In positing its principles humanity, as if in obedience to a sovereign
order, never goes backward. Like the traveller who by oblique windings rises from the
depth of the valley to the mountain-top, it follows intrepidly its zigzag road, and
marches to its goal with confident step, without repentance and without pause. Arriving at
the angle of monopoly, the social genius casts backward a melancholy glance, and, in a
moment of profound reflection, says to itself:
"Monopoly has stripped the poor hireling of everything,--bread,
clothing, home, education, liberty, and security. I will lay a tax upon the monopolist; at
this price I will save him his privilege.
"Land and mines, woods and waters, the original domain of man, are
forbidden to the proletaire. I will intervene in their exploitation, I will have my share
of the products, and land monopoly shall be respected.
"Industry has fallen into feudalism, but I am the suzerain. The
lords shall pay me tribute, and they shall keep the profit of their capital.
"Commerce levies usurious profits on the consumer. I will strew its
road with toll-gates, I will stamp its checks and indorse its invoices, and it shall pass.
"Capital has overcome labor by intelligence. I will open schools,
and the laborer, made intelligent himself, shall become a capitalist in his turn.
"Products lack circulation, and social life is cramped. I will
build roads, bridges, canals, marts, theatres, and temples, and thus furnish at one stroke
work, wealth, and a market.
"The rich man lives in plenty, while the workman weeps in famine. I
will establish taxes on bread, wine, meat, salt, and honey, on articles of necessity and
on objects of value, and these shall supply alms for my poor.
"And I will set guards over the waters, the woods, the fields, the
mines, and the roads; I will send collectors to gather the taxes and teachers to instruct
the children; I will have an army to put down refractory subjects, courts to judge them,
prisons to punish them, and priests to curse them. All these offices shall be given to the
proletariat and paid by the monopolists.
"Such is my certain and efficacious will."
We have to prove that society could neither think better nor act worse:
this will be the subject of a review which, I hope, will throw new light upon the social
Every measure of general police, every administrative and commercial
regulation, like every law of taxation, is at bottom but one of the innumerable articles
of this ancient bargain, ever violated and ever renewed, between the patriciate and the
proletariat. That the parties or their representatives knew nothing of it, or even that
they frequently viewed their political constitutions from another standpoint, is of little
consequence to us: not to the man, legislator, or prince do we look for the meaning of his
acts, but to the acts themselves.
1.--Synthetic idea of the tax.--Point of departure and development of
In order to render that which is to follow more intelligible, I will
explain, inverting, as it were, the method which we have followed hitherto, the superior
theory of the tax; then I will give its genesis; finally I will show the contradiction and
results. The synthetic idea of the tax, as well as its original conception, would furnish
material for the most extensive developments. I shall confine myself to a simple
announcement of the propositions, with a summary indication of the proofs.
The tax, in its essence and positive destiny, is the form of
distribution among that species of functionaries which Adam Smith has designated by the
word UNPRODUCTIVE, although he admits as much as any one the utility and even the
necessity of their labor in society. By this adjective, UNPRODUCTIVE, Adam Smith, whose
genius dimly foresaw everything and left us to do everything, meant that the product of
these laborers is NEGATIVE, which is a very different thing from null, and that
consequently distribution so far as they are concerned follows a method other than
Let us consider, in fact, what takes place, from the point of view of
distribution, in the four great divisions of collective labor,-- EXTRACTION,
MANUFACTURES, COMMERCE, AGRICULTURE. Each producer brings to market a real product whose
quantity can be measured, whose quality can be estimated, whose price can be debated, and,
finally, whose value can be discounted, either in other services or merchandise, or else
in money. In all these industries distribution, therefore, is nothing but the mutual
exchange of products according to the law of proportionality of values.
 Hunting, fishing, mining,--in short, the gathering of all
Nothing like this takes place with the functionaries called PUBLIC.
These obtain their right to subsistence, not by the production of real utilities, but by
the very state of unproductivity in which, by no fault of their own, they are kept. For
them the law of proportionality is inverted: while social wealth is formed and increased
in the direct ratio of the quantity, variety, and proportion of the effective products
furnished by the four great industrial categories, the development of this same wealth,
the perfecting of social order, suppose, on the contrary, so far as the personnel of
police is concerned, a progressive and indefinite reduction. State functionaries,
therefore, are very truly unproductive. On this point J. B. Say agreed with A. Smith, and
all that he has written on this subject in correction of his master, and which has been
stupidly included among his titles to glory, arises entirely, it is easy to see, from a
misunderstanding. In a word, the wages of the government's employees constitute a social
DEFICIT; they must be carried to the account of LOSSES, which it must be the object of
industrial organization to continually diminish: in this view what other adjective could
be used to describe the men of power than that of Adam Smith?
Here, then, is a category of services which, furnishing no real
products, cannot be rewarded in the ordinary way; services which do not fall under the law
of exchange, which cannot become the object of private speculation, competition,
joint-stock association, or any sort of commerce, but which, theoretically regarded as
performed gratuitously by all, but entrusted, by virtue of the law of division of labor,
to a small number of special men who devote themselves exclusively to them, must
consequently be paid for. History confirms this general datum. The human mind, which tries
all solutions of every problem, has tried accordingly to submit public functions to
exchange; for a long time French magistrates, like notaries, etc., lived solely by their
fees. But experience has proved that this method of distribution applied to unproductive
laborers was too expensive and subject to too many disadvantages, and it became necessary
to abandon it.
The organization of the unproductive services contributes to the general
welfare in several ways: first, by relieving producers of public cares, in which all must
participate, and to which, consequently, all are more or less slaves; secondly, by
establishing in society an artificial centralization, the image and prelude of the future
solidarity of industries; and, finally, by furnishing a first attempt at balance and
So we admit, with J. B. Say, the usefulness of magistrates and the other
agents of public authority; but we hold that this usefulness is wholly negative, and we
insist, therefore, on describing these functionaries by the adjective unproductive which
A. Smith applied to them, not to bring them into discredit, but because they really cannot
be classed in the category of producers. "Taxation," very well says an economist
of Say's school, M. J. Garnier,--"taxation is a PRIVATION which we should try to
reduce to the furthest point of compatibility with the needs of society." If the
writer whom I quote has reflected upon the meaning of his words, he has seen that the word
PRIVATION which he uses is synonymous with NON-PRODUCTION, and that consequently those for
whose benefit taxes are collected are very truly UNPRODUCTIVE laborers.
I insist upon this definition, which seems to me the less questionable
from the fact that, however much they may dispute over the word, all agree upon the thing,
because it contains the germ of the greatest revolution yet to be accomplished in the
world,--I mean the subordination of the unproductive functions to the productive
functions, in a word, the effective submission, always asked and never obtained, of
authority to the citizens.
It is a consequence of the development of the economical contradictions
that order in society first shows itself inverted; that that which should be above is
placed below, that which should be in relief seems sunken, and that which should receive
the light is thrown into the shadow. Thus power, which, in its essence, is, like capital,
the auxiliary and subordinate of labor, becomes, through the antagonism of society, the
spy, judge, and tyrant of the productive functions; power, whose original inferiority lays
upon it the duty of obedience, is prince and sovereign.
In all ages the laboring classes have pursued against the office-holding
class the solution of this antinomy, of which economic science alone can give the key. The
oscillations--that is, the political agitations which result from this struggle of labor
against power--now lead to a depression of the central force, which compromises the very
existence of society; now, exaggerating this same force beyond measure, give birth to
despotism. Then, the privileges of command, the infinite joy which it gives to ambition
and pride, making the unproductive functions an object of universal lust, a new leaven of
discord penetrates society, which, divided already in one direction into capitalists and
wage-workers, and in another into producers and non-producers, is again divided as regards
power into monarchists and democrats. The conflicts between royalty and the republic would
furnish us most marvellous and interesting material for our episodes. The confines of this
work do not permit us so long an excursion; and after having pointed out this new branch
in the vast network of human aberrations, we shall confine ourselves exclusively, in
dealing with taxation, to the economic question.
Such, then, in succinctest statement, is the synthetic theory of the
tax,--that is, if I may venture to use the familiar comparison, of this fifth wheel of the
coach of humanity, which makes so much noise, and which, in governmental parlance, is
styled the State. The State, the police, or their means of existence, the tax, is, I
repeat, the official name of the class designated in political economy as
nonproducers,--in short, as the domestics of society.
But public reason does not attain at a single bound this simple idea,
which for centuries had to remain in the state of a transcendental conception. Before
civilization can mount to such a height, it must pass through frightful tempests and
innumerable revolutions, in each of which, one might say, it renews its strength in a bath
of blood. And when at last production, represented by capital, seems on the point of
thoroughly subordinating the unproductive organ, the State, then society rises in
indignation, labor weeps at the prospect of its immediate freedom, democracy shudders at
the abasement of power, justice cries out as if scandalized, and all the oracles of the
departing gods exclaim with terror that the abomination of desolation is in the holy
places and that the end of the world has come. So true is it that humanity never desires
what it seeks, and that the slightest progress cannot be realized without spreading panic
among the peoples.
What, then, in this evolution, is the point of departure of society, and
by what circuitous route does it reach political reform,--that is, economy in its
expenditures, equality in the assessment of its taxes, and the subordination of power to
industry? That is what we are about to state in a few words, reserving developments for
The original idea of the tax is that of REDEMPTION.
As, by the law of Moses, each first-born was supposed to belong to
Jehovah, and had to be redeemed by an offering, so the tax everywhere presents itself in
the form of a tithe or royal prerogative by which the proprietor annually redeems from the
sovereign the profit of exploitation which he is supposed to hold only by his pleasure.
This theory of the tax, moreover, is but one of the special articles of what is called the
Ancients and moderns all agree, in terms more or less explicit, in
regarding the juridical status of societies as a reaction of weakness against strength.
This idea is uppermost in all the works of Plato, notably in the "Gorgias,"
where he maintains, with more subtlety than logic, the cause of the laws against that of
violence,--that is, legislative absolutism against aristocratic and military absolutism.
In this knotty dispute, in which the weight of evidence is equal on both sides, Plato
simply expresses the sentiment of entire antiquity. Long before him, Moses, in making a
distribution of lands, declaring patrimony inalienable, and ordering a general and
uncompensated cancellation of all mortgages every fiftieth year, had opposed a barrier to
the invasions of force. The whole Bible is a hymn to JUSTICE,--that is, in the Hebrew
style, to charity, to kindness to the weak on the part of the strong, to voluntary
renunciation of the privilege of power. Solon, beginning his legislative mission by a
general abolition of debts, and creating rights and reserves,--that is, barriers to
prevent their return,--was no less reactionary. Lycurgus went farther; he forbade
individual possession, and tried to absorb the man in the State, annihilating liberty the
better to preserve equilibrium. Hobbes, deriving, and with great reason, legislation from
the state of war, arrived by another road at the establishment of equality upon an
exception,--despotism. His book, so much calumniated, is only a development of this famous
antithesis. The charter of 1830, consecrating the insurrection made in '89 by the
plebeians against the nobility, and decreeing the abstract equality of persons before the
law, in spite of the real inequality of powers and talents which is the veritable basis of
the social system now in force, is also but a protest of society in favor of the poor
against the rich, of the small against the great. All the laws of the human race regarding
sale, purchase, hire, property, loans, mortgages, prescription, inheritance, donation,
wills, wives' dowries, minority, guardianship, etc., etc., are real barriers erected by
judicial absolutism against the absolutism of force. Respect for contracts, fidelity to
promises, the religion of the oath, are fictions, osselets, as the famous
Lysander aptly said, with which society deceives the strong and brings them under the
 Little bones taken from the joints of animals and serving as
playthings for children.--Translator.
The tax belongs to that great family of preventive, coercive,
repressive, and vindictive institutions which A. Smith designated by the generic term
police, and which is, as I have said, in its original conception, only the reaction of
weakness against strength. This follows, independently of abundant historical testimony
which we will put aside to confine ourselves exclusively to economic proof, from the
distinction naturally arising between taxes.
All taxes are divisible into two great categories: (1) taxes of
assessment, or of privilege: these are the oldest taxes; (2) taxes of consumption, or of
quotite, whose tendency is, by absorbing the former, to make public burdens
weigh equally upon all.
 A tax whose total product is not fixed in advance, but depends
upon the quantity of things or persons upon whom it happens to fall.-- Translator.
The first sort of taxes--including in France the tax on land, the tax on
doors and windows, the poll-tax, the tax on personal property, the tax on tenants,
license-fees, the tax on transfers of property, the tax on officials' fees, road-taxes,
and brevets--is the share which the sovereign reserves for himself out of all the
monopolies which he concedes or tolerates; it is, as we have said, the indemnity of the
poor, the permit granted to property. Such was the form and spirit of the tax in all the
old monarchies: feudalism was its beau ideal. Under that regime the tax was only a TRIBUTE
paid by the holder to the universal proprietor or sleeping-partner (commanditaire), the
When later, by the development of public right, royalty, the patriarchal
form of sovereignty, begins to get impregnated by the democratic spirit, the tax becomes a
quota which each voter owes to the COMMONWEALTH, and which, instead of falling into the
hand of the prince, is received into the State treasury. In this evolution the principle
of the tax remains intact; as yet there is no transformation of the institution; the real
sovereign simply succeeds the figurative sovereign. Whether the tax enters into the
peculium of the prince or serves to liquidate a common debt, it is in either case only a
claim of society against privilege; otherwise, it is impossible to say why the tax is
levied in the ratio of fortunes.
Let all contribute to the public expenses: nothing more just. But why
should the rich pay more than the poor? That is just, they say, because they possess more.
I confess that such justice is beyond my comprehension. . . . One of two things is true:
either the proportional tax guarantees a privilege to the larger tax-payers, or else it is
a wrong. Because, if property is a natural right, as the Declaration of '93 declares, all
that belongs to me by virtue of this right is as sacred as my person; it is my blood, my
life, myself: whoever touches it offends the apple of my eye. My income of one hundred
thousand francs is as inviolable a the grisette's daily wage of seventy-five centimes; her
attic is no more sacred than my suite of apartments. The tax is not levied in proportion
to physical strength, size, or skill: no more should it be levied in proportion to
property.--What is Property: Chapter II.
These observations are the more just because the principle which it was
their purpose to oppose to that of proportional assessment has had its period of
application. The proportional tax is much later in history than liege-homage, which
consisted in a simple officious demonstration without real payment.
The second sort of taxes includes in general all those designated, by a
sort of antiphrasis, by the term INDIRECT, such as taxes on liquor, salt, and tobacco,
customs duties, and, in short, all the taxes which DIRECTLY affect the only thing which
should be taxed,--product. The principle of this tax, whose name is an actual misnomer, is
unquestionably better founded in theory and more equitable in tendency than the preceding:
accordingly, in spite of the opinion of the mass, always deceived as to that which serves
it as well as to that which is prejudicial to it, I do not hesitate to say that this tax
is the only normal one, barring its assessment and collection, with which it is not my
purpose now to deal.
