what is property-第34部分

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！


ul　of　lives。

They　tell　of　a　celebrated　singer　who　demanded　of　the　Empress　of　Russia　（Catherine　II）　twenty　thousand　roubles　for　his　services：　　〃That　is　more　than　I　give　my　field…marshals；〃　said　Catherine。　　〃Your　majesty；〃　replied　the　other；　〃has　only　to　make　singers　of　her　field…marshals。〃

If　France　（more　powerful　than　Catherine　II）　should　say　to　Mademoiselle　Rachel；　〃You　must　act　for　one　hundred　louis；　or　else　spin　cotton；〃　to　M。　Duprez；　〃You　must　sing　for　two　thousand　four　hundred　francs；　or　else　work　in　the　vineyard；〃do　you　think　that　the　actress　Rachel；　and　the　singer　Duprez；　would　abandon　the　stage？　　If　they　did；　they　would　be　the　first　to　repent　it。

Mademoiselle　Rachel　receives；　they　say；　sixty　thousand　francs　annually　from　the　Comedie…Francaise。　　For　a　talent　like　hers；　it　is　a　slight　fee。　　Why　not　one　hundred　thousand　francs；　two　hundred　thousand　francs？　　Why！　not　a　civil　list？　　What　meanness！　　Are　we　really　guilty　of　chaffering　with　an　artist　like　Mademoiselle　Rachel？

It　is　said；　in　reply；　that　the　managers　of　the　theatre　cannot　give　more　without　incurring　a　loss；　that　they　admit　the　superior　talent　of　their　young　associate；　but　that；　in　fixing　her　salary；　they　have　been　compelled　to　take　the　account　of　the　company's　receipts　and　expenses　into　consideration　also。

That　is　just；　but　it　only　confirms　what　I　have　said；　namely；　that　an　artist's　talent　may　be　infinite；　but　that　its　mercenary　claims　are　necessarily　limited；on　the　one　hand；　by　its　usefulness　to　the　society　which　rewards　it；　on　the　other；　by　the　resources　of　this　society：　in　other　words；　that　the　demand　of　the　seller　is　balanced　by　the　right　of　the　buyer。

Mademoiselle　Rachel；　they　say；　brings　to　the　treasury　of　the　Theatre…Francais　more　than　sixty　thousand　francs。　　I　admit　it；　but　then　I　blame　the　theatre。　　From　whom　does　the　Theatre…　Francais　take　this　money？　　From　some　curious　people　who　are　perfectly　free。　　Yes；　but　the　workingmen；　the　lessees；　the　tenants；　those　who　borrow　by　pawning　their　possessions；　from　whom　these　curious　people　recover　all　that　they　pay　to　the　theatre；　are　they　free？　　And　when　the　better　part　of　their　products　are　consumed　by　others　at　the　play；　do　you　assure　me　that　their　families　are　not　in　want？　　Until　the　French　people；　reflecting　on　the　salaries　paid　to　all　artists；　savants；　and　public　functionaries；　have　plainly　expressed　their　wish　and　judgment　as　to　the　matter；　the　salaries　of　Mademoiselle　Rachel　and　all　her　fellow…artists　will　be　a　compulsory　tax　extorted　by　violence；　to　reward　pride；　and　support　libertinism。

It　is　because　we　are　neither　free　nor　sufficiently　enlightened；　that　we　submit　to　be　cheated　in　our　bargains；　that　the　laborer　pays　the　duties　levied　by　the　prestige　of　power　and　the　selfishness　of　talent　upon　the　curiosity　of　the　idle；　and　that　we　are　perpetually　scandalized　by　these　monstrous　inequalities　which　are　encouraged　and　applauded　by　public　opinion。

The　whole　nation；　and　the　nation　only；　pays　its　authors；　its　savants；　its　artists；　its　officials；　whatever　be　the　hands　through　which　their　salaries　pass。　　On　what　basis　should　it　pay　them？　　On　the　basis　of　equality。　　I　have　proved　it　by　estimating　the　value　of　talent。　　I　shall　confirm　it　in　the　following　chapter；　by　proving　the　impossibility　of　all　social　inequality。

