-
THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND THAT WHICH
IS NOT SEEN by Frederic
Bastiat
-
THAT WHICH IS SEEN THAT WHICH IS NOT
SEEN
-
In the department of economy, an act, a habit, an
-
institution, a law, gives birth not
only to an effect, but to a series
-
of effects. Of these effects, the first
only is immediate; it
-
manifests itself simultaneously with
its cause -it is seen. The others
-
unfold in succession -they are not
seen: it is well for us, if they
-
are foreseen. Between a good and a
bad economist this constitutes
-
the whole difference -the one takes
account of the visible effect; the
-
other takes account both of the effects
which are seen, and also of
-
those which it is necessary to foresee.
Now this difference is
-
enormous, for it almost always happens
that when the immediate
-
consequence is favourable, the ultimate
consequences are fatal, and
-
the converse. Hence it follows that
the bad economist pursues a
-
small present good, which will be followed
by a great evil to come,
-
while the true economist pursues a
great good to come, -at the risk of
-
a small present evil.
-
In fact, it is the same in the science of health, arts, and
-
in that of morals. It often happens,
that the sweeter the first
-
fruit of a habit is, the more bitter
are the consequences. Take, for
-
example, debauchery, idleness, prodigality.
When, therefore, a man
-
absorbed in the effect which is seen
has not yet learned to discern
-
those which are not seen, he gives
way to fatal habits, not only by
-
inclination, but by calculation.
-
This explains the fatally grievous condition of mankind.
-
Ignorance surrounds its cradle: then
its actions are determined by
-
their first consequences, the only
ones which, in its first stage,
-
it can see. It is only in the long
run that it learns to take
-
account of the others. It has to learn
this lesson from two very
-
different masters-experience and foresight.
Experience teaches
-
effectually, but brutally. It makes
us acquainted with all the effects
-
of an action, by causing us to feel
them; and we cannot fail to finish
-
by knowing that fire burns, if we have
burned ourselves. For this
-
rough teacher, I should like, if possible,
to substitute a more gentle
-
one. I mean Foresight. For this purpose
I shall examine the
-
consequences of certain economical
phenomena, by placing in opposition
-
to each other those which are seen,
and those which are not seen.
-
I. -THE BROKEN WINDOW
-
Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James
-
B., when his careless son happened
to break a square of glass? If
-
you have been present at such a scene,
you will most assuredly bear
-
witness to the fact, that every one
of the spectators, were there even
-
thirty of them, by common consent apparently,
offered the
-
unfortunate owner this invariable consolation
-"It is an ill wind that
-
blows nobody good. Everybody must live,
and what would become of the
-
glaziers if panes of glass were never
broken?"
-
Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which
-
it will be well to show up in this
simple case, seeing that it is
-
precisely the same as that which, unhappily,
regulates the greater
-
part of our economical institutions.
-
Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say
-
that the accident brings six francs
to the glazier's trade -that it
-
encourages that trade to the amount
of six francs -I grant it; I
-
have not a word to say against it;
you reason justly. The -lazier
-
comes, performs his task, receives
his six francs, rubs Ms hands, and,
-
in his heart, blesses the careless
child. All this is that which is
-
seen.
-
But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is
-
too often the case, that it is a good
thing to break windows, that
-
it causes money to circulate, and that
the encouragement of industry
-
in general will be the result of it,
you will oblige me to call out,
-
"Stop there! your theory is confined
to that which is seen; it takes
-
no account of that which is not seen."
-
It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon
-
one thing, he cannot spend them upon
another. It is not seen that if
-
he had not had a window to replace,
he would, perhaps, have replaced
-
his old shoes, or added another book
to his library. In short, he
-
would have employed his six francs
in some way, which this accident
-
has prevented.
-
Let us take a view of industry in general, as affected by
-
this circumstance. The window being
broken, the glazier's trade is
-
encouraged to the amount of six francs;
this is that which is seen. If
-
the window had not been broken, the
shoemaker's trade (or some
-
other) would have been encouraged to
the amount of six francs; this is
-
that which is not seen.
-
And if that which is -not seen is taken into consideration,
-
because it is a negative fact, as well
as that which is seen,
-
because it is a positive fact, it will
be understood that neither
-
industry in general, nor the sum total
of national labour, is
-
affected, whether windows are broken
or not.
-
Now let us consider James B. himself. In the former
-
supposition, that of the window being
broken, he spends six francs,
-
and has neither more nor less than
he had before, the enjoyment of a
-
window.
-
In the second, where we suppose the window not to have been
-
broken, he would have spent six francs
on shoes, and would have had at
-
the same time the enjoyment of a pair
of shoes and of a window.
-
Now, as James B. forms a part of society, we must come to the
-
conclusion, that, taking it altogether,
and making an estimate of
-
its enjoyments and its labours, it
has lost the value of the broken
-
window.
-
When we arrive at this unexpected conclusion: "Society loses
-
the value of things which are uselessly
destroyed;" and we must assent
-
to a maxim which will make the hair
of protectionists stand on end -To
-
break, to spoil, to waste, is not to
encourage national labour; nor,
-
more briefly, "destruction is not profit."
-
What will you say, Monsieur Industriel --what will you say,
-
disciples of good M. F. Chamans, who
has calculated with so much
-
precision how much trade would gain
by the burning of Paris, from
-
the number of houses it would be necessary
to rebuild?
-
I am sorry to disturb these ingenious calculations, as far as
-
their spirit has been introduced into
our legislation; but I beg him
-
to begin them again, by taking into
the account that which is not
-
seen, and placing it alongside of that
which is seen. The reader
-
must take care to remember that there
are not two persons only, but
-
three concerned in the little scene
which I have submitted to his
-
attention. One of them, James B., represents
the consumer, reduced, by
-
an act of destruction, to one enjoyment
instead of two. Another
-
under the title of the glazier, shows
us the producer, whose trade
-
is encouraged by the accident. The
third is the shoemaker (or some
-
other tradesman), whose labour suffers
proportionably by the same
-
cause. It is this third person who
is always kept in the shade, and
-
who, personating that which is not
seen, is a necessary element of the
-
problem. It is he who shows us how
absurd it is to think we see a
-
profit in an act of destruction. It
is he who will soon teach us
-
that it is not less absurd to see a
profit in a restriction, which is,
-
after all, nothing else than a partial
destruction. Therefore, if
-
you will only go to the root of all
the arguments which are adduced in
-
its favour, all you will find will
be the paraphrase of this vulgar
-
saying -What would become of the glaziers,
if nobody ever broke
-
windows?
