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！
bor； 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