountains to mo

Whoever employs a man owes him maintenance and support, or wages enough to procure the same. That is the first thing

sted: in other words, the labor accomplished must give birth perpetually to new labor-such is the universal law of reproduction. In this way, the proprietor of a farm finds: 1. In his crops, means, not only of supporting himself a

services,-what is his

s labor by the condescension and necessities of the master and proprietor: that is what is called possession by a precarious 15 title. But this precarious condition is an injustice, for it implies an inequality in the bargain

e debt of the capitalist to the producer, which he never pays; and it is this fraudulent denial which causes the poverty of the laborer, the luxu

ty of service, or guarantee of perpetual labor,-from the adoption of one of these courses the capitalist cannot escape. But it is evident that he cannot satisfy the second and third of these conditions-he can neither put himself at the service of the thousands of working-men, who, di

iring one after another the products of his employees' labor, he sinks deeper and deeper

lace. Each of them adds a certain value to the material which passes through his hands; and this value, the product of his labor,

ue of each individual's product; but that is not the question under consideration. A force of one thousand men working twenty days has been paid the same wages that one would be paid for working fifty-five years; but this force of one thousand has don

t of collective property which you have n

e the proprietor, firm in his position (thanks to the aid of all the laborers), dwells in security, and fears no lack of labor or bread, the laborer's only dependence is upon the benevolence of this same proprietor, to whom he has sold and surrendered his liberty. If, then, the prop

strength, diligence, and industry, clearly their fortunes would be equal also. Indeed, if, as is pre

quires at the expense

ive, the laborer is entitled to a share of the p

being social property, no one

tions and our laws. Why do the very persons, who laid down this principle, now refuse to be guided by it? Why do the Says, the C

ice to their equivocations. Let us make haste to enlighten it, and show it the true path. Equality approaches; a

Society all W

eneral, all who in our day are connected with soci

CITY, TO EACH CAPACITY ACCORDI

S CAPITAL, HIS LABOR, AN

nse arena in which prizes are contended for,-no longer, it is true, with lances and swords, by force and by treachery; but by acquired wealth, by knowledge, talent, and by virtue itself. In a word, they mean-and everybody agrees

art is not to be feared. The two sects glory in laying down as a principle inequality of conditions,-reasoning from Nature, who, they say, intended the inequality of capacities. They boast only of one thing; namely, that their political system

em, the St.-Simonian

ue of his pontifical inf

Fourier's, the ranks a

on of the consti

ect of ridicule to the reader; h

capacity, to each capacity

o his capital, his l

ive to the public a scientific demonstration of this grand maxim; and I would wager a hundred to on

capacity, to each capacity

o his capital, his l

o it-is false, absurd, unjust, contradictory, hostile to liberty, friendly to tyranny,

d upon the matter-that capital is a source of production to its proprietor only by virtue of the right of occupancy, and that this production is therefore illegitimate. Indeed, if labor is the sole basis of property, I cease to be proprietor of my field as soon as I receive rent for it from another. This we have show

exchanged, but cannot

Simon puts it, RESULTS and CAPACITI

just that he who does the most should get the most? I b

to ask ourselves the following question: "Is labo

ecting and combining thy efforts, thou shalt labor. God did not say, "Thou shalt quarrel with thy neighbor for thy bread;" but, "Thou shalt labor by the side of t

oticed and distinguished: ASSO

n the greater and the smaller-will not be acquired by society; and, therefore, not being exchanged, will not affect the equality of wages. There will result, it is true, in favor of the stronger laborer a natural inequality, but not a social inequality; no one having suffered by his strength and p

given space, as much greater as the laborers are more numerous, and as the task assigned to each is less in magnitude,-it follows that natural inequality neutralizes itself in proportion as association exten

uired to accomplish it is seven hours: one laborer will finish it in six hours, another will require eight; the majority, however, will work s

he chooses; he may devote himself to useful exercise and labors for the maintenance of his strength, and the culture of his mind, and the pleasure of his life. This he can do without injury to any one: but let him confine himself to services which affect him solely. Vigor, genius, diligence, and all the

