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！
cilitate the unlimited communion of man with his fellows and with the universe； has been； on the contrary； turned against this communion。〃
Let us translate this into commercial phraseology。 In order to destroy despotism and the inequality of conditions； men must cease from competition and must associate their interests。 Let employer and employed （now enemies and rivals） become associates。
Now； ask any manufacturer； merchant； or capitalist； whether he would consider himself a proprietor if he were to share his revenue and profits with this mass of wage…laborers whom it is proposed to make his associates。
〃Family； property； and country are finite things； which ought to be organized with a view to the infinite。 For man is a finite being； who aspires to the infinite。 To him； absolute finiteness is evil。 The infinite is his aim； the indefinite his right。〃
Few of my readers would understand these hierophantic words； were I to leave them unexplained。 M。 Leroux means； by this magnificent formula； that humanity is a single immense society； which； in its collective unity； represents the infinite； that every nation； every tribe； every commune； and every citizen are； in different degrees； fragments or finite members of the infinite society； the evil in which results solely from individualism and privilege；in other words； from the subordination of the infinite to the finite； finally； that； to attain humanity's end and aim； each part has a right to an indefinitely progressive development。
〃All the evils which afflict the human race arise from caste。 The family is a blessing； the family caste （the nobility） is an evil。 Country is a blessing； the country caste （supreme； domineering； conquering） is an evil； property （individual possession） is a blessing； the property caste （the domain of property of Pothier； Toullier； Troplong； &c。） is an evil。〃
Thus； according to M。 Leroux； there is property and property； the one good； the other bad。 Now； as it is proper to call different things by different names； if we keep the name 〃property〃 for the former； we must call the latter robbery； rapine； brigandage。 If； on the contrary； we reserve the name 〃property〃 for the latter； we must designate the former by the term POSSESSION； or some other equivalent； otherwise we should be troubled with an unpleasant synonymy。
What a blessing it would be if philosophers； daring for once to say all that they think； would speak the language of ordinary mortals！ Nations and rulers would derive much greater profit from their lectures； and； applying the same names to the same ideas； would come； perhaps； to understand each other。 I boldly declare that； in regard to property； I hold no other opinion than that of M。 Leroux； but； if I should adopt the style of the philosopher； and repeat after him； 〃Property is a blessing； but the property castethe _statu quo_ of propertyis an evil；〃 I should be extolled as a genius by all the bachelors who write for the reviews。＇1＇ If； on the contrary； I prefer the classic language of Rome and the civil code； and say accordingly； 〃Possession is a blessing； but property is robbery；〃 immediately the aforesaid bachelors raise a hue and cry against the monster； and the judge threatens me。 Oh； the power of language！
＇1＇ M。 Leroux has been highly praised in a review for having defended property。 I do not know whether the industrious encyclopedist is pleased with the praise； but I know very well that in his place I should mourn for reason and for truth。
〃Le National；〃 on the other hand； has laughed at M。 Leroux and his ideas on property； charging him with TAUTOLOGY and CHILDISHNESS。 〃Le National〃 does not wish to understand。 Is it necessary to remind this journal that it has no right to deride a dogmatic philosopher； because it is without a doctrine itself？ From its foundation； 〃Le National〃 has been a nursery of intriguers and renegades。 From time to time it takes care to warn its readers。 Instead of lamenting over all its defections； the democratic sheet would do better to lay the blame on itself； and confess the shallowness of its theories。 When will this organ of popular interests and the electoral reform cease to hire sceptics and spread doubt？ I will wager； without going further； that M。 Leon Durocher； the critic of M。 Leroux； is an anonymous or pseudonymous editor of some bourgeois； or even aristocratic； journal。
The economists； questioned in their turn； propose to associate capital and labor。 You know； sir； what that means。 If we follow out the doctrine； we soon find that it ends in an absorption of property； not by the community； but by a general and indissoluble commandite； so that the condition of the proprietor would differ from that of the workingman only in receiving larger wages。 This system； with some peculiar additions and embellishments； is the idea of the phalanstery。 But it is clear that； if inequality of conditions is one of the attributes of property； it is not the whole of property。 That which makes property a DELIGHTFUL THING； as some philosopher （I know not who） has said； is the power to dispose at will； not only of one's own goods； but of their specific nature； to use them at pleasure； to confine and enclose them； to excommunicate mankind； as M。 Pierre Leroux says； in short； to make such use of them as passion； interest； or even caprice； may suggest。 What is the possession of money； a share in an agricultural or industrial enterprise； or a government…bond coupon； in comparison with the infinite charm of being master of one's house and grounds； under one's vine and fig…tree？ 〃_Beati possidentes_！〃 says an author quoted by M。 Troplong。 Seriously； can that be applied to a man of income； who has no other possession under the sun than the market； and in his pocket his money？ As well maintain that a trough is a coward。 A nice method of reform！ They never cease to condemn the thirst for gold； and the growing individualism of the century； and yet； most inconceivable of contradictions； they prepare to turn all kinds of property into one；property in coin。
I must say something further of a theory of property lately put forth with some ado： I mean the theory of M。 Considerant。
The Fourierists are not men who examine a doctrine in order to ascertain whether it conflicts with their system。 On the contrary； it is their custom to exult and sing songs of triumph whenever an adversary passes without perceiving or noticing them。
These gentlemen want direct refutations； in order that； if they are beaten； they may have； at least； the selfish consolation of having been spoken of。 Well； let their wish be gratified。
M。 Considerant makes the most lofty pretensions to logic。 His method of procedure is always that of MAJOR； MINOR； AND CONCLUSION。 He would willingly write upon his hat； 〃_Argumentator in barbara_。〃 But M。 Considerant is too intelligent and quick…witted to be a good logician； as is proved by the fact that he appears to have taken the syllogism for logic。
The syllogism； as everybody knows who is interested in philosophical curiosities； is the first and perpetual sophism of the human mind；the favorite tool of falsehood； the stumbling… block of sci