what is property-第42章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


capitalizes　after　the　manner　of　the　proprietor　of　whom　I　have　just　spoken。

Now；　when　a　governmental　loan　is　once　contracted；　and　the　interest　is　once　stipulated；　the　budget　cannot　be　reduced。　　For；　to　accomplish　that；　either　the　capitalists　must　relinquish　their　interest；　which　would　involve　an　abandonment　of　property；　or　the　government　must　go　into　bankruptcy；　which　would　be　a　fraudulent　denial　of　the　political　principle；　or　it　must　pay　the　debt；　which　would　require　another　loan；　or　it　must　reduce　expenses；　which　is　impossible；　since　the　loan　was　contracted　for　the　sole　reason　that　the　ordinary　receipts　were　insufficient；　or　the　money　expended　by　the　government　must　be　reproductive；　which　requires　an　increase　of　productive　capacity；a　condition　excluded　by　our　hypothesis；　or；　finally；　the　tax…payers　must　submit　to　a　new　tax　in　order　to　pay　the　debt；an　impossible　thing。　　For；　if　this　new　tax　were　levied　upon　all　citizens　alike；　half；　or　even　more；　of　the　citizens　would　be　unable　to　pay　it；　if　the　rich　had　to　bear　the　whole；　it　would　be　a　forced　contribution；an　invasion　of　property。　　Long　financial　experience　has　shown　that　the　method　of　loans；　though　exceedingly　dangerous；　is　much　surer；　more　convenient；　and　less　costly　than　any　other　method；　consequently　the　government　borrows；that　is；　goes　on　capitalizing；and　increases　the　budget。

Then；　a　budget；　instead　of　ever　diminishing；　must　necessarily　and　continually　increase。　　It　is　astonishing　that　the　economists；　with　all　their　learning；　have　failed　to　perceive　a　fact　so　simple　and　so　evident。　　If　they　have　perceived　it；　why　have　they　neglected　to　condemn　it？


HISTORICAL　COMMENT。Much　interest　is　felt　at　present　in　a　financial　operation　which　is　expected　to　result　in　a　reduction　of　the　budget。　　It　is　proposed　to　change　the　present　rate　of　increase；　five　per　cent。　　Laying　aside　the　politico…legal　question　to　deal　only　with　the　financial　question；is　it　not　true　that；　when　five　per　cent。　is　changed　to　four　per　cent。；　it　will　then　be　necessary；　for　the　same　reasons；　to　change　four　to　three；　then　three　to　two；　then　two　to　one；　and　finally　to　sweep　away　increase　altogether？　　But　that　would　be　the　advent　of　equality　of　conditions　and　the　abolition　of　property。　　Now　it　seems　to　me；　that　an　intelligent　nation　should　voluntarily　meet　an　inevitable　revolution　half　way；　instead　of　suffering　itself　to　be　dragged　after　the　car　of　inflexible　necessity。


EIGHTH　PROPOSITION。

Property　is　impossible；　because　its　power　of　Accumulation　is　infinite；　and　is　exercised　only　over　finite　quantities。

If　men；　living　in　equality；　should　grant　to　one　of　their　number　the　exclusive　right　of　property；　and　this　sole　proprietor　should　lend　one　hundred　francs　to　the　human　race　at　compound　interest；　payable　to　his　descendants　twenty…four　generations　hence；at　the　end　of　six　hundred　years　this　sum　of　one　hundred　francs；　at　five　per　cent。；　would　amount　to　107；854；010；777；600　francs；　two　thousand　six　hundred　and　ninety…six　and　one…third　times　the　capital　of　France　（supposing　her　capital　to　be　40；000；000；000）；　or　more　than　twenty　times　the　value　of　the　terrestrial　globe！

Suppose　that　a　man；　in　the　reign　of　St。　Louis；　had　borrowed　one　hundred　francs；　and　had　refused；he　and　his　heirs　after　him；to　return　it。　　Even　though　it　were　known　that　the　said　heirs　were　not　the　rightful　possessors；　and　that　prescription　had　been　interrupted　always　at　the　right　moment；nevertheless；　by　our　laws；　the　last　heir　would　be　obliged　to　return　the　one　hundred　francs　with　interest；　and　interest　on　the　interest；　which　in　all　would　amount；　as　we　have　seen；　to　nearly　one　hundred　and　eight　thousand　billions。

Every　day；　fortunes　are　growing　in　our　midst　much　more　rapidly　than　this。　　The　preceding　example　supposed　the　interest　equal　to　one…twentieth　of　the　capital；it　often　equals　one…tenth；　one…　fifth；　one…half　of　the　capital；　and　sometimes　the　capital　itself。