For, if it is true, as we have just explained, that the real nature of
the tax is to pay, according to a particular form of wages, for certain services which
elude the usual form of exchange, it follows that all producers, enjoying these services
equally as far as personal use is concerned, should contribute to their payment in equal
portions. The share for each, therefore, would be a fraction of his exchangeable product,
or, in other words, an amount taken from the values delivered by him for purposes of
consumption. But, under the monopoly system, and with collection upon land, the treasury
strikes the product before it has entered into exchange, even before it is produced,--a
circumstance which results in throwing back the amount of the tax into the cost of
production, and consequently puts the burden upon the consumer and lifts it from monopoly.
Whatever the significance of the tax of assessment or the tax of
quotite, one thing is sure, and this is the thing which it is especially important for us
to know,--namely, that, in making the tax proportional, it was the intention of the
sovereign to make citizens contribute to the public expenses, no longer, according to the
old feudal principle, by means of a poll-tax, which would involve the idea of an
assessment figured in the ratio of the number of persons taxed, and not in the ratio of
their possessions, but so much per franc of capital, which supposes that capital has its
source in an authority superior to the capitalists. Everybody, spontaneously and with one
accord, considers such an assessment just; everybody, therefore, spontaneously and with
one accord, looks upon the tax as a resumption on the part of society, a sort of
redemption exacted from monopoly. This is especially striking in England, where, by a
special law, the proprietors of the soil and the manufacturers pay, in proportion to their
incomes, a tax of forty million dollars, which is called the poor-rate.
In short, the practical and avowed object of the tax is to effect upon
the rich, for the benefit of the people, a proportional resumption of their capital.
Now, analysis and the facts demonstrate:
That the tax of assessment, the tax upon monopoly, instead of being paid
by those who possess, is paid almost entirely by those who do not possess;
That the tax of quotite, separating the producer from the consumer,
falls solely upon the latter, thereby taking from the capitalist no more than he would
have to pay if fortunes were absolutely equal;
Finally, that the army, the courts, the police, the schools, the
hospitals, the almshouses, the houses of refuge and correction, public functions, religion
itself, all that society creates for the protection, emancipation, and relief of the
proletaire, paid for in the first place and sustained by the proletaire, is then turned
against the proletaire or wasted as far as he is concerned; so that the proletariat, which
at first labored only for the class that devours it,--that of the capitalists,--must labor
also for the class that flogs it,--that of the nonproducers.
These facts are henceforth so well known, and the economists--I owe them
this justice--have shown them so clearly, that I shall abstain from correcting their
demonstrations, which, for the rest, are no longer contradicted by anybody. What I propose
to bring to light, and what the economists do not seem to have sufficiently understood, is
that the condition in which the laborer is placed by this new phase of social economy is
susceptible of no amelioration; that, unless industrial organization, and therefore
political reform, should bring about an equality of fortunes, evil is inherent in police
institutions as in the idea of charity which gave them birth; in short, that the STATE,
whatever form it affects, aristocratic or theocratic, monarchical or republican, until it
shall have become the obedient and submissive organ of a society of equals, will be for
the people an inevitable hell,--I had almost said a deserved damnation.
2.--Antinomy of the tax.
I sometimes hear the champions of the statu quo maintain that for the
present we enjoy liberty enough, and that, in spite of the declamation against the
existing order, we are below the level of our institutions. So far at least as taxation is
concerned, I am quite of the opinion of these optimists.
According to the theory that we have just seen, the tax is the reaction
of society against monopoly. Upon this point opinions are unanimous: citizens and
legislators, economists, journalists, and ballad-writers, rendering, each in their own
tongue, the social thought, vie with each other in proclaiming that the tax should fall
upon the rich, strike the superfluous and articles of luxury, and leave those of prime
necessity free. In short, they have made the tax a sort of privilege for the privileged: a
bad idea, since it involved a recognition of the legitimacy of privilege, which in no
case, whatever shape it may take, is good for anything. The people had to be punished for
this egoistic inconsistency: Providence did not fail in its duty.
From the moment, then, of the conception of the tax as a counter-claim,
it had to be fixed proportionally to means, whether it struck capital or affected income
more especially. Now, I will point out that the levying of the tax at so much a franc
being precisely that which should be adopted in a country where all fortunes were equal,
saving the differences in the cost of assessment and collection, the treasury is the most
liberal feature of our society, and that on this point our morals are really behind our
institutions. But as with the wicked the best things cannot fail to be detestable, we
shall see the equalitarian tax crush the people precisely because the people are not up to
I will suppose that the gross income in France, for each family of four
persons, is 1,000 francs: this is a little above the estimate of M. Chevalier, who places
it at only 63 centimes a day for each individual, or 919 francs 80 centimes for each
household. The tax being today more than a thousand millions, or about an eighth of the
total income, each family, earning 1,000 francs a year, is taxed 125 francs.
Accordingly, an income of 2,000 francs pays 250 francs; an income of
3,000 francs, 375; an income of 4,000 francs, 500, etc. The proportion is strict and
mathematically irreproachable; the treasury, by arithmetic, is sure of losing nothing.
But on the side of the taxpayers the affair totally changes its aspect.
The tax, which, in the intention of the legislator, was to have been proportioned to
fortune, is, on the contrary, progressive in the ratio of poverty, so that, the poorer the
citizen is, the more he pays. This I shall try to make plain by a few figures.
According to the proportional tax, there is due to the treasury: for an
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 francs, etc. a tax of
125 250 375 500 625 750
According to this series, then, the tax seems to increase proportionally
But when it is remembered that each annual income is made up of 365
units, each of which represents the daily income of the taxpayer, the tax will no longer
be found proportional; it will be found equal. In fact, if the State levies a tax of 125
francs on an income of 1,000 francs, it is as if it took from the taxed family 45 days'
subsistence; likewise the assessments of 250, 375, 500, 625, and 750 francs, corresponding
to incomes of 2,000, 3,000, 4,000, 5,000, and 6,000 francs, constitute in each case a tax
of 45 days' pay upon each of those who enjoy these incomes.
I say now that this equality of taxation is a monstrous inequality, and
that it is a strange illusion to imagine that, because the daily income is larger, the tax
of which it is the base is higher. Let us change our point of view from that of personal
to that of collective income.
As an effect of monopoly social wealth abandoning the laboring class to
go to the capitalistic class, the object of taxation has been to moderate this
displacement and react against usurpation by enforcing a proportional replevin upon each
privileged person. But proportional to what? To the excess which the privileged person has
received undoubtedly, and not to the fraction of the social capital which his income
represents. Now, the object of taxation is missed and the law turned into derision when
the treasury, instead of taking its eighth where this eighth exists, asks it precisely of
those to whom it should be restored. A final calculation will make this evident.
Setting the daily income of each person in France at 68 centimes, the
father of a family who, whether as wages or as income from his capital, receives 1,000
francs a year receives four shares of the national income; he who receives 2,000 francs
has eight shares; he who receives 4,000 francs has sixteen, etc. Hence it follows that the
workman who, on an income of 1,000 francs, pays 125 francs into the treasury renders to
public order half a share, or an eighth of his income and his family's subsistence;
whereas the capitalist who, on an income of 6,000 francs, pays only 750 francs realizes a
profit of 17 shares out of the collective income, or, in other words, gains by the tax 425
Let us reproduce the same truth in another form.
The voters of France number about 200,000. I do not know the total
amount of taxes paid by these 200,000 voters, but I do not believe that I am very far from
the truth in supposing an average of 300 francs each, or a total of 60,000,000 for the
200,000 voters, to which we will add twenty-five per cent. to represent their share of
indirect taxes, making in all 75,000,000, or 75 francs for each person (supposing the
family of each voter to consist of five persons), which the electoral class pays to the
State. The appropriations, according to the "Annuaire Economique" for 1845,
being 1,106,000,000, there remains 1,031,000,000, which makes the tax paid by each
non-voting citizen 31 francs 30 centimes,--two-fifths of the tax paid by the wealthy
class. Now, for this proportion to be equitable, the average welfare of the non-voting
class would have to be two-fifths of the average welfare of the voting class: but such is
not the truth, as it falls short of this by more than three-fourths.
But this disproportion will seem still more shocking when it is
remembered that the calculation which we have just made concerning the electoral class is
altogether wrong, altogether in favor of the voters.
In fact, the only taxes which are levied for the enjoyment of the right
of suffrage are: (1) the land tax; (2) the tax on polls and personal property; (3) the tax
on doors and windows; (4) license-fees. Now, with the exception of the tax on polls and
personal property, which varies little, the three other taxes are thrown back on the
consumers; and it is the same with all the indirect taxes, for which the holders of
capital are reimbursed by the consumers, with the exception, however, of the taxes on
property transfers, which fall directly on the proprietor and amount in all to
150,000,000. Now, if we estimate that in this last amount the property of voters figures
as one-sixth, which is placing it high, the portion of direct taxes (409,000,000) being 12
francs for each person, and that of indirect taxes (547,000,000) 16 francs, the average
tax paid by each voter having a household of five will reach a total of 265 francs, while
that paid by the laborer, who has only his arms to support himself, his wife, and two
children, will be 112 francs. In more general terms, the average tax upon each person
belonging to the upper classes will be 53 francs; upon each belonging to the lower, 28.
Whereupon I renew my question: Is the welfare of those below the voting standard half as
great as that of those above it?
It is with the tax as with periodical publications, which really cost
more the less frequently they appear. A daily journal costs forty francs, a weekly ten
francs, a monthly four. Supposing other things to be equal, the subscription prices of
these journals are to each other as the numbers forty, seventy, and one hundred and
twenty, the price rising with the infrequency of publication. Now, this exactly represents
the increase of the tax: it is a subscription paid by each citizen in exchange for the
right to labor and to live. He who uses this right in the smallest proportion pays much;
he who uses it a little more pays less; he who uses it a great deal pays little.
The economists are generally in agreement about all this. They have
attacked the proportional tax, not only in its principle, but in its application; they
have pointed out its anomalies, almost all of which arise from the fact that the relation
of capital to income, or of cultivated surface to rent, is never fixed.
Given a levy of one-tenth on the income from lands, and lands of
different qualities producing, the first eight francs' worth of grain, the second six
francs' worth, the third five francs' worth, the tax will call for one-eighth of the
income from the most fertile land, one-sixth from that a little less fertile, and,
finally, one-fifth from that less fertile still. Will not the tax thus
established be just the reverse of what it should be? Instead of land, we may suppose
other instruments of production, and compare capitals of the same value, or amounts of
labor of the same order, applied to branches of industry differing in productivity: the
conclusion will be the same. There is injustice in requiring the same poll-tax of ten
francs from the laborer who earns one thousand francs and from the artist or physician who
has an income of sixty thousand.--J. Garnier: Principles of Political Economy.
 This sentence, as it stands, is unintelligible, and probably is
not correctly quoted by Proudhon. At any rate, one of Garnier's works contains a similar
passage, which begins thus: "Given a levy of one on the area of the land, and lands
of different qualities producing, the first eight, the second six, the third five, the tax
will call for one- eighth," etc. This is perfectly clear, and the circumstances
supposed are aptly illustrative of Proudhon's point. I should unhesitatingly pronounce it
the correct version, except for the fact that Proudhon, in the succeeding paragraph,
interprets Garnier as supposing income to be assessed instead of capital.--Translator.
These reflections are very sound, although they apply only to collection
or assessment, and do not touch the principle of the tax itself. For, in supposing the
assessment to be made upon income instead of upon capital, the fact always remains that
the tax, which should be proportional to fortunes, is borne by the consumer.
The economists have taken a resolve; they have squarely recognized the
iniquity of the proportional tax.
"The tax," says Say, "can never be levied upon the
necessary." This author, it is true, does not tell us what we are to understand by
the necessary, but we can supply the omission. The necessary is what each individual gets
out of the total product of the country, after deducting what must be taken for taxes.
Thus, making the estimate in round numbers, the production of France being eight thousand
millions and the tax one thousand millions, the necessary in the case of each individual
amounts to fifty-six and a half centimes a day. Whatever is in excess of this income is
alone susceptible of being taxed, according to J. B. Say; whatever falls short of it must
be regarded by the treasury as inviolable.
The same author expresses this idea in other words when he says:
"The proportional tax is not equitable." Adam Smith had already said before him:
"It is not unreasonable that the rich man should contribute to the public expenses,
not only in proportion to his income, but something more." "I will go
further," adds Say; "I will not fear to say that the progressive tax is the only
equitable tax." And M. J. Garnier, the latest abridger of the economists, says:
"Reforms should tend to establish a progressional equality, if I may use the phrase,
much more just, much more equitable, than the pretended equality of taxation, which is
only a monstrous inequality."
So, according to general opinion and the testimony of the economists,
two things are acknowledged: one, that in its principle the tax is a reaction against
monopoly and directed against the rich; the other, that in practice this same tax is false
to its object; that, in striking the poor by preference, it commits an injustice; and that
the constant effort of the legislator must be to distribute its burden in a more equitable
I needed to establish this double fact solidly before passing to other
considerations: now commences my criticism.
The economists, with that simplicity of honest folk which they have
inherited from their elders and which even today is all that stands to their credit, have
taken no pains to see that the progressional theory of the tax, which they point out to
governments as the ne plus ultra of a wise and liberal administration, was contradictory
in its terms and pregnant with a legion of impossibilities. They have attributed the
oppression of the treasury by turns to the barbarism of the time, the ignorance of
princes, the prejudices of caste, the avarice of collectors, everything, in short, which,
in their opinion, preventing the progression of the tax, stood in the way of the sincere
practice of equality in the distribution of public burdens; they have not for a moment
suspected that what they asked under the name of progressive taxation was the overturn of
all economic ideas.
Thus they have not seen, for instance, that the tax was progressive from
the very fact that it was proportional, the only difference being that the progression was
in the wrong direction, the percentage being, as we have said, not directly, but inversely
proportional to fortunes. If the economists had had a clear idea of this overturn,
invariable in all countries where taxation exists, so singular a phenomenon would not have
failed to draw their attention; they would have sought its causes, and would have ended by
discovering that what they took for an accident of civilization, an effect of the
inextricable difficulties of human government, was the product of the contradiction
inherent in all political economy.
The progressive tax, whether applied to capital or to income, is the
very negation of monopoly, of that monopoly which is met everywhere, according to M.
Rossi, across the path of social economy; which is the true stimulant of industry, the
hope of economy, the preserver and parent of all wealth; of which we have been able to
say, in short, that society cannot exist without it, but that, except for it, there would
be no society. Let the tax become suddenly what it unquestionably must sometime
be,--namely, the proportional (or progressional, which is the same thing) contribution of
each producer to the public expenses, and straightway rent and profit are confiscated
everywhere for the benefit of the State; labor is stripped of the fruits of its toil; each
individual being reduced to the proper allowance of fifty-six and a half centimes, poverty
becomes general; the compact formed between labor and capital is dissolved, and society,
deprived of its rudder, drifts back to its original state.