What　have　we　shown　so　far？　　Things　so　simple　that　really　they　seem　silly：

That；　as　the　traveller　does　not　appropriate　the　route　which　he　traverses；　so　the　farmer　does　not　appropriate　the　field　which　he　sows；

That　if；　nevertheless；　by　reason　of　his　industry；　a　laborer　may　appropriate　the　material　which　he　employs；　every　employer　of　material　becomes；　by　the　same　title；　a　proprietor；

That　all　capital；　whether　material　or　mental；　being　the　result　of　collective　labor；　is；　in　consequence；　collective　property；

That　the　strong　have　no　right　to　encroach　upon　the　labor　of　the　weak；　nor　the　shrewd　to　take　advantage　of　the　credulity　of　the　simple；

Finally；　that　no　one　can　be　forced　to　buy　that　which　he　does　not　want；　still　less　to　pay　for　that　which　he　has　not　bought；　and；　consequently；　that　the　exchangeable　value　of　a　product；　being　measured　neither　by　the　opinion　of　the　buyer　nor　that　of　the　seller；　but　by　the　amount　of　time　and　outlay　which　it　has　cost；　the　property　of　each　always　remains　the　same。

Are　not　these　very　simple　truths？　　Well；　as　simple　as　they　seem　to　you；　reader；　you　shall　yet　see　others　which　surpass　them　in　dullness　and　simplicity。　　For　our　course　is　the　reverse　of　that　of　the　geometricians：　with　them；　the　farther　they　advance；　the　more　difficult　their　problems　become；　we；　on　the　contrary；　after　having　commenced　with　the　most　abstruse　propositions；　shall　end　with　the　axioms。

But　I　must　close　this　chapter　with　an　exposition　of　one　of　those　startling　truths　which　never　have　been　dreamed　of　by　legists　or　economists。


％　8。That；　from　the　Stand…point　of　Justice；　Labor　destroys　Property。


This　proposition　is　the　logical　result　of　the　two　preceding　sections；　which　we　have　just　summed　up。

The　isolated　man　can　supply　but　a　very　small　portion　of　his　wants；　all　his　power　lies　in　association；　and　in　the　intelligent　combination　of　universal　effort。　　The　division　and　co…operation　of　labor　multiply　the　quantity　and　the　variety　of　products；　the　individuality　of　functions　improves　their　quality。

There　is　not　a　man；　then；　but　lives　upon　the　products　of　several　thousand　different　industries；　not　a　laborer　but　receives　from　society　at　large　the　things　which　he　consumes；　and；　with　these；　the　power　to　reproduce。　　Who；　indeed；　would　venture　the　assertion；　〃I　produce；　by　my　own　effort；　all　that　I　consume；　I　need　the　aid　of　no　one　else〃？　　The　farmer；　whom　the　early　economists　regarded　as　the　only　real　producerthe　farmer；　housed；　furnished；　clothed；　fed；　and　assisted　by　the　mason；　the　carpenter；　the　tailor；　the　miller；　the　baker；　the　butcher；　the　grocer；　the　blacksmith；　&c。；the　farmer；　I　say；　can　he　boast　that　he　produces　by　his　own　unaided　effort？

The　various　articles　of　consumption　are　given　to　each　by　all；　consequently；　the　production　of　each　involves　the　production　of　all。　One　product　cannot　exist　without　another；　an　isolated　industry　is　an　impossible　thing。　　What　would　be　the　harvest　of　the　farmer；　if　others　did　not　manufacture　for　him　barns；　wagons；　ploughs；　clothes；　&c。？　　Where　would　be　the　savant　without　the　publisher；　the　printer　without　the　typecaster　and　the　machinist；　and　these；　in　their　turn；　without　a　multitude　of　other　industries？　。　。　。　　Let　us　not　prolong　this　catalogueso　easy　to　extendlest　we　be　accused　of　uttering　commonplaces。　　All　industries　are　united　by　mutual　relations　in　a　single　group；　all　productions　do　reciprocal　service　as　means　and　end；　all　varieties　of　talent　are　but　a　series　of　changes　from　the　inferior　to　the　superior。