II. THE DISBANDING OF TROOPS.
-
It is the same with a people as it is with a man. If it
-
wishes to give itself some gratification,
it naturally considers
-
whether it is worth what it costs.
To a nation, security is the
-
greatest of advantages. If, in order
to obtain it, it is necessary
-
to have an -army of a hundred thousand
men, I have nothing to say
-
against it. It is an enjoyment bought
by a sacrifice. Let me not be
-
misunderstood upon the extent of my
position. A member of the assembly
-
proposes to disband a hundred thousand
men, for the sake of
-
relieving the tax-payers of a hundred
millions.
-
If we confine ourselves to this answer -"The hundred millions
-
of men, and these hundred millions
of money, are indispensable to
-
the national security: it is a sacrifice;
but without this
-
sacrifice, France would be torn by
factions, or invaded by some
-
foreign power," -I have nothing to
object to this argument, which
-
may be true or false in fact, but which
theoretically contains nothing
-
which militates against economy. The
error begins when the sacrifice
-
itself is said to be an advantage because
it profits somebody.
-
Now I am very much mistaken if, the moment the author of the
-
proposal has taken his seat, some orator
will not rise and say
-
-"Disband a hundred thousand men! do
you know what you are saying?
-
What will become of them? Where will
they get a living? Don't you know
-
that work is scarce everywhere? That
every field is overstocked? Would
-
you turn them out of doors to increase
competition, and weigh upon the
-
rate of wages? Just now, when it is
a hard matter to live at all, it
-
would be a pretty thing if the State
must find bread for a hundred
-
thousand individuals? Consider, besides,
that the army consumes
-
wine, clothing, arms -that it promotes
the activity of manufactures in
-
garrison townsthat it is, in short,
the god-send of innumerable
-
purveyors. Why, any one must tremble
at the bare idea of doing away
-
with this immense industrial movement."
-
This discourse, it is evident, concludes by voting the
-
maintenance of a hundred thousand soldiers,
for reasons drawn from the
-
necessity of the service, and from
economical considerations. It is
-
these considerations only that I have
to refute.
-
A hundred thousand men, costing the tax-payers a hundred
-
millions of money, live and bring to
the purveyors as much as a
-
hundred millions can supply. This is
that which is seen.
-
But, a hundred millions taken from the pockets of the
-
tax-payers, cease to maintain these
taxpayers and the purveyors, as
-
far as a hundred minions reach. This
is that which is not seen. Now
-
make your calculations. Cast up, and
tell me what profit there is
-
for the masses?
-
I will tell you where the loss lies; and to simplify it,
-
instead of speaking of a hundred thousand
men and a million of
-
money, it shall be of one man, and
a thousand francs.
-
We will suppose that we are in the village of A. The recruiting
-
sergeants go their round, and take
off a man. The tax-gatherers go
-
their round, and take off a thousand
francs. The man and the sum of
-
money are taken to Metz, and the latter
is destined to support the
-
former for a year without doing anything.
If you consider Metz only,
-
you are quite right; the measure is
a very advantageous one: but if
-
you look towards the village of A.,
you will judge very differently;
-
for, unless you are very blind indeed,
you will see that that
-
village has lost a worker, and the
thousand francs which would
-
remunerate his labour, as well as the
activity which, by the
-
expenditure of those thousand francs,
it would spread around it.
-
At first sight, there would seem to be some compensation.
-
What took place at the village, now
takes place at Metz, that is
-
all. But the loss is to be estimated
in this way: -At the village, a
-
man dug and worked; he was a worker.
At Metz, he turns to the right
-
about, and to the left about; he is
a soldier. The money and the
-
circulation are the same in both cases;
but in the one there were
-
three hundred days of productive labour;
in the other, there are three
-
hundred days of unproductive labour,
supposing, of course, that a part
-
of the army is not indispensable to
the public safety.
-
Now, suppose the disbanding to take place. You tell me there
-
will be a surplus of a hundred thousand
workers, that competition will
-
be stimulated, and it will reduce the
rate of wages. This is what
-
you see.
-
But what you do not see is this. You do not see that to dismiss
-
a hundred thousand soldiers is not
to do away with a million of money,
-
but to return it to the tax-payers.
You do not see that to throw a
-
hundred thousand workers on the market,
is to throw into it, at the
-
same moment, the hundred millions of
money needed to pay for their
-
labour; that, consequently, the same
act which increases the supply of
-
hands, increases also the demand; from
which it follows, that your
-
fear of a reduction of wages is unfounded.
You do not see that, before
-
the disbanding as well as after it,
there are in the country a hundred
-
millions of money corresponding with
the hundred thousand men. That
-
the whole difference consists in this:
before the disbanding, the
-
country gave the hundred millions to
the hundred thousand men for
-
doing nothing; and that after it, it
pays them the same sum for
-
working. You do not see, in short,
that when a tax-payer gives his
-
money either to a soldier in exchange
for nothing, or to a worker in
-
exchange for something, all the ultimate
consequences of the
-
circulation of this money are the same
in the two cases; only, in
-
the second case, the tax-payer receives
something, in the former he
-
receives nothing. The result is -a
dead loss to the nation.
-
The sophism which I am here combating will not stand the test
-
of progression, which is the touchstone
of principles. If, when
-
every compensation is made, and all
interests are-satisfied, there
-
is a national profit in increasing
the army, why not enroll under
-
its banners the entire male population
of the country?
-
III. TAXES
-
Have you ever chanced to hear it said "There is no better
-
investment than taxes. Only see what
a number of families it
-
maintains, and consider how it reacts
on industry; it is an
-
inexhaustible stream, it is life itself."
-
In order-to combat this doctrine, I must refer to my
-
preceding refutation. Political economy
knew well enough that its
-
arguments were not so amusing that
it could be said of them,
-
repetitions please. It has, therefore,
turned the proverb to its own
-
use, well convinced that, in its mouth.
repetitions teach.
-
The advantages which officials advocate are those which are
-
seen. The benefit which accrues to
the providers is still that which
-
is seen. This blinds all eyes.