It will be said, perhaps, that it is easy to prevent the absolute
annihilation of the profits of capital by stopping the progression at any moment.
Eclecticism, the golden mean, compromise with heaven or with morality:
is it always to be the same philosophy, then? True science is repugnant to such
arrangements. All invested capital must return to the producer in the form of interest;
all labor must leave a surplus, all wages be equal to product. Under the protection of
these laws society continually realizes, by the greatest variety of production, the
highest possible degree of welfare. These laws are absolute; to violate them is to wound,
to mutilate society. Capital, accordingly, which, after all, is nothing but accumulated
labor, is inviolable. But, on the other hand, the tendency to equality is no less
imperative; it is manifested at each economic phase with increasing energy and an
invincible authority. Therefore you must satisfy labor and justice at once; you must give
to the former guarantees more and more real, and secure the latter without concession or
Instead of that, you know nothing but the continual substitution of the
good pleasure of the prince for your theories, the arrest of the course of economic law by
arbitrary power, and, under the pretext of equity, the deception of the wage worker and
the monopolist alike! Your liberty is but a half-liberty, your justice but a half-justice,
and all your wisdom consists in those middle terms whose iniquity is always twofold, since
they justify the pretensions of neither one party nor the other! No, such cannot be the
science which you have promised us, and which, by unveiling for us the secrets of the
production and consumption of wealth, must unequivocally solve the social antinomies. Your
semi- liberal doctrine is the code of despotism, and shows that you are powerless to
advance as well as ashamed to retreat.
If society, pledged by its economic antecedents, can never retrace its
steps; if, until the arrival of the universal equation, monopoly must be maintained in its
possession,--no change is possible in the laying of taxes: only there is a contradiction
here, which, like every other, must be pushed till exhausted. Have, then, the courage of
your opinions,-- respect for wealth, and no pity for the poor, whom the God of monopoly
has condemned. The less the hireling has wherewith to live, the more he must pay: qui
minus habet, etiam quod habet auferetur ab eo. This is necessary, this is inevitable; in
it lies the safety of society.
Let us try, nevertheless, to reverse the progression of the tax, and so
arrange it that the capitalist, instead of the laborer, will pay the larger share.
I observe, in the first place, that with the usual method of collection,
such a reversal is impracticable.
In fact, if the tax falls on exploitable capital, this tax, in its
entirety, is included among the costs of production, and then of two things one: either
the product, in spite of the increase in its selling value, will be bought by the
consumer, and consequently the producer will be relieved of the tax; or else this same
product will be thought too dear, and in that case the tax, as J. B. Say has very well
said, acts like a tithe levied on seed,--it prevents production. Thus it is that too high
a tax on the transfer of titles arrests the circulation of real property, and renders
estates less productive by keeping them from changing hands.
If, on the contrary, the tax falls on product, it is nothing but a tax
of quotite, which each pays in the ratio of his consumption, while the capitalist, whom it
is purposed to strike, escapes.
Moreover, the supposition of a progressive tax based either on product
or on capital is perfectly absurd. How can we imagine the same product paying a duty of
ten per cent. at the store of one dealer and a duty of but five at another's? How are
estates already encumbered with mortgages and which change owners every day, how is a
capital formed by joint investment or by the fortune of a single individual, to be
distinguished upon the official register, and taxed, not in the ratio of their value or
rent, but in the ratio of the fortune or presumed profits of the proprietor?
There remains, then, a last resource,--to tax the net income of each
tax-payer, whatever his method of getting it. For instance, an income of one thousand
francs would pay ten per cent.; an income of two thousand francs, twenty per cent.; an
income of three thousand francs, thirty per cent., etc. We will set aside the thousand
difficulties and annoyances that must be met in ascertaining these incomes, and suppose
the operation as easy as you like. Well! that is exactly the system which I charge with
hypocrisy, contradiction, and injustice.
I say in the first place that this system is hypocritical, because,
instead of taking from the rich that entire portion of their income in excess of the
average national product per family, which is inadmissible, it does not, as is imagined,
reverse the order of progression in the direction of wealth; at most it changes the rate
of progression. Thus the present progression of the tax, for fortunes yielding incomes of
a thousand francs and UNDER, being as that of the numbers 10, 11, 12, 13, etc., and, for
fortunes yielding incomes of a thousand francs and OVER, as that of the numbers 10, 9, 8,
7, 6, etc.,-- the tax always increasing with poverty and decreasing with wealth,--if we
should confine ourselves to lifting the indirect tax which falls especially on the poorer
class and imposing a corresponding tax upon the incomes of the richer class, the
progression thereafter, it is true, would be, for the first, only as that of the numbers
10, 10.25, 10.50, 10.75, 11, 11.25, etc., and, for the second, as 10, 9.75, 9.50, 9.25, 9,
8.75, etc. But this progression, although less rapid on both sides, would still take the
same direction nevertheless, would still be a reversal of justice; and it is for this
reason that the so-called progressive tax, capable at most of giving the philanthropist
something to babble about, is of no scientific value. It changes nothing in fiscal
jurisprudence; as the proverb says, it is always the poor man who carries the pouch,
always the rich man who is the object of the solicitude of power.
I add that this system is contradictory.
In fact, ONE CANNOT BOTH GIVE AND KEEP, say the jurisconsults. Instead,
then, of consecrating monopolies from which the holders are to derive no privilege save
that of straightway losing, with the income, all the enjoyment thereof, why not decree the
agrarian law at once? Why provide in the constitution that each shall freely enjoy the
fruit of his labor and industry, when, by the fact or the tendency of the tax, this
permission is granted only to the extent of a dividend of fifty-six and a half centimes a
day,--a thing, it is true, which the law could not have foreseen, but which would
necessarily result from progression? The legislator, in confirming us in our monopolies,
intended to favor production, to feed the sacred fire of industry: now, what interest
shall we have to produce, if, though not yet associated, we are not to produce for
ourselves alone? After we have been declared free, how can we be made subject to
conditions of sale, hire, and exchange which annul our liberty?
A man possesses government securities which bring him an income of
twenty thousand francs. The tax, under the new system of progression, will take fifty per
cent. of this from him. At this rate it is more advantageous to him to withdraw his
capital and consume the principal instead of the income. Then let him be repaid. What!
repaid! The State cannot be obliged to repay; and, if it consents to redeem, it will do so
in proportion to the net income. Therefore a bond for twenty thousand francs will be worth
not more than ten thousand to the bondholder, because of the tax, if he wishes to get it
redeemed by the State: unless he divides it into twenty lots, in which case it will return
him double the amount. Likewise an estate which rents for fifty thousand francs, the tax
taking two-thirds of the income, will lose two- thirds of its value. But let the
proprietor divide this estate into a hundred lots and sell it at auction, and then, the
terror of the treasury no longer deterring purchasers, he can get back his entire capital.
So that, with the progressive tax, real estate no longer follows the law of supply and
demand and is not valued according to the real income which it yields, but according to
the condition of the owner. The consequence will be that large capitals will depreciate in
value, and mediocrity be brought to the front; land-owners will hasten to sell, because it
will be better for them to consume their property than to get an insufficient rent from
it; capitalists will recall their investments, or will invest only at usurious rates; all
exploitation on a large scale will be prohibited, every visible fortune proceeded against,
and all accumulation of capital in excess of the figure of the necessary proscribed.
Wealth, driven back, will retire within itself and never emerge except by stealth; and
labor, like a man attached to a corpse, will embrace misery in an endless union. Does it
not well become the economists who devise such reforms to laugh at the reformers?
After having demonstrated the contradiction and delusion of the
progressive tax, must I prove its injustice also? The progressive tax, as understood by
the economists and, in their wake, by certain radicals, is impracticable, I said just now,
if it falls on capital and product: consequently I have supposed it to fall on incomes.
But who does not see that this purely theoretical distinction between capital, product,
and income falls so far as the treasury is concerned, and that the same impossibilities
which we have pointed out reappear here with all their fatal character?
A manufacturer discovers a process by means of which, saving twenty per
cent. of his cost of production, he secures an income of twenty-five thousand francs. The
treasury calls on him for fifteen thousand. He is obliged, therefore, to raise his prices,
since, by the fact of the tax, his process, instead of saving twenty per cent., saves only
eight per cent. Is not this as if the treasury prevented cheapness? Thus, in trying to
reach the rich, the progressive tax always reaches the consumer; and it is impossible for
it not to reach him without suppressing production altogether: what a mistake!
It is a law of social economy that all invested capital must return
continually to the capitalist in the form of interest. With the progressive tax this law
is radically violated, since, by the effect of progression, interest on capital is so
reduced that industries are established only at a loss of a part or the whole of the
capital. To make it otherwise, interest on capital would have to increase progressively in
the same ratio as the tax itself, which is absurd. Therefore the progressive tax stops the
creation of capital; furthermore it hinders its circulation. Whoever, in fact, should want
to buy a plant for any enterprise or a piece of land for cultivation would have to
consider, under the system of progressive taxation, not the real value of such plant or
land, but rather the tax which it would bring upon him; so that, if the real income were
four per cent., and, by the effect of the tax or the condition of the buyer, must go down
to three, the purchase could not be effected. After having run counter to all interests
and thrown the market into confusion by its categories, the progressive tax arrests the
development of wealth and reduces venal value below real value; it contracts, it petrifies
society. What tyranny! What derision!
The progressive tax resolves itself, then, whatever may be done, into a
denial of justice, prohibition of production, confiscation. It is unlimited and unbridled
absolutism, given to power over everything which, by labor, by economy, by improvements,
contributes to public wealth.
But what is the use of wandering about in chimerical hypotheses when the
truth is at hand. It is not the fault of the proportional principle if the tax falls with
such shocking inequality upon the various classes of society; the fault is in our
prejudices and our morals. The tax, as far as is possible in human operations, proceeds
with equity, precision. Social economy commands it to apply to product; it applies to
product. If product escapes it, it strikes capital: what more natural! The tax, in advance
of civilization, supposes the equality of laborers and capitalists: the inflexible
expression of necessity, it seems to invite us to make ourselves equals by education and
labor, and, by balancing our functions and associating our interests, to put ourselves in
accord with it. The tax refuses to distinguish between one man and another: and we blame
its mathematical severity for the differences in our fortunes! We ask equality itself to
comply with our injustice! Was I not right in saying at the outset that, relatively to the
tax, we are behind our institutions?
Accordingly we always see the legislator stopping, in his fiscal laws,
before the subversive consequences of the progressive tax, and consecrating the necessity,
the immutability of the proportional tax. For equality in well-being cannot result from
the violation of capital: the antinomy must be methodically solved, under penalty, for
society, of falling back into chaos. Eternal justice does not accommodate itself to all
the whims of men: like a woman, whom one may outrage, but whom one does not marry without
a solemn alienation of one's self, it demands on our part, with the abandonment of our
egoism, the recognition of all its rights, which are those of science.
The tax, whose final purpose, as we have shown, is the reward of the
non-producers, but whose original idea was a restoration of the laborer,--the tax, under
the system of monopoly, reduces itself therefore to a pure and simple protest, a sort of
extra-judicial act, the whole effect of which is to aggravate the situation of the
wage-worker by disturbing the monopolist in his possession. As for the idea of changing
the proportional tax into a progressive tax, or, to speak more accurately, of reversing
the order in which the tax progresses, that is a blunder the entire responsibility for
which belongs to the economists.
But henceforth menace hovers over privilege. With the power of modifying
the proportionality of the tax, government has under its hand an expeditious and sure
means of dispossessing the holders of capital when it will; and it is a frightful thing to
see everywhere that great institution, the basis of society, the object of so many
controversies, of so many laws, of so many cajoleries, and of so many crimes, PROPERTY,
suspended at the end of a thread over the yawning mouth of the proletariat.
3.--Disastrous and inevitable consequences of the tax. (Provisions,
sumptuary laws, rural and industrial police, patents, trade-marks, etc.)
M. Chevalier addressed to himself, in July, 1843, on the subject of the
tax, the following questions:
(1) Is it asked of all or by preference of a part of the nation? (2)
Does the tax resemble a levy on polls, or is it exactly proportioned to the fortunes of
the tax-payers? (3) Is agriculture more or less burdened than manufactures or commerce?
(4) Is real estate more or less spared than personal property? (5) Is he who produces more
favored than he who consumes? (6) Have our taxation laws the character of sumptuary laws?
To these various questions M. Chevalier makes the reply which I am about
to quote, and which sums up all of the most philosophical considerations upon the subject
which I have met:
(a) The tax affects the universality, applies to the mass, takes the
nation as a whole; nevertheless, as the poor are the most numerous, it taxes them
willingly, certain of collecting more. (b) By the nature of things the tax sometimes takes
the form of a levy on polls, as in the case of the salt tax. (c, d, e) The treasury
addresses itself to labor as well as to consumption, because in France everybody labors,
to real more than to personal property, and to agriculture more than to manufactures. (f)
By the same reasoning, our laws partake little of the character of sumptuary laws.
What, professor! is that all that science has taught you? THE TAX
APPLIES TO THE MASS, you say; IT TAKES THE NATION AS A WHOLE. Alas! we know it only too
well; but it is this which is iniquitous, and which we ask you to explain. The government,
when engaged in the assessment and distribution of the tax, could not have believed, did
not believe, that all fortunes were equal; consequently it could not have wished, did not
wish, the sums paid to be equal. Why, then, is the practice of the government always the
opposite of its theory? Your opinion, if you please, on this difficult matter? Explain;
justify or condemn the exchequer; take whatever course you will, provided you take some
course and say something. Remember that your readers are men, and that they cannot excuse
in a doctor, speaking ex cathedra, such propositions as this: AS THE POOR ARE THE MOST
NUMEROUS, IT TAXES THEM WILLINGLY, CERTAIN OF COLLECTING MORE. No, Monsieur: NUMBERS do
not regulate the tax; the tax knows perfectly well that millions of poor added to millions
of poor do not make one voter. You render the treasury odious by making it absurd, and I
maintain that it is neither the one nor the other. The poor man pays more than the rich
because Providence, to whom misery is odious like vice, has so ordered things that the
miserable must always be the most ground down. The iniquity of the tax is the celestial
scourge which drives us towards equality. God! if a professor of political economy, who
was formerly an apostle, could but understand this revelation!
BY THE NATURE OF THINGS, says m. Chevalier, THE TAX SOMETIMES TAKES THE
FORM OF A LEVY ON POLLS. Well, in what case is it just that the tax should take the form
of a levy on polls? Is it always, or never? What is the principle of the tax? What is its
object? Speak, answer.
