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！
e proprietor and his friends； which can benefit nobody； save the proprietor and his servants。 Let these sales multiply； and soon the peoplewho have been neither able nor willing to sell； and who have received none of the proceeds of the salewill have nowhere to rest； no place of shelter； no ground to till。 They will die of hunger at the proprietor's door； on the edge of that property which was their birthright； and the proprietor； watching them die； will exclaim； 〃 So perish idlers and vagrants！〃
To reconcile us to the proprietor's usurpation； M。 Ch。 Comte assumes the lands to be of little value at the time of sale。
〃The importance of these usurpations should not be exaggerated： they should be measured by the number of men which the occupied land would support； and by the means which it would furnish them。
It is evident； for instance； that if a piece of land which is worth to…day one thousand francs was worth only five centimes when it was usurped； we really lose only 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 means of existence。 Nine hundred and ninety… nine parts of this land is the legitimate property of the possessors； only one…thousandth of the value has been usurped。〃
A peasant admitted one day； at confession； that he had destroyed a document which declared him a debtor to the amount of three hundred francs。 Said the father confessor； 〃You must return these three hundred francs。〃 〃No；〃 replied the peasant； 〃I will return a penny to pay for the paper。〃
M。 Ch。 Comte's logic resembles this peasant's honesty。 The soil has not only an integrant and actual value； it has also a potential value；a value of the future；which depends on our ability to make it valuable； and to employ it 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 goods。 Destroy the land； or； what is the same thing； sell it；you not only transfer one； two； or several crops； but you annihilate all the products that you could derive from it； you and your children and your children's children。
When M。 Ch。 Comte； the apostle of property and the eulogist of labor； supposes an alienation of the soil on the part of the government； we must not think that he does so without reason and for no purpose； it is 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 connect this permission with the authority of the government； which means that property is based upon the sovereignty of the people； in other words； upon universal consent。 This theory we have already considered。
To say that property is the daughter of labor； and then to give labor material on which to exercise itself； is； if I am not mistaken； to reason in a circle。 Contradictions will result from it。
〃A piece of land of a certain size produces food enough to supply a man for one day。 If the possessor； through his labor； discovers some method of making it produce enough for two days； he doubles its value。 This new value is his work； his creation： it is taken from nobody； it is his property。〃
I maintain that the possessor is paid for his trouble and industry in his doubled crop； but that he acquires no right to the land。 〃Let the laborer have the fruits of his labor。〃 Very good； but I do not understand that property in products carries with it property in raw material。 Does the 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 industry in the abundancy and superiority of his crop。 If he has made improvements in the soil； he has the possessor's right of preference。 Never； under any circumstances； can he be allowed to claim a property…title to the soil which he cultivates； on the ground of his skill as a cultivator。
To change possession into property； something is needed besides labor； without which a man would cease to be proprietor as soon as he ceased to be a laborer。 Now； the law bases property upon immemorial； unquestionable possession； that is； prescription。 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； finally becomes inalienable；it happens by permission of the civil law； and by virtue of the principle of occupancy。 So true is this； that there is not a bill of sale； not a farm lease； not an annuity； but implies it。 I will quote only one example。
How do we measure the value of land？ By its product。 If a piece of land yields one thousand francs； we say that at five per cent。 it is worth twenty thousand francs； at four per cent。 twenty…five thousand 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 time； the price of a piece of land has been wholly recovered； why does the purchaser continue to be proprietor？ Because of the right of occupancy； in the absence of which every sale would be a redemption。
The theory of appropriation by labor is； then； a contradiction of the Code； and when the partisans of this theory pretend to explain the laws thereby； they contradict themselves。
〃If men succeed in fertilizing land hitherto unproductive； or even death…producing； like certain swamps； they create thereby property in all its completeness。〃
What good does it do to magnify an expression； and play with equivocations； as if we expected to change the reality thereby？ THEY CREATE PROPERTY IN ALL ITS COMPLETENESS。 You mean that they create a productive capacity 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 thingevery thing save the material itself。 Now； I maintain that this material he can only possess and use； on condition of permanent labor；granting； for the time being； his right of property in things which he has produced。
This； then； is the first point settled： property in product； if we grant so much； does not carry with it property in the means of production； that seems to me to need no further demonstration。 There is no difference 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 who possesses the lands： all； if you say so； are proprietors of their productsnot one is proprietor of the means of production。 The right to p