-
But the disadvantages which the tax-payers have to get rid of
-
are those which are not seen. And the
injury which results from it
-
to the providers, is still that which
is not seen, although this ought
-
to be self-evident.
-
When an official spends for his own profit an extra hundred
-
sous, it implies that a tax-payer spends
for his profit a hundred sous
-
less. But the expense of the official
is seen, because the act is
-
performed, while that of the tax-payer
is not seen, because, alas!
-
he is prevented from performing it.
-
You compare the nation, perhaps, to a parched tract of land,
-
and the tax to a fertilizing rain.
Be it so. But you ought also to ask
-
yourself where are the sources of this
rain and whether it is not
-
the tax itself which draws away the
moisture from the ground and dries
-
it up?
-
Again, you ought to ask yourself whether it is possible that
-
the soil can receive as much of this
precious water by rain as it
-
loses by evaporation?
-
There is one thing very certain, that when James B. counts
-
out a hundred sous for the tax-gatherer,
he receives nothing in
-
return. Afterwards, when an official
spends these hundred sous and
-
returns them to James B., it is for
an equal value of corn or
-
labour. The final result is a loss
to James B. of five francs.
-
It is very true that often, perhaps very often, the official
-
performs for James B. an equivalent
service. In this case there is
-
no loss on either side; there is merely
in exchange. Therefore, my
-
arguments do not at all apply to useful
functionaries. All I say is,
-
-if you wish to create an office, prove
its utility. Show that its
-
value to James B., by the services
which it performs for him, is equal
-
to what it costs him. But, apart from
this intrinsic utility, do not
-
bring forward as an argument the benefit
which it confers upon the
-
official, his family, and his providers;
do not assert that it
-
encourages labour.
-
When James B. gives a hundred pence to a Government officer,
-
for a really useful service, it is
exactly the same as when he gives a
-
hundred sous to a shoemaker for a pair
of shoes.
-
But when James B. gives a hundred sous to a Government officer,
-
and receives nothing for them unless
it be annoyances, he might as
-
well give them to a thief. It is nonsense
to say that the Government
-
officer will spend these hundred sous
to the great profit of
-
national labour; the thief would do
the same; and so would James B.,
-
if he had not been stopped on the road
by the extra -legal parasite,
-
nor by the lawful sponger.
-
Let us accustom ourselves, then, to avoid judging of things
-
by what is seen only, but to judge
of them by that which is not seen.
-
Last year I was on the Committee of Finance, for under the
-
constituency the members of the opposition
were not systematically
-
excluded from all the Commissions:
in that the constituency acted
-
wisely. We have heard M. Thiers say
-"I have passed my life in
-
opposing the legitimist party, and
the priest party. Since the
-
common danger has brought us together,
now that I associate with
-
them and know them, and now that we
speak face to face, I have found
-
out that they are not the monsters
I used to imagine them."
-
Yes, distrust is exaggerated, hatred is fostered among
-
parties who never mix; and if the majority
would allow the minority to
-
be present at the Commissions, it would
perhaps be discovered that the
-
ideas of the different sides are not
so far removed from each other,
-
and, above all, that their intentions
are not so perverse as is
-
supposed. However, last year I was
on the Committee -of Finance. Every
-
time that one of our colleagues spoke
of fixing at a moderate figure
-
the maintenance of the President of
the Republic, that of the
-
ministers, and of the ambassadors,
it was answered-
-
"For the good of the service, it is necessary to surround
-
certain offices with splendour and
dignity, as a means of attracting
-
men of merit to them. A vast number
of unfortunate persons apply to
-
the President of the Republic, and
it would be placing him in a very
-
painful position to oblige him to be
constantly refusing them. A
-
certain style in the ministerial saloons
is a part of the machinery of
-
constitutional Governments."
-
Although such arguments may be controverted, they certainly
-
deserve a serious examination. They
are based upon the public
-
interest, whether rightly estimated
or not; and as far as I am
-
concerned, I have much more respect
for them than many of our Catos
-
have, who are actuated by a narrow
spirit of parsimony or of jealousy.
-
But what revolts the economical part of my conscience, and
-
makes me blush for the intellectual
resources of my country, is when
-
this absurd relic of feudalism is brought
forward, which it constantly
-
is, and it is favourably received too:-
-
"Besides, the luxury of great Government officers encourages
-
the arts, industry, and labour. The
head of the State and his
-
ministers cannot give banquets and
soirees without causing life to
-
circulate through all the veins of
the social body. To reduce their
-
means, would starve Parisian industry,
and consequently that of the
-
whole nation.
-
"I must beg you,
gentlemen, to pay some little regard to
-
arithmetic, at least; and not to say
before the National Assembly in
-
France, lest to its shame it should
agree with you, that an addition
-
gives a different sum, according to
whether it is added up from the
-
bottom to the top, or from the top
to the bottom of the column.
-
For instance, I want to agree with a drainer to make a trench
-
in my field for a hundred sous. Just
as we have concluded our
-
arrangement, the tax-gatherer comes,
takes my hundred sous, and
-
sends them to the Minister of the Interior;
my bargain is at end,
-
but the Minister will have another
dish added to his table. Upon
-
what ground will you dare to affirm
that this official expense helps
-
the national industry? Do you not see,
that in this there is only a
-
reversing of satisfaction and labour?
A Minister has his table
-
better covered, it is true, but it
is just as true that an
-
agriculturist has his field worse drained.
A Parisian tavern-keeper
-
has gained a hundred sous,I grant you;
but then you must grant me that
-
a drainer has been prevented from gaining
five francs. It all comes to
-
this, -that the official and the tavern-keeper
being satisfied, is
-
that which is seen; the field undrained,
and the drainer deprived of
-
his job, is that which is not seen.
Dear me! how much trouble there is
-
in proving that two and two make four;
and if you succeed in proving
-
it, it is said, "the thing is so plain
it is quite tiresome," and they
-
vote as if you had proved nothing at
all.
-
IV. -THEATRES
AND FINE ARTS
-
Ought the State to support the arts?