only in their own products. Only, on the hypothesis just made, inasmuch as the strong cannot be prevented from using all their advantages, the inconveniences of natural inequality would reappear in the very bosom of social equality. But the land, considering the productive power of its inhabitants and

e, the strong come to the aid of the weak, their kindness deserves praise and love; but their aid must be accepted as a free gift,-not imposed by force, nor offered at a

t and skill are to be found. When there is no prospect of dull times (for printing and typesetting, like all other trades, sometimes come to a stand-still), every one is free to work his hardest, and exert his facul

tributive justice which governs printing-offices; if they had observed the popular instincts,-not for the sake of servile imitation, but in order to reform and generalize them,-long e

he average working-day of each individual, in France, would not exceed five hours. This being so, how can

sed, therefore, on two palpable errors: one, an error in economy, that in the labor of society tasks must nec

they are satisfied with half of their salary. Paid according to the labor that they had performed, of what could they complain? and what inj

be solved by the principle of equality. Thus, some one might observe, "Here is a task which cannot be postponed without detriment to production. Ought society to suffer from the negligen

ay that the general equality shall never be violated, and that only the idler shall be punished for his idleness. Further, i

since their task is to lead, instruct, and superintend. But they must be chosen from the laborers by the laborers themselves, a

of the universal c

mber of laborers. The capacity, given to all, of accomplishing a social task,-that is, an equal task,-and

ers is the Necessary Condit

tes the second part of the St. Simonian, an

tween them and other men: in the presence of these heights of science and genius the law of equality disappears. Now, if equality is not absolute, there is no equality. From the poet we descend to the novelist; from the sculptor to the stonecutter; from the architect to the mason; from the chemist to the

TED AS A SOCIAL CALAMITY. To establish his communistic edifice, he lowered all citizens to the stature of the smallest. Ignorant eclectics have been known to object to the inequality of knowledge, and I should not be surprised if some one should yet rebel against the inequality of virtue. Aristotle was banished, Socrates dra

philosophy to enable us to observe once what we see every day;" and, according to d'Alembert, "the ordinary truths of life make but little impression on men, unless their attention is especially called to them.

is not, after all, an objection to equality-it

aradox!... I repeat my assertion, that no one may think I have blunde

be considered in society

ned to him; or, to use a common expression, "every workman must know his trade." T

r mind and talent. For the performance of work necessarily involves a workman: from the need springs the idea, and the idea makes the producer. We only know what our senses long f

n, the same intelligence which imagines can also produce; consequently, no labor is superior to the laborer. I

solated man cannot satisfy unaided, Nature has granted to the race a power refused to the individual. This

wledge of the system of the universe may be acquired for ever by two or three highly-gifted men. The perpetual current of rivers supports our commerce, and runs our machinery; but the sun, alone in the midst of space, gives light to the whole world. Nature, who might creat

ilization, nor whether that which is now called the INEQUALITY OF POWERS would be in an ideal society any thing more than a DIVERSITY OF POWERS. I take the worst

are equal, whatever be the degree of their power (as no one can be coerced), there are functions deemed coarse, low, and degrading, which deserve higher pay,-a result no less repugnant to equality than to the principle, TO EACH CAPACITY ACCORDING TO ITS RESULTS. Give me, on the contrary, a societ

my secon

t fair to say that certain capacities seem quite incapable of certain services; so that, if human industry were entirely confined to one class of products, numerous incapacities would arise, and, consequently, the greatest social inequality. But every body sees, withou

then reproaches him for being not

he homage of dignities, the distinctions of power and wealth? It is not I who refuse it: it is economy, it is justice, it is li

nge of products or services may be d

he values are not equal, and the injured party perceives it, he

tions may be effected between other people b

faculties; who is neither blinded by passion, nor hindered

f the other; that is, that, to be legitimate and true, commerce must be exempt from all inequality. This is the first

merce or exchange a

ss, and finally himself for a bottle of brandy, is not free. The dealer in

o weaves rich fabrics that he may dress in rags, who produces every thing that he may dispense with every thing,-is not free.