And what instruction, pray, can we derive from the remark, scarcely
worthy of quotation, that THE TREASURY ADDRESSES ITSELF TO LABOR AS WELL AS TO
CONSUMPTION, TO REAL MORE THAN TO PERSONAL PROPERTY, TO AGRICULTURE MORE THAN TO
MANUFACTURES? Of what consequence to science is this interminable recital of crude facts,
if your analysis never extracts a single idea from them?
All the deductions made from consumption by taxation, rent, interest on
capital, etc., enter into the general expense account and figure in the selling price, so
that nearly always the consumer pays the tax: that we know. And as the goods most consumed
are also those which yield the most revenue, it necessarily follows that the poorest
people are the most heavily burdened: this consequence, like the first, is inevitable.
Once more, then, of what importance to us are your fiscal distinctions? Whatever the
classification of taxable material, as it is impossible to tax capital beyond its income,
the capitalist will be always favored, while the proletaire will suffer iniquity,
oppression. The trouble is not in the distribution of taxes; it is in the distribution of
goods. M. Chevalier cannot be ignorant of this: why, then, does not M. Chevalier, whose
word would carry more weight than that of a writer suspected of not loving the existing
order, say as much?
From 1806 to 1811 (this observation, as well as the following, is M.
Chevalier's) the annual consumption of wine in Paris was one hundred and forty quarts for
each individual; now it is not more than eighty-three. Abolish the tax of seven or eight
cents a quart collected from the retailer, and the consumption of wine will soon rise from
eighty-three quarts to one hundred and seventy-five; and the wine industry, which does not
know what to do with its products, will have a market. Thanks to the duties laid upon the
importation of cattle, the consumption of meat by the people has diminished in a ratio
similar to that of the falling-off in the consumption of wine; and the economists have
recognized with fright that the French workman does less work than the English workman,
because he is not as well fed.
Out of sympathy for the laboring classes M. Chevalier would like our
manufacturers to feel the goad of foreign competition a little. A reduction of the tax on
woollens to the extent of twenty cents on each pair of pantaloons would leave six million
dollars in the pockets of the consumers,--half enough to pay the salt tax. Four cents less
in the price of a shirt would effect a saving probably sufficient to keep a force of
twenty thousand men under arms.
In the last fifteen years the consumption of sugar has risen from one
hundred and sixteen million pounds to two hundred and sixty million, which gives at
present an average of seven pounds and three-quarters for each individual. This progress
demonstrates that sugar must be classed henceforth with bread, wine, meat, wool, cotton,
wood, and coal, among the articles of prime necessity. To the poor man sugar is a whole
medicine-chest: would it be too much to raise the average individual consumption of this
article from seven pounds and three-quarters to fifteen pounds? Abolish the tax, which is
about four dollars and a half on a hundred pounds, and your consumption will double.
Thus the tax on provisions agitates and tortures the poor proletaire in
a thousand ways: the high price of salt hinders the production of cattle; the duties on
meat diminish also the rations of the laborer. To satisfy at once the tax and the need of
fermented beverages which the laboring class feels, they serve him with mixtures unknown
to the chemist as well as to the brewer and the wine-grower. What further need have we of
the dietary prescriptions of the Church? Thanks to the tax, the whole year is Lent to the
laborer, and his Easter dinner is not as good as Monseigneur's Good Friday lunch. It is
high time to abolish everywhere the tax on consumption, which weakens and starves the
people: this is the conclusion of the economists as well as of the radicals.
But if the proletaire does not fast to feed Caesar, what will Caesar
eat? And if the poor man does not cut his cloak to cover Caesar's nudity, what will Caesar
That is the question, the inevitable question, the question to be
M. Chevalier, then, having asked himself as his sixth question whether
our taxation laws have the character of sumptuary laws, has answered: No, our taxation
laws have not the character of sumptuary laws. M. Chevalier might have added--and it would
have been both new and true-- that that is the best thing about our taxation laws. But M.
Chevalier, who, whatever he may do, always retains some of the old leaven of radicalism,
has preferred to declaim against luxury, whereby he could not compromise himself with any
party. "If in Paris," he cries, "the tax collected from meat should be laid
upon private carriages, saddle- horses and carriage-horses, servants, and dogs, it would
be a perfectly equitable operation."
Does M. Chevalier, then, sit in the College of France to expound the
politics of Masaniello? I have seen the dogs at Basle wearing the treasury badge upon
their necks as a sign that they had been taxed, and I looked upon the tax on dogs, in a
country where taxation is almost nothing, as rather a moral lesson and a hygienic
precaution than a source of revenue. In 1844 the dog tax of forty-two cents a head gave a
revenue of $12,600 in the entire province of Brabant, containing 667,000 inhabitants. From
this it may be estimated that the same tax, producing in all France $600,000, would
lighten the taxes of QUOTITE LESS THAN TWO CENTS a year for each individual. Certainly I
am far from pretending that $600,000 is a sum to be disdained, especially with a prodigal
ministry; and I regret that the Chamber should have rejected the dog tax, which would
always have served to endow half a dozen highnesses. But I remember that a tax of this
nature is levied much less in the interest of the treasury than as a promoter of order;
that consequently it is proper to look upon it, from the fiscal point of view, as of no
importance; and that it will even have to be abolished as an annoyance when the mass of
the people, having become a little more humanized, shall feel a disgust for the
companionship of beasts. TWO CENTS A YEAR, what a relief for poverty!
But M. Chevalier has other resources in reserve,--horses, carriages,
servants, articles of luxury, luxury at last! How much is contained in that one word,
Let us cut short this phantasmagoria by a simple calculation;
reflections will be in order later. In 1842 the duties collected on imports amounted to
$25,800,000. In this sum of $25,800,000, sixty-one articles in common use figure for
$24,800,000, and one hundred and seventy-seven, used only by those who enjoy a high degree
of luxury, for TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS. In the first class sugar yielded a revenue of
$8,600,000, coffee $2,400,000, cotton $2,200,000, woollens $2,000,000, oils $1,600,000,
coal $800,000, linens and hemp $600,000,-- making a total of $18,200,000 on seven
articles. The amount of revenue, then, is lower in proportion as the article of
merchandise from which it is derived is less generally used, more rarely consumed, and
found accompanying a more refined degree of luxury. And yet articles of luxury are subject
to much the highest taxes. Therefore, even though, to obtain an appreciable reduction upon
articles of primary necessity, the duties upon articles of luxury should be made a hundred
times higher, the only result would be the suppression of a branch of commerce by a
prohibitory tax. Now, the economists all favor the abolition of custom-houses; doubtless
they do not wish them replaced by city toll- gates? Let us generalize this example: salt
brings the treasury $11,400,000, tobacco $16,800,000. Let them show me, figures in hand,
by what taxes upon articles of luxury, after having abolished the taxes on salt and
tobacco, this deficit will be made up.
You wish to strike articles of luxury; you take civilization at the
wrong end. I maintain, for my part, that articles of luxury should be free. In economic
language what are luxuries? Those products which bear the smallest ratio to the total
wealth, those which come last in the industrial series and whose creation supposes the
preexistence of all the others. From this point of view all the products of human labor
have been, and in turn have ceased to be, articles of luxury, since we mean by luxury
nothing but a relation of succession, whether chronological or commercial, in the elements
of wealth. Luxury, in a word, is synonymous with progress; it is, at each instant of
social life, the expression of the maximum of comfort realized by labor and at which it is
the right and destiny of all to arrive. Now, just as the tax respects for a time the
newly-built house and the newly-cleared field, so it should freely welcome new products
and precious articles, the latter because their scarcity should be continually combatted,
the former because every invention deserves encouragement. What! under a pretext of luxury
would you like to establish new classes of citizens? And do you take seriously the city of
Salente and the prosopopoeia of Fabricius? Since the subject leads us to it, let us talk
of morality. Doubtless you will not deny the truth so often dwelt upon by the Senecas of
all ages,--that luxury CORRUPTS and WEAKENS morals: which means that it humanizes,
elevates, and ennobles habits, and that the first and most effective education for the
people, the stimulant of the ideal in most men, is luxury. The Graces were naked,
according to the ancients; where has it ever been said that they were needy? It is the
taste for luxury which in our day, in the absence of religious principles, sustains the
social movement and reveals to the lower classes their dignity. The Academy of Moral and
Political Sciences clearly understood this when it chose luxury as the subject of one of
its essays, and I applaud its wisdom from the bottom of my heart. Luxury, in fact, is
already more than a right in our society, it is a necessity; and he is truly to be pitied
who never allows himself a little luxury. And it is when universal effort tends to
popularize articles of luxury more and more that you would confine the enjoyment of the
people to articles which you are pleased to describe as articles of necessity! It is when
ranks approach and blend into each other through the generalization of luxury that you
would dig the line of demarcation deeper and increase the height of your steps! The
workman sweats and sacrifices and grinds in order to buy a set of jewelry for his
sweetheart, a necklace for his granddaughter, or a watch for his son; and you would
deprive him of this happiness, unless he pays your tax,--that is, your fine.
But have you reflected that to tax articles of luxury is to prohibit the
luxurious arts? Do you think that the silk-workers, whose average wages does not reach
forty cents; the milliners at ten cents; the jewellers, goldsmiths, and clockmakers, with
their interminable periods of idleness; servants at forty dollars,--do you think that they
earn too much?
Are you sure that the tax on luxuries would not be paid by the worker in
the luxurious arts, as the tax on beverages is paid by the consumer of beverages? Do you
even know whether higher prices for articles of luxury would not be an obstacle to the
cheapness of necessary objects, and whether, in trying to favor the most numerous class,
you would not render the general condition worse? A fine speculation, in truth! Four
dollars to be returned to the laborer on his wine and sugar, and eight to be taken from
him in the cost of his pleasures! He shall gain fifteen cents on the leather in his boots,
and, to take his family into the country four times a year, he shall pay one dollar and
twenty cents more for carriage-hire! A small bourgeois spends one hundred and twenty
dollars for a housekeeper, laundress, linen-tender, and errand-boys; but if, by a wiser
economy which works for the interest of all, he takes a domestic, the exchequer, in the
interest of articles of subsistence, will punish this plan of economy! What an absurd
thing is the philanthropy of the economists, when closely scrutinized!
Nevertheless I wish to satisfy your whim; and, since you absolutely must
have sumptuary laws, I undertake to give you the receipt. And I guarantee that in my
system collection shall be easy: no comptrollers, assessors, tasters, assayers,
inspectors, receivers; no watching, no office expenses; not the smallest annoyance or the
slightest indiscretion; no constraint whatever. Let it be decreed by a law that no one in
future shall receive two salaries at the same time, and that the highest fees, in any
situation, shall not exceed twelve hundred dollars in Paris and eight hundred in the
departments. What! you lower your eyes! Confess, then, that your sumptuary laws are but
To relieve the people some would apply commercial practices to taxation.
If, for instance, they say, the price of salt were reduced one-half, if letter-postage
were lightened in the same proportion, consumption would not fail to increase, the revenue
would be more than doubled, the treasury would gain, and so would the consumer.
Let us suppose the event to confirm this anticipation. Then I say: If
letter-postage should be reduced three-fourths, and if salt should be given away, would
the treasury still gain? Certainly not. What, then, is the significance of what is called
the postal reform? That for every kind of product there is a natural rate, ABOVE which
profit becomes usurious and tends to decrease consumption, but BELOW which the producer
suffers loss. This singularly resembles the determination of value which the economists
reject, and in relation to which we said: There is a secret force that fixes the extreme
limits between which value oscillates, of which there is a mean term that expresses true
Surely no one wishes the postal service to be carried on at a loss; the
opinion, therefore, is that this service should be performed AT COST. This is so
rudimentary in its simplicity that one is astonished that it should have been necessary to
resort to a laborious investigation of the results of reducing letter-postage in England;
to pile up frightful figures and probabilities beyond the limit of vision, to put the mind
to torture, all to find out whether a reduction in France would lead to a surplus or a
deficit, and finally to be unable to agree upon anything! What! there was not a man to be
found in the Chamber with sense enough to say: There is no need of an ambassador's report
or examples from England; letter-postage should be gradually reduced until receipts reach
the level of expenditures. What, then, has become of our old Gallic wit?
 Thank heaven! the minister has settled the question, and I
tender him my very sincere compliments. By the proposed tariff letter-postage will be
reduced to 2 cents for distances under 12 1/2 miles; 4 cents, for distances between 12 1/2
and 25 miles; 6 cents, between 25 and 75 miles; 8 cents, between 75 and 225 miles; 10
cents, for longer distances.
But, it will be said, if the tax should furnish salt, tobacco,
letter-carriage, sugar, wines, meat, etc., at cost, consumption would undoubtedly
increase, and the improvement would be enormous; but then how would the State meet its
expenses? The amount of indirect taxes is nearly one hundred and twenty million dollars;
upon what would you have the State levy this sum? If the treasury makes nothing out of the
postal service, it will have to increase the tax on salt; if the tax on salt be lifted
also, it will have to throw the burden back upon drinks; there would be no end to this
litany. Therefore the supply of products at cost, whether by the State or by private
industry, is impossible.
Therefore, I will reply in turn, relief of the unfortunate classes by
the State is impossible, as sumptuary laws are impossible, as the progressive tax is
impossible; and all your irrelevancies regarding the tax are lawyer's quibbles. You have
not even the hope that the increase of population, by dividing the assessments, may
lighten the burden of each; because with population misery increases, and with misery the
work and the personnel of the State are augmented.
The various fiscal laws voted by the Chamber of Deputies during the
session of 1845-46 are so many examples of the absolute incapacity of power, whatever it
may be and however it may go to work, to procure the comfort of the people. From the very
fact that it is power,--that is, the representative of divine right and of property, the
organ of force,--it is necessarily sterile, and all its acts are stamped in the corner
with a fatal deception.
I referred just now to the reform in the postage rates, which reduces
the price of letter-carriage about one-third. Surely, if motives only are in question, I
have no reason to reproach the government which has effected this useful reduction; much
less still will I seek to diminish its merit by miserable criticisms upon matters of
detail, the vile pasturage of the daily press. A tax, considerably burdensome, is reduced
thirty per cent.; its distribution is made more equitable and more regular; I see only the
fact, and I applaud the minister who has accomplished it. But that is not the question.
In the first place, the advantage which the government gives us by
changing the tax on letters leaves the proportional--that is, the unjust--character of
this tax intact: that scarcely requires demonstration. The inequality of burdens, so far
as the postal tax is concerned, stands as before, the advantage of the reduction going
principally, not to the poorest, but to the richest. A certain business house which paid
six hundred dollars for letter-postage will pay hereafter only four hundred; it will add,
then, a net profit of two hundred dollars to the ten thousand which its business brings
it, and it will owe this to the munificence of the treasury. On the other hand, the
peasant, the laborer, who shall write twice a year to his son in the army, and shall
receive a like number of replies, will have saved ten cents. Is it not true that the
postal reform acts in direct opposition to the equitable distribution of the tax? that if,
according to M. Chevalier's wish, the government had desired to strike the rich and spare
the poor, the tax on letters was the last that it would have needed to reduce? Does it not
seem that the treasury, false to the spirit of its institution, has only been awaiting the
pretext of a reduction inappreciable by poverty in order to seize the opportunity to make
a present to wealth?