-
There is certainly much to be said on both sides of this
-
question. It may be said, in favor
of the system of voting supplies
-
for this purpose, that the arts enlarge,
elevate, and harmonize the
-
soul of a nation; that they divert
it from too great an absorption
-
in material occupations, encourage
in it a love for the beautiful, and
-
thus act favourably on its manners,
customs, morals, and even on its
-
-industry. It may be asked, what would
become of music in France
-
without her Italian theatre and her
Conservatoire; of the dramatic
-
art. without her Theatre-Francais;
of painting and sculpture,
-
without our collections, galleries,
and museums? It might even be
-
asked, whether, without centralization,
and consequently the support
-
of fine arts, that exquisite taste
would be developed which is the
-
noble appendage of French labour, and
which introduces its productions
-
to the whole world? In the face of
such results, would it not be the
-
height of imprudence to renounce this
moderate contribution from all
-
her citizens, which, in fact, in the
eyes of Europe, realizes their
-
superiority and their glory?
-
To these and many other reasons, whose force I do not
-
dispute, arguments no less forcible
may be opposed. It might, first of
-
all, be said, that there is a question
of distributive justice in
-
it. Does the right of the legislator
extend to abridging the wages
-
of the artisan, for the sake of adding
to the profits of the artist?
-
M. Lamartine said, "If you cease to
support the theatre, where will
-
you stop? Will you not necessarily
be led to withdraw your support
-
from your colleges, your museums, your
institutes, and your
-
libraries?" It might be answered, if
you desire to support
-
everything which is good and useful,
where will you stop? Will you not
-
necessarily be led to form a civil
list for agriculture, industry,
-
commerce, benevolence, education? Then,
is it certain that
-
government aid favours the progress
of art?
-
This question is far from being settled, and we see very well
-
that the theatres which prosper are
those which depend upon their
-
own resources. Moreover, if we come
to higher considerations, we may
-
observe, that wants and desires arise,
the one from the other, and
-
originate in regions which are more
and more refined in proportion
-
as the public wealth allows of their
being satisfied; that
-
Government ought not to take part in
this correspondence, because in a
-
certain condition of present fortune
it could not by taxation
-
stimulate the arts of necessity, without
checking those of luxury, and
-
thus interrupting the natural course
of civilization. I may observe,
-
that these artificial transpositions
of wants, tastes, labour, and
-
population, place the people in a precarious
and dangerous position,
-
without any solid basis.
-
These are some of the reasons alleged by the adversaries of
-
State intervention in what concerns
the order in which citizens
-
think their wants and desires should
be satisfied, and to which,
-
consequently, their activity should
be directed. I am, I confess,
-
one of those who think that choice
and impulse ought to come from
-
below and not from above, from the
citizen and not from the
-
legislator; and the opposite doctrine
appears to me to tend to the
-
destruction of liberty and of human
dignity.
-
But, by a deduction as false as it is unjust, do you know
-
what economists are accused of? It
is, that when we disapprove of
-
Government support, we are supposed
to disapprove of the thing
-
itself whose support is discussed;
and to be the enemies of every kind
-
of activity, because we desire to see
those activities, on the one
-
hand free, and on the other seeking
their own reward in themselves.
-
Thus, if we think that the State should
not interfere by taxation in
-
religious affairs, we are atheists.
If we think the State ought not to
-
interfere by taxation in education,
we are hostile to knowledge. If we
-
say that the State ought not by taxation
to give a fictitious value to
-
land, or to any particular branch of
industry, we are enemies to
-
property and labour. If we think that
the State ought not to support
-
artists, we are barbarians who look
upon the arts as useless.
-
Against such conclusions as these I protest with all my
-
strength. Far from entertaining the
absurd idea of doing away with
-
religion, education, property, labour,
and the arts, when we say
-
that the State ought to protect the
free development of all these
-
kinds of human activity, without helping
some of them at the expense
-
of others, -we think, on the contrary,
that all these living powers of
-
society would develop themselves more
harmoniously under the influence
-
of liberty; and that, under such an
influence no one of them would, as
-
is now the case, be a source of trouble,
of abuses, of tyranny, and
-
disorder.
-
Our adversaries consider, that an activity which is neither
-
aided by supplies, nor regulated by
Government, is an activity
-
destroyed. We think just the contrary.
Their faith is in the
-
legislator, not in mankind; ours is
in mankind, not in the legislator.
-
Thus M. Lamartine said, "Upon this principle we must abolish
-
the public exhibitions, which are the
honour and the wealth of this
-
country." But I would say to M. Lamartine,
-According to your way of
-
thinking, not to support is to abolish;
because, setting out upon
-
the maxim that nothing exists independently
of the will of the
-
State, you conclude that nothing lives
but what the State causes to
-
live. But I oppose to this assertion
the very example which you have
-
chosen, and beg you to remark, that
the grandest and noblest of
-
exhibitions, one which has been conceived
in the most liberal and
-
universal spirit -and I might even
make use of the term humanitary,
-
for it is no exaggeration -is the exhibition
now preparing in
-
London; the only one in which no Government
is taking any part, and
-
which is being paid for by no tax.
-
To return to the fine arts: -there are, I repeat, many strong
-
reasons to be brought, both for and
against the system of Government
-
assistance. The reader must see, that
the especial object of this work
-
leads me neither to explain these reasons,
nor to decide in their
-
favour, nor against them.
-
But M. Lamartine has advanced one argument which I cannot
-
pass by in silence, for it is closely
connected with this economic
-
study. "The economical question, as
regards theatres, is comprised
-
in one word -labour. It matters little
what is the nature of this
-
labour; it is as fertile, as productive
a labour as any other kind
-
of labour in the nation. The theatres
in France, you know, feed and
-
salary no less than 80,000 workmen
of different kinds; painters,
-
masons, decorators, costumers, architects,
&c., which constitute the
-
very life and movement of several parts
of this capital, and on this
-
account they ought to have your sympathies."
Your sympathies! say,
-
rather, your money.
-
And further on he says: "The pleasures of Paris are the
-
labour and the consumption of the provinces,
and the luxuries of the
-
rich are the wages and bread of 200,000
workmen of every
-
description, who live by the manifold
industry of the theatres on
-
the surface of the republic, and who
receive from these noble
-
pleasures, which render France illustrious,
the sustenance of their
-
lives and the necessaries of their
families and children. It is to
-
them that you will give 60,000 francs."