The　Fourieristsirreconcilable　enemies　of　equality；　whose　partisans　they　regard　as　SHARKSintend；　by　quadrupling　production；　to　satisfy　all　the　demands　of　capital；　labor；　and　skill。　　But；　should　production　be　multiplied　by　four；　ten；　or　even　one　hundred；　property　would　soon　absorb；　by　its　power　of　accumulation　and　the　effects　of　its　capitalization；　both　products　and　capital；　and　the　land；　and　even　the　laborers。　　Is　the　phalanstery　to　be　prohibited　from　capitalizing　and　lending　at　interest？　　Let　it　explain；　then；　what　it　means　by　property。

I　will　carry　these　calculations　no　farther。　　They　are　capable　of　infinite　variation；　upon　which　it　would　be　puerile　for　me　to　insist。　　I　only　ask　by　what　standard　judges；　called　upon　to　decide　a　suit　for　possession；　fix　the　interest？　　And；　developing　the　question；　I　ask；

Did　the　legislator；　in　introducing　into　the　Republic　the　principle　of　property；　weigh　all　the　consequences？　　Did　he　know　the　law　of　the　possible？　　If　he　knew　it；　why　is　it　not　in　the　Code？　　Why　is　so　much　latitude　allowed　to　the　proprietor　in　accumulating　property　and　charging　interest；to　the　judge　in　recognizing　and　fixing　the　domain　of　property；to　the　State　in　its　power　to　levy　new　taxes　continually？　　At　what　point　is　the　nation　justified　in　repudiating　the　budget；　the　tenant　his　farm…rent；　and　the　manufacturer　the　interest　on　his　capital？　　How　far　may　the　idler　take　advantage　of　the　laborer？　　Where　does　the　right　of　spoliation　begin；　and　where　does　it　end？　　When　may　the　producer　say　to　the　proprietor；　〃I　owe　you　nothing　more〃？　　When　is　property　satisfied？　　When　must　it　cease　to　steal？

If　the　legislator　did　know　the　law　of　the　possible；　and　disregarded　it；　what　must　be　thought　of　his　justice？　　If　he　did　not　know　it；　what　must　be　thought　of　his　wisdom？　　Either　wicked　or　foolish；　how　can　we　recognize　his　authority？

If　our　charters　and　our　codes　are　based　upon　an　absurd　hypothesis；　what　is　taught　in　the　law…schools？　　What　does　a　judgment　of　the　Court　of　Appeal　amount　to？　　About　what　do　our　Chambers　deliberate？　　What　is　POLITICS？　　What　is　our　definition　of　a　STATESMAN？　　What　is　the　meaning　of　JURISPRUDENCE？　　Should　we　not　rather　say　JURISIGNORANCE？

If　all　our　institutions　are　based　upon　an　error　in　calculation；　does　it　not　follow　that　these　institutions　are　so　many　shams？　　And　if　the　entire　social　structure　is　built　upon　this　absolute　impossibility　of　property；　is　it　not　true　that　the　government　under　which　we　live　is　a　chimera；　and　our　present　society　a　utopia？


NINTH　PROPOSITION。

Property　is　impossible；　because　it　is　powerless　against　Property。


I。　By　the　third　corollary　of　our　axiom；　interest　tells　against　the　proprietor　as　well　as　the　stranger。　　This　economical　principle　is　universally　admitted。　　Nothing　simpler　at　first　blush；　yet；　nothing　more　absurd；　more　contradictory　in　terms；　or　more　absolutely　impossible。

The　manufacturer；　it　is　said；　pays　himself　the　rent　on　his　house　and　capital。　　HE　PAYS　HIMSELF；　that　is；　he　gets　paid　by　the　public　who　buy　his　products。　　For；　suppose　the　manufacturer；　who　seems　to　make　this　profit　on　his　property；　wishes　also　to　make　it　on　his　merchandise；　can　he　then　pay　himself　one　franc　for　that　which　cost　him　ninety　centimes；　and　make　money　by　the　operation？　　No：　such　a　transaction　would　transfer　the　merchant's　money　from　his　right　hand　to　his　left；　but　without　any　profit　whatever。

Now；　that　which　is　true　of　a　single　individual　trading　with　himself　is　true　also　of　the　whole　business　world。　　Form　a　chain　of　ten；　fifteen；　twenty　producers；　as　many　as　you　wish。　　If　the　producer　A　makes　a　profit　out　of　the　producer　B。　　B's　loss　must；　according　to　economical　principles；　be　made　up　by　C；　C's　by　D；　and　so　on　through　to　Z。