hrough love is not free; his comrades and his officers, the

, patent and license fees, personal and property taxes, &c., and the deputy who votes for them,-all ac

the most perfect equality in exchanges without regard to superiority of talent and knowledge; and you will

to be compared with product,-are my cheeses and my beans in the presence of his "Iliad"? But, if Homer wishes to take from me all that I possess, and make me his sla

Let him accept, then, the little that I have to offer;

knows how to honor and to praise him. What is its duty? To regulate the right of the singer and the duty of the listener. Now, notice this point, which is a very important one in the solution of this question: both are free, the one to sell, the other to buy. Henceforth their respective

one, the exchange of his verse for a fee of any kind, being a free act, must be at the same time a j

nsic value will not be diminished; but that its exchangeable value, or its productive utility, will be reduced to zero, will be nothing at all. Then we must seek the amount of wages to be paid between infinity on the one hand and nothing on the other, at an equal distance from each, since

m; now, not only has it not been solved, but it has been declared insoluble. According to the economis

her. Nothing can fix it absolutely, because it is based on needs and means of production which vary with every moment. These variations complicate economical

science? How can two economists look each other in the face without laughing? How dare they insult metaphysicians and psychologists? What! that fool of a Descartes imagined that philosophy needed an immovable base-an aliquid inconcussum-on which the edifice of science might be built, and he was simple enough to search for it! And the Hermes of economy, Trismegistus Say, devoting half

few trifling generalities, to which the economists thought to give an appearance of depth by clothing them in high-sounding words. As for the attempts that have been made by the economists to solve social problems, all that can be said of them is, that, i

l, absolute, unchangeable, and conseq

e exchanged for some other

s is a pair o

hing for six thousand years. In the presence of this problem, the economist recoils confused; the peasant who can ne

th when cut and mounted?-The time and expense which it has cost the laborer. Why, then, is it sold at so high a price?-Because men are not free. Society must regulate the exchange and distribution of the

the product cost, a poem which has cost its author thirty years of labor and an outlay of ten thousand francs in journeys, books, &c., must be paid for by the ordinary wages received by a laborer during thirty years, PLUS t

ise to a few

ity. But this variation is not that of the economists, who place in their list of the causes of the variation of values, not only the means of production, but tas

in time and outlay-neither more nor less: every product not

nder many circumstances of applying it, is the source of commercial f

number of farmers rises to one thousand, ten thousand, one hundred thousand, &c., as fast as their number increases, that of the functionaries which are earliest required must increase in the same proportion; so that the highest functions become possible only in the most powerful societies. 17 That is the peculiar feature of capacities; the character of genius, the seal of its glory, cannot arise

ing us to understand that talent and material recompense have no common measure; that, in this respect, the condition o

wton over the inert spheres whose distances, volumes, and revolutions he calculates. You ask for talent and genius a corresponding degree of honor and reward. Fix for me the value of a wood-cutter's talent, and I will fix that of Homer. If any thing can reward intelligence, it is intelligence itself. That is what happens, when various classes of producers pay to each other a reciprocal tribute o

n common with right, I shall proceed to explain why all capacities are entitled to the same reward, and why a corresponding difference in wages would be an injustice. I shall prove that the obligation to stoop to the social level i

nds justice. Without him, moreover, without his amusing blunders and his wonderful arguments, we

ding an annual income of four thousand francs. If the physician earns thirty thousand, there remains an income of twenty-six thousand francs due to the personal talents given him by Nature. This natural capital, then, if we assume ten per cent. as the rate of i

s personal talents. This division is just; it is in conformity with the nature of things; it is universally admitted; it serves as the major premise

repay them to those who are entitled to them. Notice, further, that Say speaks of INCOME instead of REIMBURSEMENT; reasoning on the false principle of the productivity of capital. The expense of educating a talent is a debt contracted by this talent. From the very fact of its existence, it becomes a debtor to an amount equal to the cost of its pr