That is what the critics of the bill should have said, and that is what
none of them saw. It is true that then the criticism, instead of applying to the minister,
struck power in its essence, and with power property, which was not the design of the
opponents. Truth today has all opinions against it.
And now could it have been otherwise? No, since, if they kept the old
tax, they injured all without relieving any; and, if they reduced it, they could not make
different rates for classes of citizens without violating the first article of the
Charter, which says: "All Frenchmen are equal before the law,"--that is, before
the tax. Now, the tax on letters is necessarily personal; therefore it is a
capitation-tax; therefore, that which is equity in this respect being iniquity from
another standpoint, an equilibrium of burdens is impossible.
At the same time another reform was effected by the care of the
government,--that of the tax on cattle. Formerly the duties on cattle, whether on
importation from foreign countries, or from the country into the cities, were collected at
so much a head; henceforth they will be collected according to weight. This useful reform,
which has been clamored for so long, is due in part to the influence of the economists,
who, on this occasion as on many others which I cannot recall, have shown the most
honorable zeal, and have left the idle declamations of socialism very far in the rear. But
here again the good resulting from the law for the amelioration of the condition of the
poor is wholly illusory. They have equalized, regulated, the collection from beasts; they
have not distributed it equitably among men. The rich man, who consumes twelve hundred
pounds of meat a year, will feel the effects of the new condition laid upon the butchers;
the immense majority of the people, who never eat meat, will not notice it. And I renew my
question of a moment ago: Could the government, the Chamber, do otherwise than as it has
done? No, once more; for you cannot say to the butcher: You shall sell your meat to the
rich man for twenty cents a pound and to the poor man for five cents. It would be rather
the contrary that you would obtain from the butcher.
So with salt. The government has reduced four-fifths the tax on salt
used in agriculture, on condition of its undergoing a transformation. A certain
journalist, having no better objection to raise, has made thereupon a complaint in which
he grieves over the lot of those poor peasants who are more maltreated by the law than
their cattle. For the third time I ask: Could it be otherwise? Of two things one: either
the reduction will be absolute, and then the tax on salt must be replaced by a tax on
something else; now I defy entire French journalism to invent a tax which will bear two
minutes' examination; or else the reduction will be partial, whether by maintaining a
portion of the duties on salt in all its uses, or by abolishing entirely the duties on
salt used in certain ways. In the first case, the reduction is insufficient for
agriculture and the poor; in the second, the capitation-tax still exists, in its enormous
disproportion. Whatever may be done, it is the poor man, always the poor man, who is
struck, since, in spite of all theories, the tax can never be laid except in the ratio of
the capital possessed or consumed, and since, if the treasury should try to proceed
otherwise, it would arrest progress, prohibit wealth, and kill capital.
The democrats, who reproach us with sacrificing the revolutionary
interest (what is the revolutionary interest?) to the socialistic interest, ought really
to tell us how, without making the State the sole proprietor and without decreeing the
community of goods and gains, they mean, by any system of taxation whatever, to relieve
the people and restore to labor what capital takes from it. In vain do I rack my brains;
on all questions I see power placed in the falsest situation, and the opinion of journals
straying into limitless absurdity.
In 1842 M. Arago was in favor of the administration of railways by
corporations, and the majority in France thought with him. In 1846 he has announced a
change in his opinion; and, apart from the speculators in railways, it may be said again
that the majority of citizens have changed as M. Arago has. What is to be believed and
what is to be done amid this see-sawing of the savants and of France?
State administration, it would seem, ought to better assure the
interests of the country; but it is slow, expensive, and unintelligent. Twenty-five years
of mistakes, miscalculations, improvidence, hundreds of millions thrown away, in the great
work of canalizing the country, have proved it to the most incredulous. We have even seen
engineers, members of the administration, loudly proclaiming the incapacity of the State
in the matter of public works as well as of industry.
Administration by corporations is irreproachable, it is true, from the
standpoint of the interest of the stockholders; but with these the general interest is
sacrificed, the door opened to speculation, and the exploitation of the public by monopoly
The ideal system would be one uniting the advantages of both methods
without presenting any of their shortcomings. Now, the means of realizing these
contradictory characteristics? the means of breathing zeal, economy, penetration into
these irremovable officers who have nothing to gain or to lose? the means of rendering the
interests of the public as dear to a corporation as its own, of making these interests
veritably its own, and still keeping it distinct from the State and having consequently
its private interests? Who is there, in the official world, that conceives the necessity
and therefore the possibility of such a reconciliation? much more, then, who possesses its
In such an emergency the government, as usual, has chosen the course of
eclecticism; it has taken a part of the administration for itself and left the rest to the
corporations; that is, instead of reconciling the contraries, it has placed them exactly
in conflict. And the press, which in all things is precisely on a par with power in the
matter of wit,--the press, dividing itself into three fractions, has decided, one for the
ministerial compromise, another for the exclusion of the State, and the third for the
exclusion of the corporations. So that today no more than before do the public or M.
Arago, in spite of their somersault, know what they want.
What a herd is the French nation in this nineteenth century, with its
three powers, its press, its scientific bodies, its literature, its instruction! A hundred
thousand men, in our country, have their eyes constantly open upon everything that
interests national progress and the country's honor. Now, propound to these hundred
thousand men the simplest question of public order, and you may be assured that all will
rush pell-mell into the same absurdity.
Is it better that the promotion of officials should be governed by merit
or by length of service?
Certainly there is no one who would not like to see this double method
of estimating capacities blended into one. What a society it would be in which the rights
of talent would be always in harmony with those of age! But, they say, such perfection is
utopian, for it is contradictory in its statement. And instead of seeing that it is
precisely the contradiction which makes the thing possible, they begin to dispute over the
respective value of the two opposed systems, which, each leading to the absurd, equally
give rise to intolerable abuses.
Who shall be the judge of merit? asks one: the government. Now, the
government recognizes merit only in its creatures. Therefore no promotion by choice, none
of that immoral system which destroys the independence and the dignity of the
But, says another, length of service is undoubtedly very respectable. It
is a pity that it has the disadvantage of rendering stagnant things which are essentially
voluntary and free,--labor and thought; of creating obstacles to power even among its
agents, and of bestowing upon chance, often upon incapacity, the reward of genius and
Finally they compromise: to the government is accorded the power of
appointing arbitrarily to a certain number of offices pretended men of merit, who are
supposed to have no need of experience, while the rest, apparently deemed incapable, are
promoted in turn. And the press, that ambling old nag of all presumptuous mediocrities,
which generally lives only by the gratuitous compositions of young people as destitute of
talent as of acquired knowledge, hastens to begin again its attacks upon power, accusing
it,--not without reason too,--here of favoritism, there of routine.
Who could hope ever to do anything to the satisfaction of the press?
After having declaimed and gesticulated against the enormous size of the budget, here it
is clamoring for increased salaries for an army of officials, who, to tell the truth,
really have not the wherewithal to live. Now it is the teachers, of high and low grade,
who make their complaints heard through its columns; now it is the country clergy, so
insufficiently paid that they have been forced to maintain their fees, a fertile source of
scandal and abuse. Then it is the whole administrative nation, which is neither lodged,
nor clothed, nor warmed, nor fed: it is a million men with their families, nearly an
eighth of the population, whose poverty brings shame upon France and for whom one hundred
million dollars should at once be added to the budget. Note that in this immense personnel
there is not one man too many; on the contrary, if the population grows, it will increase
proportionally. Are you in a position to tax the nation to the extent of four hundred
million dollars? Can you take, out of an average income of $184 for four persons,
$47.25--more than one-fourth--to pay, together with the other expenses of the State, the
salaries of the non-productive laborers? And if you cannot, if you can neither pay your
expenses nor reduce them, what do you want? of what do you complain?
Let the people know it, then, once for all: all the hopes of reduction
and equity in taxation, with which they are lulled by turns by the harangues of power and
the diatribes of party leaders, are so many mystifications; the tax cannot be reduced, nor
can its assessment be more equitable, under the monopoly system. On the contrary, the
lower the condition of the citizen becomes, the heavier becomes his tax; that is
inevitable, irresistible, in spite of the avowed design of the legislator and the repeated
efforts of the treasury. Whoever cannot become or remain rich, whoever has entered the
cavern of misfortune, must make up his mind to pay in proportion to his poverty: Lasciate
ogni speranza, voi ch' entrate.
Taxation, then, police,--henceforth we shall not separate these two
ideas,--is a new source of pauperism; taxation aggravates the subversive effects of the
preceding antinomies,--division of labor, machinery, competition, monopoly. It attacks the
laborer in his liberty and in his conscience, in his body and in his soul, by parasitism,
vexations, the frauds which it prompts, and the punishments which follow them.
Under Louis XIV. the smuggling of salt alone caused annually thirty-
seven hundred domiciliary seizures, two thousand arrests of men, eighteen hundred of
women, sixty-six hundred of children, eleven hundred seizures of horses, fifty
confiscations of carriages, and three hundred condemnations to the galleys. And this,
observes the historian, was the result of one tax alone,--the salt-tax. What, then, was
the total number of unfortunates imprisoned, tortured, expropriated, on account of the
In England, out of every four families, one is unproductive, and that is
the family which enjoys an abundance. What an advantage it would be for the working-class,
you think, if this leprosy of parasitism should be removed! Undoubtedly, in theory, you
are right; in practice, the suppression of parasitism would be a calamity. Though
one-fourth of the population of England is unproductive, another fourth of the same
population is at work for it: now, what would these laborers do, if they should suddenly
lose the market for their products? An absurd supposition, you say. Yes, an absurd
supposition, but a very real supposition, and one which you must admit precisely because
it is absurd. In France a standing army of five hundred thousand men, forty thousand
priests, twenty thousand doctors, eighty thousand lawyers, and I know not how many hundred
thousand other nonproducers of every sort, constitute an immense market for our
agriculture and our manufactures. Let this market suddenly close, and manufactures will
stop, commerce will go into bankruptcy, and agriculture will be smothered beneath its
But how is it conceivable that a nation should find its market clogged
because of having got rid of its useless mouths? Ask rather why an engine, whose
consumption has been figured at six hundred pounds of coal an hour, loses its power if it
is given only three hundred. But again, might not these non-producers be made producers,
since we cannot get rid of them? Eh! child: tell me, then, how you will do without police,
and monopoly, and competition, and all the contradictions, in short, of which your order
of things is made up. Listen.
In 1844, at the time of the troubles in Rive-de-Gier, M. Anselme Petetin
published in the "Revue Independante" two articles, full of reason and
sincerity, concerning the anarchy prevailing in the conduct of the coal mines in the basin
of the Loire. M. Petetin pointed out the necessity of uniting the mines and centralizing
their administration. The facts which he laid before the public were not unknown to power;
has power troubled itself about the union of the mines and the organization of that
industry? Not at all. Power has followed the principle of free competition; it has let
alone and looked on.
Since that time the mining companies have combined, not without causing
some anxiety to consumers, who have seen in this combination a plot to raise the price of
fuel. Will power, which has received numerous complaints upon this subject, intervene to
restore competition and prevent monopoly? It cannot do it; the right of combination is
identical in law with the right of association; monopoly is the basis of our society, as
competition is its conquest; and, provided there is no riot, power will let alone and look
on. What other course could it pursue? Can it prohibit a legally established commercial
association? Can it oblige neighbors to destroy each other? Can it forbid them to reduce
their expenses? Can it establish a maximum? If power should do any one of these things, it
would overturn the established order. Power, therefore, can take no initiative: it is
instituted to defend and protect monopoly and competition at once, within the limitations
of patents, licenses, land taxes, and other bonds which it has placed upon property. Apart
from these limitations power has no sort of right to act in the name of society. The
social right is not defined; moreover, it would be a denial of monopoly and competition.
How, then, could power take up the defence of that which the law did not foresee or
define, of that which is the opposite of the rights recognized by the legislator?
Consequently, when the miner, whom we must consider in the events of
Rive-de-Gier as the real representative of society against the mine- owners, saw fit to
resist the scheme of the monopolists by defending his wages and opposing combination to
combination, power shot the miner down. And the political brawlers accused authority,
saying it was partial, ferocious, sold to monopoly, etc. For my part, I declare that this
way of viewing the acts of authority seems to me scarcely philosophical, and I reject it
with all my energies. It is possible that they might have killed fewer people, possible
also that they might have killed more: the fact to be noticed here is not the number of
dead and wounded, but the repression of the workers. Those who have criticised authority
would have done as it did, barring perhaps the impatience of its bayonets and the accuracy
of its aim: they would have repressed, I say; they would not have been able to do anything
else. And the reason, which it would be vain to try to brush aside, is that competition is
legal, joint-stock association is legal, supply and demand are legal, and all the
consequences which flow directly from competition, joint-stock association, and free
commerce are legal, whereas workingmen's strikes are ILLEGAL. And it is not only the penal
code which says this, but the economic system, the necessity of the established order. As
long as labor is not sovereign, it must be a slave; society is possible only on this
condition. That each worker individually should have the free disposition of his person
and his arms may be tolerated; but that the workers should undertake, by
combinations, to do violence to monopoly society cannot permit. Crush monopoly, and you
abolish competition, and you disorganize the workshop, and you sow dissolution everywhere.
Authority, in shooting down the miners, found itself in the position of Brutus placed
between his paternal love and his consular duties: he had to sacrifice either his children
or the republic. The alternative was horrible, I admit; but such is the spirit and letter
of the social compact, such is the tenor of the charter, such is the order of Providence.
 The new law regarding service-books has confined the
independence of workers within narrower limits. The democratic press has again thundered
its indignation this subject against those in power, as if they had been guilty of
anything more than the application of the principles of authority and property, which are
those of democracy. What the Chambers have done in regard to service-books was inevitable,
and should have been expected. It is as impossible for a society founded on the
proprietary principle not to end in class distinctions as for a democracy to avoid
despotism, for a religion to be reasonable, for fanaticism to show tolerance. This is the
law of contradiction: how long will it take us to understand it?
Thus the police function, instituted for the defence of the proletariat,
is directed entirely against the proletariat. The proletaire is driven from the forests,
from the rivers, from the mountains; even the cross- roads are forbidden him; soon he will
know no road save that which leads to prison.