(Very well; very well. Great
-
applause.) For my part I am constrained
to say, "Very bad! Very
-
bad!" Confining his opinion, of course,
within the bounds of the
-
economical question which we are discussing.
-
Yes, it is to the workmen of the theatres that a part, at
-
least, of these 60,000 francs will
go; a few bribes, perhaps, may be
-
abstracted on the way. Perhaps, if
we were to look a little more
-
closely into the matter, we might find
that the cake had gone
-
another way, and that these workmen
were fortunate who had come in for
-
a few crumbs. But I will allow, for
the sake of argument, that the
-
entire sum does go to the painters,
decorators, &e.
-
This is that which is seen. But whence does it come? This is
-
the other side of the question, and
quite as important as the
-
former. Where do these 60, francs spring
from? and where would they go
-
if a vote of the Legislature did not
direct them first towards the Rue
-
Rivoli and thence towards the Rue Grenelle?
This is what is not
-
seen. Certainly, nobody will think
of maintaining that the legislative
-
vote has caused this sum to be hatched
in a ballot urn; that it is a
-
pure addition made to the national
wealth; that but for this
-
miraculous vote these 60,000 francs
would have been for ever invisible
-
and impalpable. It must be admitted
that all that the majority can do,
-
is to decide that they shall be taken
from one place to be sent to
-
another; and if they take one direction,
it is only because they
-
have been diverted from another.
-
This being the case, it is clear that the taxpayer, who has
-
contributed one franc, will no longer
have this franc at his own
-
disposal. It is clear that he will
be deprived of some gratification
-
to the amount of one franc; and that
the workman, whoever he may be,
-
who would have received it from him,
will be deprived of a benefit
-
to that amount. Let us not, therefore,
be led by a childish illusion
-
into believing that the vote of the
60,000 francs may add any thing
-
whatever to the well-being of the country,
and to the national labour.
-
It displaces enjoyments, it transposes
wages -that is all.
-
Will it be said that for one kind of gratification, and one
-
kind of labour, it substitutes more
urgent, more moral, more
-
reasonable gratifications and labour?
I might dispute this; I might
-
say, by taking 60,000 francs from the
tax-payers, you diminish tile
-
wages of labourers, drainers, carpenters,
blacksmiths, and increase in
-
proportion those of the singers.
-
There is nothing to prove that this latter class calls for more
-
sympathy than the former. M. Lamartine
does not say that it is so.
-
He himself says, that the labour of
the theatres is as fertile, as
-
productive as any other (not more so);
and this may be doubted; for
-
the best proof that the latter is not
so fertile as the former lies in
-
this, that the other is to be called
upon to assist it.
-
But this comparison between the value and the intrinsic merit
-
of different kinds of labour, forms
no part of my present subject. All
-
I have to do here is to show, that
if M. Lamartine and those persons
-
who commend his line of argument have
seen on one side the salaries
-
gained by the providers of the comedians,
they ought on the other to
-
have seen the salaries lost by the
providers of the taxpayers; for
-
want of this, they have exposed themselves
to ridicule by mistaking
-
a displacement for a gain. If they
were true to their doctrine,
-
there would be no limits to their demands
for Government aid; for that
-
which is true of one franc and of 60,000
is true, under parallel
-
circumstances, of a hundred millions
of francs.
-
When taxes are the subject of discussion, Gentlemen, you
-
ought to prove their utility by reasons
from the root of the matter,
-
but not by this unlucky assertion -"The
public expenses support the
-
working classes." This assertion disguises
the important fact, that
-
public expenses always supersede private
expenses, and that
-
therefore we bring a livelihood to
one workman instead of another, but
-
add nothing to the share of the working
class as a whole. Your
-
arguments are fashionable enough, but
they are too absurd to be
-
justified by anything like reason.
-
-
V. PUBLIC
WORKS
-
Nothing is more natural than that a nation, after having
-
assured itself that an enterprise will
benefit the community, should
-
have it executed by means of a general
assessment. But I lose
-
patience, I confess, when I hear this
economic blunder advanced in
-
support of such a project. "Besides,
it will be a means of creating
-
labour for the workmen."
-
The State opens a road, builds a palace, straightens a
-
street, cuts a canal; and so gives
work to certain workmen -this is
-
what is seen: but it deprives certain
other workmen of work, and
-
this is what is not seen.
-
The road is begun. A thousand workmen come every morning, leave
-
every evening, and take their wages
-this is certain. If the road
-
had not been decreed, if the supplies
had not been voted, these good
-
people would have had neither work
nor salary there; this also is
-
certain.
-
But is this all? does not the operation, as a whole, contain
-
something else? At the moment when
M. Dupin pronounces the emphatic
-
words, "The Assembly has adopted,"
do the millions descend
-
miraculously on a moon-beam into the
coffers of MM. Fould and
-
Bineau? In order that the evolution
may be complete, as it is said,
-
must not the State organise the receipts
as well as the expenditure?
-
must it not set its taxgatherers and
tax-payers to work, the former to
-
gather, and the latter to pay? Study
the question, now, in both its
-
elements. While you state the destination
given by the State to the
-
millions voted, do not neglect to state
also the destination which the
-
taxpayer would have given, bat cannot
now give, to the same. Then
-
you will understand that a public enterprise
is a coin with two sides.
-
Upon one is engraved a labourer at
work, with this device, that
-
which is seen; on the other is a labourer
out of work, with the
-
device, that which is not seen.
-
The sophism which this work is intended to refute, is the
-
more dangerous when applied to public
works, inasmuch as it serves
-
to justify the most wanton enterprises
and extravagance. When a
-
railroad or a bridge are of real utility,
it is sufficient to
-
mention this utility. But if it does
not exist, what do they do?
-
Recourse is had to this mystification:
"We must find work for the
-
workmen."
-
Accordingly, orders are given that the drains in the
-
Champ-de-Mars be made and unmade. The
great Napoleon, it is said,
-
thought he was doing a very philanthropic
work by causing ditches to
-
be made and then filled up. He said,
therefore, "What signifies the
-
result? All we want is to see wealth
spread among the labouring
-
classes."
-
But let us go to the root of the matter. We are deceived by
-
money. To demand the cooperation of
all the citizens in a common work,
-
in the form of money, is in reality
to demand a concurrence in kind;
-
for every one procures, by his own
labour, the sum to which he is
-
taxed. Now, if all the citizens were
to be called together, and made
-
to execute, in conjunction, a work
useful to all, this would be easily
-
understood; their reward would be found
in the results of the work
-
itself.