in consequence, its proprietor. But this is to abandon the right of talent, and to fall back upon the right of occupancy; which again calls up all the questions asked in Chapter II. What is the right of occupancy? what is inheritance? Is the right of succession a right of accumulation or only a right of

o hundred and sixty thousand francs. This skilful calculator mistakes a consequence for a principle. The talent must not be measured by the gain, but rather the gain by the talent; for it may happen, that, notwithstanding his merit, th

it be maintained that a physician should be paid two, three, or a hundred times as much as a peasant? An unavoidable difficulty, which has never be

placed below the level of others. This I will not stop to prove. But I add that neither must he be lifted above

his books, his diplomas, and all the other items of his educational expenses, he has no more paid for his talent than the capitalist pays for his house and land when he gives his employees their wages. The man of talent has contributed to the production in himself of a useful instrument. He has, then, a share in its possession;

It takes but few teachers, but few years, and but little study, to make a farmer or a mechanic: the generative effort and-if I may venture to use such language-the period of social gestation are proportional to the loftiness of the capacity. But while the physician, the poet, the artist, and the savant produce but little, and that slowly, the productions of t

rt: so that in reality they do not labor for themselves, but for society, which creates them, and requires of them no other duty. Society can, if need be, do

he former is noble. If it is glorious to charm and instruct men, it is honorable as well to feed them. When, then, society-faithful to the principle of the division of labor-intrusts a work of art or of science to one of its members, allowing him to abandon ordinary labor, it owes him an indemnity for all which it prevents him

y thousand roubles for his services: "That is more than I give my field-marshals," said Cat

spin cotton;" to M. Duprez, "You must sing for two thousand four hundred francs, or else work in the vineyard,"-do you think

lent like hers, it is a slight fee. Why not one hundred thousand francs, two hundred thousand francs? Why!

at they admit the superior talent of their young associate; but that, in fixing her salary, they hav

enary claims are necessarily limited,-on the one hand, by its usefulness to the society which rewards it; on the other,

nants, those who borrow by pawning their possessions, from whom these curious people recover all that they pay to the theatre,-are they free? And when the better part of their products are consumed by others at the play, do you assure me that their families are not in want? Until the French people,

aborer pays the duties levied by the prestige of power and the selfishness of talent upon the curiosity of the idle, and

rough which their salaries pass. On what basis should it pay them? On the basis of equality. I have proved it by estimatin

r? Things so simple that

the route which he traverses, so the farmer

r may appropriate the material which he employs, every emp

tal, being the result of collective labor

on the labor of the weak, nor the shrewd to

t; and, consequently, that the exchangeable value of a product, being measured neither by the opinion of the buyer nor t

ss and simplicity. For our course is the reverse of that of the geometricians: with them, the farther they advance, the more difficu

on of one of those startling truths which neve

and-point of Justice,

esult of the two preceding sectio

, and in the intelligent combination of universal effort. The division and co-operation of labor mul

o, indeed, would venture the assertion, "I produce, by my own effort, all that I consume; I need the aid of no one else"? The farmer, whom the early economists regarded as the only real producer-the farmer, housed, fur

id not manufacture for him barns, wagons, ploughs, clothes, &c.? Where would be the savant without the publisher; the printer without the typecaster and the machinist; and these, in their turn, without a multitude of other industries?... Let us not prolong this catalogu

itled to only that portion of his product, which is expressed by a fraction whose denominator is equal to the number of individuals of which society is composed. It is true that in return this same producer has a share in all the products of others, so that he has a

uivalent for his product; and this equivalent, this salary, this reward, this allowance, becomes his property. Do you deny that this prope

nge for his product is not given him as a reward for past labor, but to provide for and secure future labor. We consume before we produce. The laborer may say at the end of the day, "I have paid

subsequent reproduction or enjoyment is impossible-why? Because the thing saved, since it cannot be converted i

oncl

. The proprietor is an unfaithful guardian who denies the receipt of the deposit com

aphysical, I shall reproduce them in a more concrete form, intelligible

s a power of EXCLUSION; hereafter, I s