The advance in agriculture has made the advantage of artificial meadows
and the necessity of abolishing common land generally felt. Everywhere communal lands are
being cleared, let, enclosed; new advances, new wealth. But the poor day-laborer, whose
only patrimony is the communal land and who supports a cow and several sheep in summer by
letting them feed along the roads, through the underbrush, and over the stripped fields,
will lose his sole and last resource. The landed proprietor, the purchaser or farmer of
the communal lands, will alone thereafter sell, with his wheat and vegetables, milk and
cheese. Instead of weakening an old monopoly, they create a new one. Even the road-
laborers reserve for themselves the edges of the roads as a meadow belonging to them, and
drive off all non-administrative cattle. What follows? That the day-laborer, before
abandoning his cow, lets it feed in contravention of the law, becomes a marauder, commits
a thousand depredations, and is punished by fine and imprisonment: of what use to him are
police and agricultural progress? Last year the mayor of Mulhouse, to prevent
grape-stealing, forbade every individual not an owner of vines to travel by day or night
over roads running by or through vineyards,--a charitable precaution, since it prevented
even desires and regrets. But if the public highway is nothing but an accessory of private
property; if the communal lands are converted into private property; if the public domain,
in short, assimilated to private property, is guarded, exploited, leased, and sold like
private property,--what remains for the proletaire? Of what advantage is it to him that
society has left the state of war to enter the regime of police?
Industry, as well as land, has its privileges,--privileges consecrated
by the law, as always, under conditions and reservations, but, as always also, to the
great disadvantage of the consumer. The question is interesting; we will say a few words
I quote M. Renouard.
"Privileges," says M. Renouard, "were a corrective of
I ask M. Renouard's permission to translate his thought by reversing his
phrase: Regulation was a corrective of privilege. For whoever says regulation says
limitation: now, how conceive of limiting privilege before it existed? I can conceive a
sovereign submitting privileges to regulations; but I cannot at all understand why he
should create privileges expressly to weaken the effect of regulations. There is nothing
to prompt such a concession; it would be an effect without a cause. In logic as well as in
history, everything is appropriated and monopolized when laws and regulations arrive: in
this respect civil legislation is like penal legislation. The first results from
possession and appropriation, the second from the appearance of crimes and offences. M.
Renouard, preoccupied with the idea of servitude inherent in all regulation, has
considered privilege as a compensation for this servitude; and it was this which led him
to say that PRIVILEGES ARE A CORRECTIVE OF REGULATION. But what M. Renouard adds proves
that he meant the opposite:
The fundamental principle of our legislation, that of granting temporary
monopoly as a condition of a contract between society and the laborer, has always
What is, in reality, this grant of a monopoly? A simple acknowledgment,
a declaration. Society, wishing to favor a new industry and enjoy the advantages which it
promises, BARGAINS with the inventor, as it has bargained with the farmer; it guarantees
him the monopoly of his industry for a time; but it does not create the monopoly. The
monopoly exists by the very fact of the invention; and the acknowledgment of the monopoly
is what constitutes society.
This ambiguity cleared up, I pass to the contradictions of the law.
All industrial nations have adopted the establishment of a temporary
monopoly as a condition of a contract between society and the inventor. . . . . I do not
take readily to the belief that all legislators of all countries have committed robbery.
M. Renouard, if ever he reads this work, will do me the justice to admit
that, in quoting him, I do not criticise his thought; he himself has perceived the
contradictions of the patent law. All that I pretend is to connect this contradiction with
the general system.
Why, in the first place, a TEMPORARY monopoly in manufacture, while land
monopoly is PERPETUAL? The Egyptians were more logical; with them these two monopolies
were alike hereditary, perpetual, inviolable. I know the considerations which have
prevailed against the perpetuity of literary property, and I admit them all; but these
considerations apply equally well to property in land; moreover, they leave intact all the
arguments brought forward against them. What, then, is the secret of all these variations
of the legislator? For the rest, I do not need to say that, in pointing out this
inconsistency, it is not my purpose either to slander or to satirize; I admit that the
course of the legislator is determined, not by his will, but by necessity.
But the most flagrant contradiction is that which results from the
enacting section of the law. Title IV, article 30, % 3, reads: "If the patent relates
to principles, methods, systems, discoveries, theoretical or purely scientific
conceptions, without indicating their industrial applications, the patent is void."
Now, what is a PRINCIPLE, a METHOD, a THEORETICAL CONCEPTION, a SYSTEM?
It is the especial fruit of genius, it is invention in its purity, it is the idea, it is
everything. The application is the gross fact, nothing. Thus the law excludes from the
benefit of the patent the very thing which deserves it,--namely, the idea; on the
contrary, it grants a patent to the application,--that is, to the material fact, to a
pattern of the idea, as Plato would have said. Therefore it is wrongly called a PATENT FOR
INVENTION; it should be called a PATENT FOR FIRST OCCUPANCY.
In our day, if a man had invented arithmetic, algebra, or the decimal
system, he would have obtained no patent; but Bareme would have had a right of property in
his Computations. Pascal, for his theory of the weight of the atmosphere, would not have
been patented; instead of him, a glazier would have obtained the privilege of the
barometer. I quote M. Arago:
After two thousand years it occurred to one of our fellow-countrymen
that the screw of Archimedes, which is used to raise water, might be employed in forcing
down gases; it suffices, without making any change, to turn it from right to left, instead
of turning it, as when raising water, from left to right. Large volumes of gas, charged
with foreign substances, are thus forced into water to a great depth; the gas is purified
in rising again. I maintain that there was an invention; that the person who saw a way to
make the screw of Archimedes a blowing machine was entitled to a patent.
What is more extraordinary is that Archimedes himself would thus be
obliged to buy the right to use his screw; and M. Arago considers that just.
It is useless to multiply these examples: what the law meant to
monopolize is, as I said just now, not the idea, but the fact; not the invention, but the
occupancy. As if the idea were not the category which includes all the facts that express
it; as if a method, a system, were not a generalization of experiences, and consequently
that which properly constitutes the fruit of genius,--invention! Here legislation is more
than anti-economic, it borders on the silly. Therefore I am entitled to ask the legislator
why, in spite of free competition, which is nothing but the right to apply a theory, a
principle, a method, a non-appropriable system, he forbids in certain cases this same
competition, this right to apply a principle?" It is no longer possible," says
M. Renouard, with strong reason, "to stifle competitors by combining in corporations
and guilds; the loss is supplied by patents." Why has the legislator given hands to
this conspiracy of monopolies, to this interdict upon theories belonging to all?
But what is the use of continually questioning one who can say nothing?
The legislator did not know in what spirit he was acting when he made this strange
application of the right of property, which, to be exact, we ought to call the right of
priority. Let him explain himself, then, at least, regarding the clauses of the contract
made by him, in our name, with the monopolists.
I pass in silence the part relating to dates and other administrative
and fiscal formalities, and come to this article:
The patent does not guarantee the invention.
Doubtless society, or the prince who represents it, cannot and should
not guarantee the invention, since, in granting a monopoly for fourteen years, society
becomes the purchaser of the privilege, and consequently it is for the patentee to furnish
the guarantee. How, then, can legislators proudly say to their constituents: "We have
negotiated in your name with an inventor; he pledges himself to give you the enjoyment of
his discovery on condition of having the exclusive exploitation for fourteen years. But we
do not guarantee the invention"? On what, then, have you relied, legislators? How did
you fail to see that, without a guarantee of the invention, you conceded a privilege, not
for a real discovery, but for a possible discovery, and that thus the field of industry
was given up by you before the plough was found? Certainly, your duty bade you to be
prudent; but who gave you a commission to be dupes?
Thus the patent for invention is not even the fixing of a date; it is an
abandonment in anticipation. It is as if the law should say: "I assure the land to
the first occupant, but without guaranteeing its quality, its location, or even its
existence; not even knowing whether I ought to give it up or that it falls within the
domain of appropriation!" A pretty use of the legislative power!
I know that the law had excellent reasons for abstaining; but I maintain
that it also had good reasons for intervening. Proof:
"It cannot be concealed," says M. Renouard, "it cannot be
prevented; patents are and will be instruments of quackery as well as a legitimate reward
of labor and genius. . . . It is for the good sense of the public to do justice to
As well say it is for the good sense of the public to distinguish true
remedies from false, pure wine from adulterated; or, it is for the good sense of the
public to distinguish in a buttonhole the decoration awarded to merit from that
prostituted to mediocrity and intrigue. Why, then, do you call yourselves the State,
Power, Authority, Police, if the work of Police must be performed by the good sense of the
As the proverb says, he who owns land must defend it; likewise, he who
holds a privilege is liable to attack.
Well! how will you judge the counterfeit, if you have no guarantee? In
vain will they offer you the plea: in right first occupancy, in fact similarity. Where
reality depends upon quality, not to demand a guarantee is to grant no right over
anything, is to take away the means of comparing processes and identifying the
counterfeit. In the matter of industrial processes success depends upon such trifles! Now,
these trifles are the whole.
I infer from all this that the law regarding patents for inventions,
indispensable so far as its motives are concerned, is impossible--that is, illogical,
arbitrary, disastrous--in its economy. Under the control of certain necessities the
legislator has thought best, in the general interest, to grant a privilege for a definite
thing; and he finds that he has given a signature-in-blank to monopoly, that he has
abandoned the chances which the public had of making the discovery or some other similar
to it, that he has sacrificed the rights of competitors without compensation, and
abandoned the good faith of defenceless consumers to the greed of quacks. Then, in order
that nothing might be lacking to the absurdity of the contract, he has said to those whom
he ought to guarantee: "Guarantee yourselves!"
I do not believe, any more than M. Renouard, that the legislators of all
ages and all countries have wilfully committed robbery in sanctioning the various
monopolies which are pivotal in public economy. But M. Renouard might well also agree with
me that the legislators of all ages and all countries have never understood at all their
own decrees. A deaf and blind man once learned to ring the village bells and wind the
village clock. It was fortunate for him, in performing his bell- ringer's functions, that
neither the noise of the bells nor the height of the bell-tower made him dizzy. The
legislators of all ages and all countries, for whom I profess, with M. Renouard, the
profoundest respect, resemble that blind and deaf man; they are the Jacks-in-the-
clock-house of all human follies.
What a feather it would be in my cap if I should succeed in making these
automata reflect! if I could make them understand that their work is a Penelope's web,
which they are condemned to unravel at one end as fast as they weave at the other!
Thus, while applauding the creation of patents, on other points they
demand the abolition of privileges, and always with the same pride, the same satisfaction.
M. Horace Say wishes trade in meat to be free. Among other reasons he puts forward this
strictly mathematical argument:
The butcher who wants to retire from business seeks a purchaser for his
investment; he figures in the account his tools, his merchandise, his reputation, and his
custom; but under the present system, he adds to these the value of the bare title,--that
is, the right to share in a monopoly. Now, this supplementary capital which the purchasing
butcher gives for the title bears interest; it is not a new creation; this interest must
enter into the price of his meat. Hence the limitation of the number of butchers' stalls
has a tendency to raise the price of meat rather than lower it.
I do not fear to affirm incidentally that what I have just said about
the sale of a butcher's stall applies to every charge whatever having a salable title.
M. Horace Say's reasons for the abolition of the butcher's privilege are
unanswerable; moreover, they apply to printers, notaries, attorneys, process-servers,
clerks of courts, auctioneers, brokers, dealers in stocks, druggists, and others, as well
as to butchers. But they do not destroy the reasons which have led to the adoption of
these monopolies, and which are generally deduced from the need of security, authenticity,
and regularity in business, as well as from the interests of commerce and the public
health. The object, you say, is not attained. My God! I know it: leave the butcher's trade
to competition, and you will eat carrion; establish a monopoly in the butcher's trade, and
you will eat carrion. That is the only fruit you can hope for from your monopoly and
Abuses! cry the protective economists. Establish over commerce a
supervisory police, make trade-marks obligatory, punish the adulteration of products, etc.
In the path upon which civilization has entered, whichever way we turn,
we always end, then, either in the despotism of monopoly, and consequently the oppression
of consumers, or else in the annihilation of privilege by the action of the police, which
is to go backwards in economy and dissolve society by destroying liberty. Marvellous
thing! in this system of free industry, abuses, like lice, being generated by their own
remedies, if the legislator should try to suppress all offences, be on the watch against
all frauds, and secure persons, property, and the public welfare against any attack, going
from reform to reform, he would finally so multiply the non-productive functions that the
entire nation would be engaged in them, and that at last there would be nobody left to
produce. Everybody would be a policeman; the industrial class would become a myth. Then,
perhaps, order would reign in monopoly.
"The principle of the law yet to be made concerning
trade-marks," says M. Renouard, "is that these marks cannot and should not be
transformed into guarantees of quality."
This is a consequence of the patent law, which, as we have seen, does
not guarantee the invention. Adopt M. Renouard's principle; after that of what use will
marks be? Of what importance is it to me to read on the cork of a bottle, instead of
TWELVE-CENT WINE or FIFTEEN-CENT WINE, WINE-DRINKERS' COMPANY or the name of any other
concern you will? What I care for is not the name of the merchant, but the quality and
fair price of the merchandise.
The name of the manufacturer is supposed, it is true, to serve as a
concise sign of good or bad manufacture, of superior or inferior quality. Then why not
frankly take part with those who ask, besides the mark of ORIGIN, a mark significant of
something? Such a reservation is incomprehensible. The two sorts of marks have the same
purpose; the second is only a statement or paraphrase of the first, a condensation of the
merchant's prospectus; why, once more, if the origin signifies something, should not the
mark define this significance?
M. Wolowski has very clearly developed this argument in his opening
lecture of 1843-44, the substance of which lies entirely in the following analogy:
Just as the government has succeeded in determining a standard of
QUANTITY, it may, it should also fix a standard of QUALITY; one of these standards is the
necessary complement of the other. The monetary unit, the system of weights and measures,
have not infringed upon industrial liberty; no more would it be damaged by a system of
M. Wolowski then supports himself on the authority of the princes of the
science, A. Smith and J. B. Say,--a precaution always useful with hearers who bow to
authority much more than to reason.
I declare, for my part, that I thoroughly share M. Wolowski's idea, and
for the reason that I find it profoundly revolutionary. The trade-mark, being, according
to M. Wolowski's expression, nothing but a standard of qualities, is equivalent in my eyes
to a general scheduling of prices. For, whether a particular administration marks in the
name of the State and guarantees the quality of the merchandise, as is the case with gold
and silver, or whether the matter of marking is left to the manufacturer, from the moment
that the mark must give THE INTRINSIC COMPOSITION OF THE MERCHANDISE (these are M.
Wolowski's own words) AND GUARANTEE THE CONSUMER AGAINST ALL SURPRISE, it necessarily
resolves itself into a fixed price. It is not the same thing as price; two similar
products, but differing in origin and quality, may be of equal value, as a bottle of
Burgundy may be worth a bottle of Bordeaux; but the mark, being significant, leads to an
exact knowledge of the price, since it gives the analysis. To calculate the price of an
article of merchandise is to decompose it into its constituent parts; now, that is exactly
what the trade-mark must do, if designed to signify anything. Therefore we are on the
road, as I have said, to a general scheduling of prices.