Now；　this　undisputed　and　indisputable　fact　of　the　general　participation　in　every　species　of　product　makes　all　individual　productions　common；　so　that　every　product；　coming　from　the　hands　of　the　producer；　is　mortgaged　in　advance　by　society。　　The　producer　himself　is　entitled　to　only　that　portion　of　his　product；　which　is　expressed　by　a　fraction　whose　denominator　is　equal　to　the　number　of　individuals　of　which　society　is　composed。　　It　is　true　that　in　return　this　same　producer　has　a　share　in　all　the　products　of　others；　so　that　he　has　a　claim　upon　all；　just　as　all　have　a　claim　upon　him；　but　is　it　not　clear　that　this　reciprocity　of　mortgages；　far　from　authorizing　property；　destroys　even　possession？　　The　laborer　is　not　even　possessor　of　his　product；　scarcely　has　he　finished　it；　when　society　claims　it。

〃But；〃　it　will　be　answered；　〃even　if　that　is　soeven　if　the　product　does　not　belong　to　the　producerstill　society　gives　each　laborer　an　equivalent　for　his　product；　and　this　equivalent；　this　salary；　this　reward；　this　allowance；　becomes　his　property。　　Do　you　deny　that　this　property　is　legitimate？　　And　if　the　laborer；　instead　of　consuming　his　entire　wages；　chooses　to　economize；who　dare　question　his　right　to　do　so？〃

The　laborer　is　not　even　proprietor　of　the　price　of　his　labor；　and　cannot　absolutely　control　its　disposition。　　Let　us　not　be　blinded　by　a　spurious　justice。　　That　which　is　given　the　laborer　in　exchange　for　his　product　is　not　given　him　as　a　reward　for　past　labor；　but　to　provide　for　and　secure　future　labor。　　We　consume　before　we　produce。　　The　laborer　may　say　at　the　end　of　the　day；　〃I　have　paid　yesterday's　expenses；　to…morrow　I　shall　pay　those　of　today。〃　　At　every　moment　of　his　life；　the　member　of　society　is　in　debt；　he　dies　with　the　debt　unpaid：how　is　it　possible　for　him　to　accumulate？

They　talk　of　economyit　is　the　proprietor's　hobby。　　Under　a　system　of　equality；　all　economy　which　does　not　aim　at　subsequent　reproduction　or　enjoyment　is　impossiblewhy？　　Because　the　thing　saved；　since　it　cannot　be　converted　into　capital；　has　no　object；　and　is　without　a　FINAL　CAUSE。　　This　will　be　explained　more　fully　in　the　next　chapter。

To　conclude：

The　laborer；　in　his　relation　to　society；　is　a　debtor　who　of　necessity　dies　insolvent。　　The　proprietor　is　an　unfaithful　guardian　who　denies　the　receipt　of　the　deposit　committed　to　his　care；　and　wishes　to　be　paid　for　his　guardianship　down　to　the　last　day。

Lest　the　principles　just　set　forth　may　appear　to　certain　readers　too　metaphysical；　I　shall　reproduce　them　in　a　more　concrete　form；　intelligible　to　the　dullest　brains；　and　pregnant　with　the　most　important　consequences。

Hitherto；　I　have　considered　property　as　a　power　of　EXCLUSION；　hereafter；　I　shall　examine　it　as　a　power　of　INVASION。


CHAPTER　IV。　THAT　PROPERTY　IS　IMPOSSIBLE。

The　last　resort　of　proprietors；the　overwhelming　argument　whose　invincible　potency　reassures　them；is　that；　in　their　opinion；　equality　of　conditions　is　impossible。　　〃Equality　of　conditions　is　a　chimera；〃　they　cry　with　a　knowing　air；　〃distribute　wealth　equally　to…dayto…morrow　this　equality　will　have　vanished。〃

To　this　hackneyed　objection；　which　they　repeat　everywhere　with　the　most　marvellous　assurance；　they　never　fail　to　add　the　following　comment；　as　a　sort　of　GLORY　BE　TO　THE　FATHER：　　〃If　all　men　were　equal；　nobody　would　work。〃　This　anthem　is　sung　with　variations。

〃If　all　were　masters；　nobody　would　obey。〃

〃If　nobody　were　rich；　who　would　employ　the　poor？〃

A