-
But after having called them together, if you force them to
-
make roads which no one will pass through,
palaces which no one will
-
inhabit, and this under the pretext
of finding them work, it would
-
be absurd, and they would have a right
to argue, "With this labour
-
we have nothing to do; we prefer working
on our own account."
-
A proceeding which consists in making the citizens cooperate in
-
giving money but not labour, does not,
in any way, alter the general
-
results. The only thing is, that the
loss would react upon all
-
parties. By the former, those whom
the State employs, escape their
-
part of the loss, by adding it to that
which their fellow-citizens
-
have already suffered.
-
There is an article in our constitution which says: -"Society
-
favours and encourages the development
of labour -by the establishment
-
of public works, by the State, the
departments, and the parishes, as a
-
means of employing persons who are
in want of work."
-
As a temporary measure, on any emergency, during a hard winter,
-
this interference with the tax-payers
may have its use. It acts in the
-
same way as securities. It adds nothing
either to labour or to
-
wages, but it takes labour and wages
from ordinary times to give them,
-
at a loss it is true, to times of difficulty.
-
As a permanent, general, systematic measure, it is nothing else
-
than a ruinous mystification, an impossibility,
which shows a little
-
excited labour which is seen, and bides
a great deal of prevented
-
labour which is not seen.
-
-
VI. MIDDLEMEN
-
-
Society is the aggregate of the forced or voluntary services
-
which men perform for each other; that
is to say, of public services
-
and private services.
-
The former, imposed and regulated by the law, which it is not
-
always easy to change, even when it
is desirable, may survive with
-
it their own usefulness, and still
preserve the name of public
-
services, even when they are no longer
services at all, but rather
-
public annoyances. The latter belong
to the sphere of the will, of
-
individual responsibility. Every one
gives and receives what he
-
wishes, and what he can, after a debate.
They have always the
-
presumption of real utility, in exact
proportion to their
-
comparative value.
-
This is the reason why the former description of services so
-
often become stationary, while the
latter obey the law of progress.
-
While the exaggerated development of public services, by the
-
waste of strength which it involves,
fastens upon society a fatal
-
sycophancy, it is a singular thing
that several modern sects,
-
attributing this character to free
and private services, are
-
endeavouring to transform professions
into functions.
-
These sects violently oppose what they call intermediates. They
-
would gladly suppress the capitalist,
the banker, the speculator,
-
the projector, the merchant, and the
trader, accusing them of
-
interposing between production and
consumption, to extort from both,
-
without giving either anything in return.
Or rather, they would
-
transfer to the State the work which
they accomplish, for this work
-
cannot be suppressed.
-
The sophism of the Socialists on this point is showing to the
-
public what it pays to the intermediates
in exchange for their
-
services, and concealing from it what
is necessary to be paid to the
-
State. Here is the usual conflict between
what is before our eyes, and
-
what is perceptible to the mind only,
between what is seen, and what
-
is not seen.
-
It was at the time of the scarcity, in 1847, that the Socialist
-
schools attempted and succeeded in
popularizing their fatal theory.
-
They knew very well that the most absurd
notions have always a
-
chance with people who are suffering;
malisunda fames.
-
Therefore, by the help of the fine words, "trafficking in men
-
by men, speculation on hunger, monopoly,"
they began to blacken
-
commerce, and to cast a veil over its
benefits.
-
"What can be the use," they say, "of leaving to the merchants
-
the care of importing food from the
United States and the Crimea?
-
Why do not the State, the departments,
and the towns, organize a
-
service for provisions, and a magazine
for stores? They would sell
-
at a return price, and the people,
poor things, would be exempted from
-
the tribute which they pay to free,
that is, to egotistical,
-
individual, and anarchical commerce."
-
The tribute paid by the people to commerce, is that which is
-
seen. The tribute which the people
would pay to the State, or to its
-
agents, in the Socialist system, is
what is not seen.
-
In what does this pretended tribute, which the people pay to
-
commerce, consist? In this: that two
men render each other a mutual
-
service, in all freedom, and under
the pressure of competition and
-
reduced prices.
-
When the hungry stomach is at Paris, and corn which can satisfy
-
it is at Odessa, the suffering cannot
cease till the corn is brought
-
into contact with the stomach. There
are three means by which this
-
contact may be effected. 1st. The famished
men may go themselves and
-
fetch the corn. 2nd. They may leave
this task to those to whose
-
trade it belongs. 3rd. They may club
together, and give the office
-
in charge to public functionaries.
Which of these three methods
-
possesses the greatest advantages?
In every time, in all countries,
-
and the more free, enlightened, and
experienced they are, men have
-
voluntarily chosen the second. I confess
that this is sufficient, in
-
my opinion, to justify this choice.
I cannot believe that mankind,
-
as a whole, is deceiving itself upon
a point which touches it so
-
nearly. But let us consider the subject.
-
For thirty-six millions of citizens to go and fetch the corn
-
they want from Odessa, is a manifest
impossibility. The first means,
-
then, goes for nothing. The consumers
cannot act for themselves.
-
They must, of necessity, have recourse
to intermediates, officials
-
or agents.
-
But, observe, that the first of these three means would be
-
the most natural. In reality, the hungry
man has to fetch his corn. It
-
is a task which concerns himself; a
service due to himself. If another
-
person, on whatever ground, performs
this service for him, takes the
-
task upon himself, this latter has
a claim upon him for a
-
compensation. I mean by this to say
that intermediates contain in
-
themselves the principle of remuneration.
-
However that may be, since we must refer to what the Socialists
-
call a parasite, I would ask, which
of the two is the most exacting
-
parasite, the merchant or the official?
-
Commerce (free, of course, otherwise I could not reason upon
-
it), commerce, I say, is led by its
own interests to study the
-
seasons, to give daily statements of
the state of the crops, to
-
receive information from every part
of the globe, to foresee wants, to
-
take precautions beforehand. It has
vessels always ready,
-
correspondents everywhere; and it is
its immediate interest to buy
-
at the lowest possible price, to economize
in all the details of its
-
operations, and to attain the greatest
results by the smallest
-
efforts. It is not the French merchants
only who are occupied in
-
procuring provisions for France in
time of need, and if their interest
-
leads them irresistibly to accomplish
their task at the smallest
-
possible cost, the competition which
they create amongst each other
-
leads them no less irresistibly to
cause the consumers to partake of
-
the profits of those realized savings.