But a general scheduling of prices is nothing but a determination of all
values, and here again political economy comes into conflict with its own principles and
tendencies. Unfortunately, to realize M. Wolowski's reform, it is necessary to begin by
solving all the previous contradictions and enter a higher sphere of association; and it
is this absence of solution which has brought down upon M. Wolowski's system the
condemnation of most of his fellow-economists.
In fact, the system of trade-marks is inapplicable in the existing
order, because this system, contrary to the interests of the manufacturers and repugnant
to their habits, could be sustained only by the energetic will of power. Suppose for a
moment that the administration be charged with affixing the marks; its agents will have to
interpose continually in the work of manufacture, as it interposes in the liquor business
and the manufacture of beer; further, these agents, whose functions seem already so
intrusive and annoying, deal only with taxable quantities, not with exchangeable
qualities. These fiscal supervisors and inspectors will have to carry their investigation
into all details in order to repress and prevent fraud; and what fraud? The legislator
will have defined it either incorrectly or not at all; it is at this point that the task
There is no fraud in selling wine of the poorest quality, but there is
fraud in passing off one quality for another; then you are obliged to differentiate the
qualities of wines, and consequently to guarantee them. Is it fraudulent to mix wines?
Chaptal, in his treatise on the art of making wine, advises this as eminently useful; on
the other hand, experience proves that certain wines, in some way antagonistic to each
other or incompatible, produce by their mixture a disagreeable and unhealthy drink. Then
you are obliged to say what wines can be usefully mixed, and what cannot. Is it fraudulent
to aromatize, alcoholize, and water wines? Chaptal recommends this also; and everybody
knows that this drugging produces sometimes advantageous results, sometimes pernicious and
detestable effects. What substances will you proscribe? In what cases? In what proportion?
Will you prohibit chicory in coffee, glucose in beer, water, cider, and three-six alcohol
The Chamber of Deputies, in the rude attempt at a law which it was
pleased to make this year regarding the adulteration of wines, stopped in the very middle
of its work, overcome by the inextricable difficulties of the question. It succeeded in
declaring that the introduction of water into wine, and of alcohol above the proportion of
eighteen per cent., was fraudulent, and in putting this fraud into the category of
offences. It was on the ground of ideology; there one never meets an obstacle. But
everybody has seen in this redoubling of severity the interest of the treasury much more
than that of the consumer; the Chamber did not dare to create a whole army of
wine-tasters, inspectors, etc., to watch for fraud and identify it, and thus load the
budget with a few extra millions; in prohibiting watering and alcoholization, the only
means left to the merchant-manufacturers of putting wine within the reach of all and
realizing profits, it did not succeed in increasing the market by a decrease in
production. The chamber, in a word, in prosecuting the adulteration of wines, has simply
set back the limits of fraud. To make its work accomplish its purpose it would first have
to show how the liquor trade is possible without adulteration, and how the people can buy
unadulterated wine,--which is beyond the competency and escapes the capacity of the
If you wish the consumer to be guaranteed, both as to value and as to
healthfulness, you are forced to know and to determine all that constitutes good and
honest production, to be continually at the heels of the manufacturer, and to guide him at
every step. He no longer manufactures; you, the State, are the real manufacturer.
Thus you find yourself in a trap. Either you hamper the liberty of
commerce by interfering in production in a thousand ways, or you declare yourself sole
producer and sole merchant.
In the first case, through annoying everybody, you will finally cause
everybody to rebel; and sooner or later, the State getting itself expelled, trade-marks
will be abolished. In the second you substitute everywhere the action of power for
individual initiative, which is contrary to the principles of political economy and the
constitution of society. Do you take a middle course? It is favor, nepotism, hypocrisy,
the worst of systems.
Suppose, now, that the marking be left to the manufacturer. I say that
then the marks, even if made obligatory, will gradually lose their SIGNIFICANCE, and at
last become only proofs of ORIGIN. He knows but little of commerce who imagines that a
merchant, a head of a manufacturing enterprise, making use of processes that are not
patentable, will betray the secret of his industry, of his profits, of his existence. The
significance will then be a delusion; it is not in the power of the police to make it
otherwise. The Roman emperors, to discover the Christians who dissembled their religion,
obliged everybody to sacrifice to the idols. They made apostates and martyrs; and the
number of Christians only increased. Likewise significant marks, useful to some houses,
will engender innumerable frauds and repressions; that is all that can be expected of
them. To induce the manufacturer to frankly indicate the intrinsic composition--that is,
the industrial and commercial value--of his merchandise, it is necessary to free him from
the perils of competition and satisfy his monopolistic instincts: can you do it? It is
necessary, further, to interest the consumer in the repression of fraud, which, so long as
the producer is not utterly disinterested, is at once impossible and contradictory.
Impossible: place on the one hand a depraved consumer, China; on the other a desperate
merchant, England; between them a venomous drug causing excitement and intoxication; and,
in spite of all the police in the world, you will have trade in opium. Contradictory: in
society the consumer and the producer are but one,--that is, both are interested in the
production of that which it is injurious to them to consume; and as, in the case of each,
consumption follows production and sale, all will combine to guard the first interest,
leaving it to each to guard himself against the second.
The thought which prompted trade-marks is of the same character as that
which formerly inspired the maximum laws. Here again is one of the innumerable cross-roads
of political economy.
It is indisputable that maximum laws, though made and supported by their
authors entirely as a relief from famine, have invariably resulted in an aggravation of
famine. Accordingly it is not injustice or malice with which the economists charge these
abhorred laws, but stupidity, inexpediency. But what a contradiction in the theory with
which they oppose them!
To relieve famine it is necessary to call up provisions, or, to put it
better, to bring them to light; so far there is nothing to reproach. To secure a supply of
provisions it is necessary to attract the holders by profits, excite their competition,
and assure them complete liberty in the market: does not this process strike you as the
absurdest homoeopathy? How is it that the more easily I can be taxed the sooner I shall be
provided? Let alone, they say, let pass; let competition and monopoly act, especially in
times of famine, and even though famine is the effect of competition and monopoly. What
logic! but, above all, what morality!
But why, then, should there not be a tariff for farmers as well as for
bakers? Why not a registration of the sowing, of the harvest, of the vintage, of the
pasturage, and of the cattle, as well as a stamp for newspapers, circulars, and orders, or
an administration for brewers and wine-merchants? Under the monopoly system this would be,
I admit, an increase of torments; but with our tendencies to unfairness in trade and the
disposition of power to continually increase its personnel and its budget, a law of
inquisition regarding crops is becoming daily more indispensable.
Besides, it would be difficult to say which, free trade or the maximum,
causes the more evil in times of famine.
But, whichever course you choose,--and you cannot avoid the
alternative,--the deception is sure and the disaster immense. With the maximum goods seek
concealment; the terror increasing from the very effect of the law, the price of
provisions rises and rises; soon circulation stops, and the catastrophe follows, as prompt
and pitiless as a band of plunderers. With competition the progress of the scourge is
slower, but no less fatal: how many deaths from exhaustion or hunger before the high
prices attract food to the market! how many victims of extortion after it has arrived! It
is the story of the king to whom God, in punishment for his pride, offered the alternative
of three days' pestilence, three months' famine, or three years' war. David chose the
shortest; the economists prefer the longest. Man is so miserable that he would rather end
by consumption than by apoplexy; it seems to him that he does not die as much. This is the
reason why the disadvantages of the maximum and the benefits of free trade have been so
For the rest, if France during the last twenty-five years has
experienced no general famine, the cause is not in the liberty of commerce, which knows
very well, when it wishes, how to produce scarcity in the midst of plenty and how to make
famine prevail in the bosom of abundance; it is in the improvement in the methods of
communication, which, shortening distances, soon restore the equilibrium disturbed for a
moment by local penury. A striking example of that sad truth that in society the general
welfare is never the effect of a conspiracy of individual wills!
The farther we delve into this system of illusory compromises between
monopoly and society,--that is, as we have explained in % 1 of this chapter, between
capital and labor, between the patriciate and the proletariat,--the more we discover that
it is all foreseen, regulated, and executed in accordance with this infernal maxim, with
which Hobbes and Machiavel, those theorists of despotism, were unacquainted: EVERYTHING BY
THE PEOPLE AND AGAINST THE PEOPLE. While labor produces, capital, under the mask of a
false fecundity, enjoys and abuses; the legislator, in offering his mediation, thought to
recall the privileged class to fraternal feelings and surround the laborer with
guarantees; and now he finds, by the fatal contradiction of interests, that each of these
guarantees is an instrument of torture. It would require a hundred volumes, the life of
ten men, and a heart of iron, to relate from this standpoint the crimes of the State
towards the poor and the infinite variety of its tortures. A summary glance at the
principal classes of police will be enough to enable us to estimate its spirit and
After having sown trouble in all minds by a confusion of civil,
commercial, and administrative laws, made the idea of justice more obscure by multiplying
contradictions, and rendered necessary a whole class of interpreters for the explanation
of this system, it has been found necessary also to organize the repression of crimes and
provide for their punishment. Criminal justice, that particularly rich order of the great
family of non-producers, whose maintenance costs France annually more than six million
dollars, has become to society a principle of existence as necessary as bread is to the
life of man; but with this difference,--that man lives by the product of his hands, while
society devours its members and feeds on its own flesh.
It is calculated by some economists that there is,
In London . . 1 criminal to every 89 inhabitants.
In Liverpool . . 1 " " " 45 "
In Newcastle . . 1 " " " 27 "
But these figures lack accuracy, and, utterly frightful as they seem, do
not express the real degree of social perversion due to the police. We have to determine
here not only the number of recognized criminals, but the number of offences. The work of
the criminal courts is only a special mechanism which serves to place in relief the moral
destruction of humanity under the monopoly system; but this official exhibition is far
from including the whole extent of the evil. Here are other figures which will lead us to
a more certain approximation.
The police courts of Paris disposed,
In 1835 . . . . of 106,467 cases.
In 1836 . . . . " 128,489 "
In 1837 . . . . " 140,247 "
Supposing this rate of increase to have continued up to 1846, and to
this total of misdemeanors adding the cases of the criminal courts, the simple matters
that go no further than the police, and all the offences unknown or left
unpunished,--offences far surpassing in number, so the magistrates say, those which
justice reaches,--we shall arrive at the conclusion that in one year, in the city of
Paris, there are more infractions of the law committed than there are inhabitants. And as
it is necessary to deduct from the presumable authors of these infractions children of
seven years and under, who are outside the limits of guilt, the figures will show that
every adult citizen is guilty, three or four times a year, of violating the established
Thus the proprietary system is maintained at Paris only by the annual
consummation of one or two millions of offences! Now, though all these offences should be
the work of a single man, the argument would still hold good: this man would be the
scapegoat loaded with the sins of Israel: of what consequence is the number of the guilty,
provided justice has its contingent?
Violence, perjury, robbery, cheating, contempt of persons and society,
are so much a part of the essence of monopoly; they flow from it so naturally, with such
perfect regularity, and in accordance with laws so certain,--that it is possible to submit
their perpetration to calculation, and, given the number of a population, the condition of
its industry, and the stage of its enlightenment, to rigorously deduce therefrom the
statistics of its morality. The economists do not know yet what the principle of value is;
but they know, within a few decimals, the proportionality of crime. So many thousand
souls, so many malefactors, so many condemnations: about that there can be no mistake. It
is one of the most beautiful applications of the theory of chances, and the most advanced
branch of economic science. If socialism had invented this accusing theory, the whole
world would have cried calumny.
Yet, after all, what is there in it that should surprise us? As misery
is a necessary result of the contradictions of society, a result which it is possible to
determine mathematically from the rate of interest, the rate of wages, and the prevailing
market-prices, so crimes and misdemeanors are another effect of this same antagonism,
susceptible, like its cause, of estimation by figures. The materialists have drawn the
silliest inferences from this subordination of liberty to the laws of numbers: as if man
were not under the influence of all that surrounds him, and as if, since all that
surrounds him is governed by inexorable laws, he must not experience, in his freest
manifestations, the reaction of those laws!
The same character of necessity which we have just pointed out in the
establishment and sustenance of criminal justice is found, but under a more metaphysical
aspect, in its morality.
In the opinion of all moralists, the penalty should be such as to secure
the reformation of the offender, and consequently free from everything that might cause
his degradation. Far be it from me to combat this blessed tendency of minds and disparage
attempts which would have been the glory of the greatest men of antiquity. Philanthropy,
in spite of the ridicule which sometimes attaches to its name, will remain, in the eyes of
posterity, the most honorable characteristic of our time: the abolition of the death
penalty, which is merely postponed; the abolition of the stigma; the studies regarding the
effects of the cellular system; the establishment of workshops in the prisons; and a
multitude of other reforms which I cannot even name,--give evidence of real progress in
our ideas and in our morals. What the author of Christianity, in an impulse of sublime
love, related of his mystical kingdom, where the repentant sinner was to be glorified
above the just and the innocent man,--that utopia of Christian charity has become the
aspiration of our sceptical society; and when one thinks of the unanimity of feeling which
prevails in respect to it, he asks himself with surprise who then prevents this aspiration
from being realized.
Alas! it is because reason is still stronger than love, and logic more
tenacious than crime; it is because here as everywhere in our civilization there reigns an
insoluble contradiction. Let us not wander into fantastic worlds; let us embrace, in all
its frightful nudity, the real one.
Le crime fait la honte, et non pas l'echafaud,
says the proverb. By the simple fact that man is punished, provided he
deserved to be, he is degraded: the penalty renders him infamous, not by virtue of the
definition of the code, but by reason of the fault which caused the punishment. Of what
importance, then, is the materiality of the punishment? of what importance all your
penitentiary systems? What you do is to satisfy your feelings, but is powerless to
rehabilitate the unfortunate whom your justice strikes. The guilty man, once branded by
chastisement, is incapable of reconciliation; his stain is indelible, and his damnation
eternal. If it were possible for it to be otherwise, the penalty would cease to be
proportional to the offence; it would be no more than a fiction, it would be nothing. He
whom misery has led to larceny, if he suffers himself to fall into the hands of justice,
remains forever the enemy of God and men; better for him that he had never been born; it
was Jesus Christ who said it: Bonum erat ei, si natus non fuisset homo ille. And what
Jesus Christ declared, Christians and infidels do not dispute: the irreparability of shame
is, of all the revelations of the Gospel, the only one which the proprietary world has
understood. Thus, separated from nature by monopoly, cut off from humanity by poverty, the
mother of crime and its punishment, what refuge remains for the plebeian whom labor cannot
support, and who is not strong enough to take?
 The crime makes the shame, and not the scaffold. --Translator.