But　by　whom　will　Z　be　paid　for　the　loss　caused　him　by　the　profit　charged　by　A　in　the　beginning？　　BY　THE　CONSUMER；　replies　Say。　　Contemptible　equivocation！　　Is　this　consumer　any　other；　then；　than　A；　B。　　C；　D；　&c。；　or　Z？　　By　whom　will　Z　be　paid？　　If　he　is　paid　by　A；　no　one　makes　a　profit；　consequently；　there　is　no　property。　　If；　on　the　contrary；　Z　bears　the　burden　himself；　he　ceases　to　be　a　member　of　society；　since　it　refuses　him　the　right　of　property　and　profit；　which　it　grants　to　the　other　associates。

Since；　then；　a　nation；　like　universal　humanity；　is　a　vast　industrial　association　which　cannot　act　outside　of　itself；　it　is　clear　that　no　man　can　enrich　himself　without　impoverishing　another。　　For；　in　order　that　the　right　of　property；　the　right　of　increase；　may　be　respected　in　the　case　of　A；　it　must　be　denied　to　Z；　thus　we　see　how　equality　of　rights；　separated　from　equality　of　conditions；　may　be　a　truth。　　The　iniquity　of　political　economy　in　this　respect　is　flagrant。　　〃When　I；　a　manufacturer；　purchase　the　labor　of　a　workingman；　I　do　not　include　his　wages　in　the　net　product　of　my　business；　on　the　contrary；　I　deduct　them。　　But　the　workingman　includes　them　in　his　net　product。　。　。　。　　〃（Say：　　Political　Economy。）

That　means　that　all　which　the　workingman　gains　is　NET　PRODUCT；　but　that　only　that　part　of　the　manufacturer's　gains　is　NET　PRODUCT；　which　remains　after　deducting　his　wages。　　But　why　is　the　right　of　profit　confined　to　the　manufacturer？　　Why　is　this　right；　which　is　at　bottom　the　right　of　property　itself；　denied　to　the　workingman？　　In　the　terms　of　economical　science；　the　workingman　is　capital。　　Now；　all　capital；　beyond　the　cost　of　its　maintenance　and　repair；　must　bear　interest。　　This　the　proprietor　takes　care　to　get；　both　for　his　capital　and　for　himself。　　Why　is　the　workingman　prohibited　from　charging　a　like　interest　for　his　capital；　which　is　himself？

Property；　then；　is　inequality　of　rights；　for；　if　it　were　not　inequality　of　rights；　it　would　be　equality　of　goods；in　other　words；　it　would　not　exist。　　Now；　the　charter　guarantees　to　all　equality　of　rights。　　Then；　by　the　charter；　property　is　impossible。

II。　Is　A；　the　proprietor　of　an　estate；　entitled　by　the　fact　of　his　proprietorship　to　take　possession　of　the　field　belonging　to　B。　his　neighbor？　　〃No；〃　reply　the　proprietors；　〃but　what　has　that　to　do　with　the　right　of　property？〃　　That　I　shall　show　you　by　a　series　of　similar　propositions。

Has　C；　a　hatter；　the　right　to　force　D；　his　neighbor　and　also　a　hatter；　to　close　his　shop；　and　cease　his　business？　　Not　the　least　in　the　world。

But　C　wishes　to　make　a　profit　of　one　franc　on　every　hat；　while　D　is　content　with　fifty　centimes。　　It　is　evident　that　D's　moderation　is　injurious　to　C's　extravagant　claims。　　Has　the　latter　a　right　to　prevent　D　from　selling？　　Certainly　not。

Since　D　is　at　liberty　to　sell　his　hats　fifty　centimes　cheaper　than　C　if　he　chooses；　C　in　his　turn　is　free　to　reduce　his　price　one　franc。　　Now；　D　is　poor；　while　C　is　rich；　so　that　at　the　end　of　two　or　three　years　D　is　ruined　by　this　intolerable　competition；　and　C　has　complete　control　of　the　market。　　Can　the　proprietor　D　get　any　redress　from　the　proprietor　C？　　Can　he　bring　a　suit　against　him　to　recover　his　business　and　property？　　No；　for　D　could　have　done　the　same　thing；　had　he　been　the　richer　of　the　two。

On　the　same　ground；　the　large　proprietor　A　may　say　to　the　small　proprietor　B：　　〃Sell　me　your　field；　otherwise　you　shall　not　sell　your　wheat；〃and　that　without　doing　him　the　least　wrong；　or　giving　him　ground　for　complaint。　　So　that　A　can　devour　B　if　he　likes；　for　the　very　reason　that　A　is　stronger　than　B。　　Consequently；　it　is　not　the　right　of　prope