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！
The disciples of these two self…styled reformers cannot deny that such is their thought； for； in doing so； they would contradict their official interpretations； and would destroy the unity of their systems。 Furthermore； such a denial on their part 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 is so perfect； that the social inequalities always correspond with the natural inequalities。 They no more trouble themselves to inquire whether inequality of conditionsI mean of salariesis possible； than they do to fix a measure of capacity。＇1＇
＇1＇ In St。 Simon's system； the St。…Simonian priest determines the capacity of each by virtue of his pontifical infallibility； in imitation of the Roman Church： in Fourier's； the ranks and merits are decided by vote； in imitation of the constitutional regime。
Clearly； the great man is an object of ridicule to the reader； he did not mean to tell his secret。
〃To each according to his capacity； to each capacity according to its results。〃
〃To each according to his capital； his labor； and his skill。〃
Since the death of St。 Simon and Fourier； not one among their numerous disciples has attempted to give to the public a scientific demonstration of this grand maxim； and I would wager a hundred to one that no Fourierist even suspects that this biform aphorism is susceptible of two interpretations。
〃To each according to his capacity； to each capacity according to its results。〃
〃To each according to his capital； his labor； and his skill。〃
This proposition； taken； as they say； _in sensu obvio_in the sense usually attributed to itis false； absurd； unjust； contradictory； hostile to liberty； friendly to tyranny； anti… social； and was unluckily framed under the express influence of the property idea。
And； first； CAPITAL must be crossed off the list of elements which are entitled to a reward。 The Fourieristsas far as I have been able to learn from a few of their pamphletsdeny the right of occupancy； and recognize no basis of property save labor。 Starting with a like premise； they would have seenhad they reasoned upon the matterthat 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 shown beyond all cavil。 It is the same with all capital； so that to put capital in an enterprise； is； by the law's decision； to exchange it for an equivalent sum in products。 I will not enter again upon this now useless discussion； since I propose； in the following chapter； to exhaust the subject of PRODUCTION BY CAPITAL。
Thus； capital can be exchanged； but cannot be a source of income。
LABOR and SKILL remain； or； as St。 Simon puts it； RESULTS and CAPACITIES。 I will examine them successively。
Should wages be governed by labor？ In other words； is it just that he who does the most should get the most？ I beg the reader to pay the closest attention to this point。
To solve the problem with one stroke； we have only to ask ourselves the following question： 〃Is labor a CONDITION or a STRUGGLE？〃 The reply seems plain。
God said to man； 〃In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread；〃that is； thou shalt produce thy own bread： with more or less ease； according to thy skill in directing 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 thy neighbor； and ye shall dwell together in harmony。〃 Let us develop the meaning of this law； the extreme simplicity of which renders it liable to misconstruction。
In labor； two things must be noticed and distinguished： ASSOCIATION and AVAILABLE MATERIAL。
In so far as laborers are associated； they are equal； and it involves a contradiction to say that one should be paid more than another。 For； as the product of one laborer can be paid for only in the product of another laborer； if the two products are unequal； the remainderor the difference between the greater and the smallerwill 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 productive energy。 In a word； society exchanges only equal productsthat is； rewards no labor save that performed for her benefit； consequently； she pays all laborers equally： with what they produce outside of her sphere she has no more to do； than with the difference in their voices and their hair。
I seem to be positing the principle of inequality： the reverse of this is the truth。 The total amount of labor which can be performed for society （that is； of labor susceptible of exchange）； being； within a 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 extends； and as the quantity of consumable values produced thereby increases。 So that in society the only thing which could bring back the inequality of labor would be the right of occupancy；the right of property。
Now； suppose that this daily social task consists in the ploughing； hoeing； or reaping of two square decameters； and that the average time required to accomplish it is seven hours： one laborer will finish it in six hours； another will require eight； the majority； however； will work seven。 But provided each one furnishes the quantity of labor demanded of him； whatever be the time he employs； they are entitled to equal wages。
Shall the laborer who is capable of finishing his task in six hours have the right； on the ground of superior strength and activity； to usurp the task of the less skilful laborer； and thus rob him of his labor and bread？ Who dares maintain such a proposition？ He who finishes before the others may rest； if 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 personal advantages which result therefrom； are the work of Nature and； to a certain extent； of the individual； society awards them the esteem which they merit： but the wages which it pays them is measured； not by their power； but by their production。 Now； the product of each is limited by the right of all。
If the soil were infinite in extent； and the amount of available material were exhaustless； even then we could not accept this maxim；TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS LABOR。 And why？ Because society； I repeat； whatever be the number of its subjects； is forced to pay them all the same wages； since she pays them only in their own products。 Only；