To conduct this offensive and defensive war against the proletariat a
public force was indispensable: the executive power grew out of the necessities of civil
legislation, administration, and justice. And there again the most beautiful hopes have
changed into bitter disappointments.
As legislator, as burgomaster, and as judge, the prince has set himself
up as a representative of divine authority. A defender of the poor, the widow, and the
orphan, he has promised to cause liberty and equality to prevail around the throne, to
come to the aid of labor, and to listen to the voice of the people. And the people have
thrown themselves lovingly into the arms of power; and, when experience has made them feel
that power was against them, instead of blaming the institution, they have fallen to
accusing the prince, ever unwilling to understand that, the prince being by nature and
destination the chief of non-producers and greatest of monopolists, it was impossible for
him, in spite of himself, to take up the cause of the people.
All criticism, whether of the form or the acts of government, ends in
this essential contradiction. And when the self-styled theorists of the sovereignty of the
people pretend that the remedy for the tyranny of power consists in causing it to emanate
from popular suffrage, they simply turn, like the squirrel, in their cage. For, from the
moment that the essential conditions of power--that is, authority, property,
hierarchy--are preserved, the suffrage of the people is nothing but the consent of the
people to their oppression,--which is the silliest charlatanism.
In the system of authority, whatever its origin, monarchical or
democratic, power is the noble organ of society; by it society lives and moves; all
initiative emanates from it; order and perfection are wholly its work. According to the
definitions of economic science, on the contrary,--definitions which harmonize with the
reality of things,-- power is the series of non-producers which social organization must
tend to indefinitely reduce. How, then, with the principle of authority so dear to
democrats, shall the aspiration of political economy, an aspiration which is also that of
the people, be realized? How shall the government, which by the hypothesis is everything,
become an obedient servant, a subordinate organ? Why should the prince have received power
simply to weaken it, and why should he labor, with a view to order, for his own
elimination? Why should he not try rather to fortify himself, to add to his courtiers, to
continually obtain new subsidies, and finally to free himself from dependence on the
people, the inevitable goal of all power originating in the people?
It is said that the people, naming its legislators and through them
making its will known to power, will always be in a position to arrest its invasions; that
thus the people will fill at once the role of prince and that of sovereign. Such, in a
word, is the utopia of democrats, the eternal mystification with which they abuse the
But will the people make laws against power; against the principle of
authority and hierarchy, which is the principle upon which society is based; against
liberty and property? According to our hypothesis, this is more than impossible, it is
contradictory. Then property, monopoly, competition, industrial privileges, the inequality
of fortunes, the preponderance of capital, hierarchical and crushing centralization,
administrative oppression, legal absolutism, will be preserved; and, as it is impossible
for a government not to act in the direction of its principle, capital will remain as
before the god of society, and the people, still exploited, still degraded, will have
gained by their attempt at sovereignty only a demonstration of their powerlessness.
In vain do the partisans of power, all those dynastico-republican
doctrinaires who are alike in everything but tactics, flatter themselves that, once in
control of affairs, they will inaugurate reform everywhere. Reform what?
Reform the constitution? It is impossible. Though the entire nation
should enter the constitutional convention, it would not leave it until it had either
voted its servitude under another form, or decreed its dissolution.
Reconstruct the code, the work of the emperor, the pure substance of
Roman law and custom? It is impossible. What have you to put in the place of your
proprietary routine, outside of which you see and understand nothing? in the place of your
laws of monopoly, the limits of whose circle your imagination is powerless to overstep?
More than half a century ago royalty and democracy, those two sibyls which the ancient
world has bequeathed to us, undertook, by a constitutional compromise, to harmonize their
oracles; since the wisdom of the prince has placed itself in unison with the voice of the
people, what revelation has resulted? what principle of order has been discovered? what
issue from the labyrinth of privilege pointed out? Before prince and people had signed
this strange compromise, in what were their ideas not similar? and now that each is trying
to break the contract, in what do they differ?
Diminish public burdens, assess taxes on a more equitable basis? It is
impossible: to the treasury as to the army the man of the people will always furnish more
than his contingent.
Regulate monopoly, bridle competition? It is impossible; you would kill
Open new markets? It is impossible.
Organize credit? It is impossible.
Attack heredity? It is impossible.
 See volume II., chapter IX.
 Ibid., chapter X.
 Ibid., chapter XI.
Create national workshops, assure a minimum to unemployed workmen, and
assign to employees a share of the profits? It is impossible. It is in the nature of
government to be able to deal with labor only to enchain laborers, as it deals with
products only to levy its tithe.
Repair, by a system of indemnities, the disastrous effects of machinery?
It is impossible.
Combat by regulations the degrading influence of parcellaire division?
It is impossible.
Cause the people to enjoy the benefits of education? It is impossible.
Establish a tariff of prices and wages, and fix the value of things by
sovereign authority? It is impossible, it is impossible.
Of all the reforms which society in its distress solicits not one is
within the competence of power; not one can be realized by it, because the essence of
power is repugnant to them all, and it is not given to man to unite what God has divided.
At least, the partisans of governmental initiative will say, you will
admit that, in the accomplishment of the revolution promised by the development of
antinomies, power would be a potent auxiliary. Why, then, do you oppose a reform which,
putting power in the hands of the people, would second your views so well? Social reform
is the object; political reform is the instrument: why, if you wish the end, do you reject
Such is today the reasoning of the entire democratic press, which I
forgive with all my heart for having at last, by this quasi-socialistic confession of
faith, itself proclaimed the emptiness of its theories. It is in the name of science,
then, that democracy calls for a political reform as a preliminary to social reform. But
science protests against this subterfuge as an insult; science repudiates any alliance
with politics, and, very far from expecting from it the slightest aid, must begin with
politics its work of exclusion.
How little affinity there is between the human mind and truth! When I
see the democracy, socialistic but yesterday, continually asking for capital in order to
combat capital's influence; for wealth, in order to cure poverty; for the abandonment of
liberty, in order to organize liberty; for the reformation of government, in order to
reform society,--when I see it, I say, taking upon itself the responsibility of society,
provided social questions be set aside or solved, it seems to me as if I were listening to
a fortune-teller who, before answering the questions of those who consult her, begins by
inquiring into their age, their condition, their family, and all the accidents of their
life. Eh! miserable sorceress, if you know the future, you know who I am and what I want;
why do you ask me to tell you?
Likewise I will answer the democrats: If you know the use that you
should make of power, and if you know how power should be organized, you possess economic
science. Now, if you possess economic science, if you have the key of its contradictions,
if you are in a position to organize labor, if you have studied the laws of exchange, you
have no need of the capital of the nation or of public force. From this day forth you are
more potent than money, stronger than power. For, since the laborers are with you, you are
by that fact alone masters of production; you hold commerce, manufactures, and agriculture
enchained; you have the entire social capital at your disposition; you have full control
of taxation; you block the wheels of power, and you trample monopoly under foot. What
other initiative, what greater authority, do you ask? What prevents you from applying your
Surely not political economy, although generally followed and
accredited: for, everything in political economy having a true side and a false side, your
only problem is to combine the economic elements in such a way that their total shall no
longer present a contradiction.
Nor is it the civil law: for that law, sanctioning economic routine
solely because of its advantages and in spite of its disadvantages, is susceptible, like
political economy itself, of being bent to all the exigencies of an exact synthesis, and
consequently is as favorable to you as possible.
Finally, it is not power, which, the last expression of antagonism and
created only to defend the law, could stand in your way only by forswearing itself.
Once more, then, what stops you?
If you possess social science, you know that the problem of association
consists in organizing, not only the NON-PRODUCERS,--in that direction, thank heaven!
little remains to be done,--but also the PRODUCERS, and by this organization subjecting
capital and subordinating power. Such is the war that you have to sustain: a war of labor
against capital; a war of liberty against authority; a war of the producer against the
non-producer; a war of equality against privilege. What you ask, to conduct the war to a
successful conclusion, is precisely that which you must combat. Now, to combat and reduce
power, to put it in its proper place in society, it is of no use to change the holders of
power or introduce some variation into its workings: an agricultural and industrial
combination must be found by means of which power, today the ruler of society, shall
become its slave. Have you the secret of that combination?
But what do I say? That is precisely the thing to which you do not
consent. As you cannot conceive of society without hierarchy, you have made yourselves the
apostles of authority; worshippers of power, you think only of strengthening it and
muzzling liberty; your favorite maxim is that the welfare of the people must be achieved
in spite of the people; instead of proceeding to social reform by the extermination of
power and politics, you insist on a reconstruction of power and politics. Then, by a
series of contradictions which prove your sincerity, but the illusory character of which
is well known to the real friends of power, the aristocrats and monarchists, your
competitors, you promise us, in the name of power, economy in expenditures, an equitable
assessment of taxes, protection to labor, gratuitous education, universal suffrage, and
all the utopias repugnant to authority and property. Consequently power in your hands has
never been anything but ruinous, and that is why you have never been able to retain it;
that is why, on the Eighteenth of Brumaire, four men were sufficient to take
it away from you, and why today the bourgeoisie, which is as fond of power as you are and
which wants a strong power, will not restore it to you.
 Date of the Napoleonic coup d'Etat, according to the
Thus power, the instrument of collective might, created in society to
serve as a mediator between labor and privilege, finds itself inevitably enchained to
capital and directed against the proletariat. No political reform can solve this
contradiction, since, by the confession of the politicians themselves, such a reform would
end only in increasing the energy and extending the sphere of power, and since power would
know no way of touching the prerogatives of monopoly without overturning the hierarchy and
dissolving society. The problem before the laboring classes, then, consists, not in
capturing, but in subduing both power and monopoly,--that is, in generating from the
bowels of the people, from the depths of labor, a greater authority, a more potent fact,
which shall envelop capital and the State and subjugate them. Every proposition of reform
which does not satisfy this condition is simply one scourge more, a rod doing sentry duty,
virgam vigilantem, as a prophet said, which threatens the proletariat.
The crown of this system is religion. There is no occasion for me to
deal here with the philosophic value of religious opinions, relate their history, or seek
their interpretation. I confine myself to a consideration of the economic origin of
religion, the secret bond which connects it with police, the place which it occupies in
the series of social manifestations.
Man, despairing of finding the equilibrium of his powers, leaps, as it
were, outside of himself and seeks in infinity that sovereign harmony the realization of
which is to him the highest degree of reason, power, and happiness. Unable to harmonize
with himself, he kneels before God and prays. He prays, and his prayer, a hymn sung to
God, is a blasphemy against society.
It is from God, man says to himself, that authority and power come to
me: then, let us obey God and the prince. Obedite Deo et principibus. It is from God that
law and justice come to me. Per me reges regnant et potentes decernunt justitiam. Let us
respect the commands of the legislator and the magistrate. It is God who controls the
prosperity of labor, who makes and unmakes fortunes: may his will be done! Dominus dedit,
Dominus abstulit, sit nomen Domini benedictum. It is God who punishes me when misery
devours me, and when I am persecuted for righteousness's sake: let us receive with respect
the scourges which his mercy employs for our purification. Humiliamini igitur sub potenti
manu Dei. This life, which God has given me, is but an ordeal which leads me to salvation:
let us shun pleasure; let us love and invite pain; let us find our pleasure in doing
penance. The sadness which comes from injustice is a favor from on high; blessed are they
that mourn! Beati qui lugent! . . . . Haec est enim gratia, si quis sustinet tristitias,
A century ago a missionary, preaching before an audience made up of
financiers and grandees, did justice to this odious morality. "What have I
done?" he cried, with tears. "I have saddened the poor, the best friends of my
God! I have preached the rigors of penance to unfortunates who want for bread! It is here,
where my eyes fall only on the powerful and on the rich, on the oppressors of suffering
humanity, that I must launch the word of God in all the force of its thunder!"
Let us admit, nevertheless, that the theory of resignation has served
society by preventing revolt. Religion, consecrating by divine right the inviolability of
power and of privilege, has given humanity the strength to continue its journey and
exhaust its contradictions. Without this bandage thrown over the eyes of the people
society would have been a thousand times dissolved. Some one had to suffer that it might
be cured; and religion, the comforter of the afflicted, decided that it should be the poor
man. It is this suffering which has led us to our present position; civilization, which
owes all its marvels to the laborer, owes also to his voluntary sacrifice its future and
its existence. Oblatus est quia ipse voluit, et livore ejus sanati sumus.
O people of laborers! disinherited, harassed, proscribed people! people
whom they imprison, judge, and kill! despised people, branded people! Do you not know that
there is an end, even to patience, even to devotion? Will you not cease to lend an ear to
those orators of mysticism who tell you to pray and to wait, preaching salvation now
through religion, now through power, and whose vehement and sonorous words captivate you?
Your destiny is an enigma which neither physical force, nor courage of soul, nor the
illuminations of enthusiasm, nor the exaltation of any sentiment, can solve. Those who
tell you to the contrary deceive you, and all their discourses serve only to postpone the
hour of your deliverance, now ready to strike. What are enthusiasm and sentiment, what is
vain poesy, when confronted with necessity? To overcome necessity there is nothing but
necessity itself, the last reason of nature, the pure essence of matter and spirit.
Thus the contradiction of value, born of the necessity of free will,
must be overcome by the proportionality of value, another necessity produced by the union
of liberty and intelligence. But, in order that this victory of intelligent and free labor
might produce all its consequences, it was necessary that society should pass through a
long succession of torments.
It was a necessity that labor, in order to increase its power, should be
divided; and a necessity, in consequence of this division, that the laborer should be
degraded and impoverished.
It was a necessity that this original division should be reconstructed
by scientific instruments and combinations; and a necessity, in consequence of this
reconstruction, that the subordinated laborer should lose, together with his legitimate
wages, even the exercise of the industry which supported him.
It was a necessity that competition then should step in to emancipate
liberty on the point of perishing; and a necessity that this deliverance should end in a
vast elimination of laborers.
It was a necessity that the producer, ennobled by his art, as formerly
the warrior was by arms, should bear aloft his banner, in order that the valor of man
might be honored in labor as in war; and a necessity that of privilege should straightway
be born the proletariat.
It was a necessity that society should then take under its protection
the conquered plebeian, a beggar without a roof; and a necessity that this protection
should be converted into a new series of tortures.
We shall meet on our way still other necessities, all of which will
disappear, like the others, before greater necessities, until shall come at last the
general equation, the supreme necessity, the triumphant fact, which must establish the
kingdom of labor forever.
But this solution cannot result either from surprise or from a vain
compromise. It is as impossible to associate labor and capital as to produce without labor
and without capital; as impossible to establish equality by power as to suppress power and
equality and make a society without people and without police.
There is a necessity, I repeat, of a MAJOR FORCE to invert the actual
formulas of society; a necessity that the LABOR of the people, not their valor nor their
votes, should, by a scientific, legitimate, immortal, insurmountable combination, subject
capital to the people and deliver to them power.