The corn arrives; it is to
-
the interest of commerce to sell it
as soon as possible, so as to
-
avoid risks, to realize its funds,
and begin again the first
-
opportunity.
-
Directed by the comparison of prices, it distributes food
-
over the whole surface of the country,
beginning always at the highest
-
price, that is, where the demand is
the greatest. It is impossible
-
to imagine an organization more completely
calculated to meet the
-
interest of those who are in want;
and the beauty of this
-
organization, unperceived as it is
by the Socialists, results from the
-
very fact that it is free. It is true,
the consumer is obliged to
-
reimburse commerce for the expenses
of conveyance, freight,
-
store-room, commission, &c.; but
can any system be devised, in which
-
he who eats corn is not obliged to
defray the expenses, whatever
-
they may be, of bringing it within
his reach? The remuneration for the
-
service performed has to be paid also:
but as regards its amount, this
-
is reduced to the small. est possible
sum by competition; and as
-
regards its justice, it would be very
strange if the artisans of Paris
-
would not work for the artisans of
Marseilles, when the merchants of
-
Marseilles work for the artisans of
Paris.
-
If, according to the Socialist invention, the State were to
-
stand in the stead of commerce, what
would happen? I should like to be
-
informed where' the saving would be
to the public? Would it be in
-
the price of purchase? Imagine the
delegates of 40,000 parishes
-
arriving at Odessa on a given day,
and on the day of need; imagine the
-
effect upon prices. Would the saving
be in the expenses? Would fewer
-
vessels be required, fewer sailors,
fewer transports, fewer sloops, or
-
would you be exempt from the payment
of all these things? Would it
-
be in the profits of the merchants?
Would your officials go to
-
Odessa for nothing? Would they travel
and work on the principle of
-
fraternity? Must they not live? must
not they be paid for their
-
time? And do you believe that these
expenses would not exceed a
-
thousand times the two or three per
cent which the merchant gains,
-
at the rate at which he is ready to
treat?
-
And then consider the difficulty of levying so many taxes,
-
and of dividing so much food. Think
of the injustice, of the abuses
-
inseparable for such an enterprise.
Think of the responsibility
-
which would weigh upon the Government.
-
The Socialists who have invented these follies, and who, in the
-
days of distress, have introduced them
into the minds of the masses,
-
take to themselves literally the title
of advanced men; and it is
-
not without some danger that custom,
that tyrant of tongues,
-
authorizes the term, and the sentiment
which it involves. Advanced!
-
This supposes that these gentlemen
can see further than the common
-
people; that their only fault is, that
they are too much in advance of
-
their age, and if the time is not yet
come for suppressing certain
-
free services, pretended parasites,
the fault is to be attributed to
-
the public, which is in the rear of
socialism. I say, from my soul and
-
my conscience, the reverse is the truth;
and I know not to what
-
barbarous age we should have to go
back, if we would find the level of
-
Socialist knowledge on this subject.
These modern sectarians
-
incessantly oppose association to actual
society. They overlook the
-
fact, that society, under a free regulation,
is a true association,
-
far superior to any of those which
proceed from their fertile
-
imaginations.
-
Let me illustrate this by an example. Before a man, when he
-
gets up in the morning, can put on
a coat, ground must have been
-
enclosed, broken up, drained, tilled,
and sown with a particular
-
kind of plant; flocks must have been
fed, and have given their wool;
-
this wool must have been spun, woven,
dyed, and converted into
-
cloth; this cloth must have been cut,
sewed, and made into a
-
garment. And this series of operations
implies a number of others;
-
it supposes the employment of instruments
for ploughing, &c.,
-
sheepfolds, sheds, coal, machines,
carriages, &e.
-
If society were not a perfectly real association, a person
-
who wanted a coat would be reduced
to the necessity of working in
-
solitude; that is, of performing for
himself the innumerable parts
-
of this series, from the first stroke
of the pickaxe to the last
-
stitch which concludes the work. But,
thanks to the sociability
-
which is the distinguishing character
of our race, these operations
-
are distributed amongst a multitude
of workers; and they are further
-
subdivided, for the common good, to
an extent that, as the consumption
-
becomes more active, one single operation
is able to support a new
-
trade.
-
Then comes the division of the profits, which operates
-
according to the contingent value which
each has brought to the entire
-
work. If this is not association, I
should like to know what is.
-
Observe, that as no one of these workers has obtained the
-
smallest particle of matter from nothingness,
they are confined to
-
performing for each other mutual services,
and to helping each other
-
in a common object, and that all may
be considered, with respect to
-
others, intermediates. If, for instance,
in the course of the
-
operation, the conveyance becomes important
enough to occupy one
-
person, the spinning another, the weaving
another, why should the
-
first be considered a parasite more
than the other two? The conveyance
-
must be made, must it not? Does not
be who performs it devote to it
-
his time and trouble? and by so doing
does he not spare that of his
-
colleagues? Do these do more or other
than this for him? Are they
-
not equally dependent for remuneration,
that is, for the division of
-
the produce, upon the law of reduced
price? Is it not in all
-
liberty, for the common good, that
these arrangements are entered
-
into? What do we want with a Socialist
then, who, under pretence of
-
organizing for us, comes despotically
to break up our voluntary
-
arrangements, to check the division
of labour, to substitute
-
isolated efforts for combined ones,
and to send civilization back?
-
Is association, as I describe it here,
in itself less association,
-
because every one enters and leaves
it freely, chooses his place in
-
it, judges and bargains for himself
on his own responsibility, and
-
brings with him the spring and warrant
of personal interest? That it
-
may deserve this name, is it necessary
that a pretended reformer
-
should come and impose upon us his
plan and his will, and as it
-
were, to concentrate mankind in himself?
-
The more we examine these advanced schools, the more do we
-
become convinced that there is but
one thing at the root of them:
-
ignorance proclaiming itself infallible,
and claiming despotism in the
-
name of this infallibility.
-
I hope the reader will excuse this digression. It may not be
-
altogether useless, at a time when
declamations, springing from St.
-
Simonian, Phalansterian, and Icarian
books, are invoking the press and
-
the tribune, and which seriously threaten
the liberty of labour and
-
commercial transactions.
-
-
VII. RESTRICTIONS
-
M. Prohibant (it was not I who gave him this name, but M.
-
Charles Dupin) devoted his time and
capital to converting the ore
-
found on his land into iron. As nature
had been more lavish towards
-
the Belgians, they furnished the French
with iron cheaper than M.
-
Prohibant, which means, that all the
French, or France, could obtain a
-
given quantity of iron with less labour
by buying it of the honest
-
Flemings; therefore, guided by their
own interest, they did not fail
-
to do so, and every day there might
be seen a multitude of
-
nail-smiths, blacksmiths, cartwrights,
machinists, farriers, and
-
labourers, going themselves, or sending
intermediates, to supply
-
themselves in Belgium. This displeased
M. Prohibant exceedingly.
-
At first, it occurred to him to put an end to this abuse by his
-
own efforts; it was the least he could
do, for he was the only
-
sufferer. "I will take my carbine,"
said he; "I will put four
-
pistols into my belt; I will fill my
cartridge box; I will gird on
-
my sword, and go thus equipped to the
frontier. There, the first
-
blacksmith, nailsmith, farrier, machinist,
or locksmith, who
-
presents himself to do his own business
and not mine, I will kill,
-
to teach him how to live." At the moment
of starting, M. Prohibant
-
made a few reflections which calmed
down his warlike ardour a
-
little. He said to himself, "In the
first place, it is not
-
absolutely impossible that the purchasers
of iron, my countrymen and
-
enemies, should take the thing ill,
and, instead of letting me kill
-
them, should kill me instead; and then,
even were I to call out all my
-
servants, we should not be able to
defend the passages. In short, this
-
proceeding would cost me very dear;
much more so than the result would
-
be worth."
-
M. Prohibant was on the point of resigning himself to his sad
-
fate, that of being only as free as
the rest of the world, when a
-
ray of light darted across his brain.
He recollected that at Paris
-
there is a great manufactory of laws.
"What is a law?" said he to
-
himself. "It is a measure to which,
when once it is decreed, be it
-
good or bad, everybody is bound to
conform. For the execution of the
-
same a public force is organized, and
to constitute the said public
-
force, men and money are drawn from
the nation. If, then, I could only
-
get the great Parisian manufactory
to pass a little law, 'Belgian iron
-
is prohibited,' I should obtain the
following results: The
-
Government would replace the few valets
that I was going to send to
-
the frontier by 20,000 of the sons
of those refractory blacksmiths,
-
farmers, artisans, machinists, locksmiths,
nailsmiths, and
-
labourers. Then, to keep these 20,000
custom-house officers in
-
health and good humour, it would distribute
amongst them 25,000, 000
-
of francs, taken from these blacksmiths,
nailsmiths, artisans, and
-
labourers. They would guard the frontier
much better; would cost me
-
nothing; I should not be exposed to
the brutality of the brokers,
-
should sell the iron at my own price,
and have the sweet
-
satisfaction of seeing our great people
shamefully mystified. That
-
would teach them to proclaim themselves
perpetually the harbingers and
-
promoters of progress in Europe. Oh!
it would be a capital joke, and
-
deserves to be tried."
-
So M. Prohibant went to the law manufactory. Another time,
-
perhaps, I shall relate the story of
his underhand dealings, but now I
-
shall merely mention his visible proceedings.
He brought the following
-
consideration before the view of the
legislating gentlemen:-
-
"Belgian iron is sold in France at ten francs, which obliges me
-
to sell mine at the same price. I should
like to sell at fifteen,
-
but cannot do so on account of this
Belgian iron, which I wish was
-
at the bottom of the Red Sea. I beg
you will make a law that no more
-
Belgian iron shall enter France. Immediately
I raise my price five
-
francs, and these are the consequences:
"For every hundred-weight of
-
iron that I shall deliver to the public,
I shall receive fifteen
-
francs instead of ten; I shall grow
rich more rapidly, extend my
-
traffic, and employ more workmen. My
workmen and I shall spend much
-
more freely to the great advantage
of our tradesmen for miles
-
around. These latter, having more custom,
will furnish more employment
-
to trade, and activity on both sides
will increase in the country.
-
This fortunate piece of money, which
you will drop into my strong-box,
-
will, like a stone thrown into a lake,
give birth to an infinite
-
number of concentric circles."
-
Charmed with his discourse, delighted to learn that it is so
-
easy to promote, by legislating, the
prosperity of a people, the
-
law-makers voted the restriction. "Talk
of labour and economy," they
-
said, "what is the use of these painful
means of increasing the
-
national wealth, when all that is wanted
for this object is a Decree?"
-
And, in fact, the law produced all the consequences announced
-
by M. Prohibant; the only thing was,
it produced others which he had
-
not foreseen. To do him justice, his
reasoning was not false, but only
-
incomplete. In endeavouring to obtain
a privilege, he had taken
-
cognizance of the effects which are
seen, leaving in the background
-
those which are not seen. He had pointed
out only two personages,
-
whereas there are three concerned in
the affair. It is for us to
-
supply this involuntary or premeditated
omission.
-
It is true, the crown-piece, thus directed by law into M.
-
Prohibant's strong-box, is advantageous
to him and to those whose
-
labour it would encourage; and if the
Act had caused the crownpiece to
-
descend from the moon, these good effects
would not have been
-
counterbalanced by any corresponding
evils. Unfortunately, the
-
mysterious piece of money does not
come from the moon, but from the
-
pocket of a blacksmith, or a nail-smith,
or a cartwright, or a
-
farrier, or a labourer, or a shipwright;
in a word, from James B., who
-
gives it now without receiving a grain
more of iron than when he was
-
paying ten francs. Thus, we can see
at a glance that this very much
-
alters the state of the case; for it
is very evident that M.
-
Prohibant's profit is compensated by
James B.'s loss, and all that
-
M. Prohibant can do with the crown-piece,
for the encouragement of
-
national labour, James B. might have
done himself. The stone has
-
only been thrown upon one part of the
lake, because the law has
-
prevented it from being thrown upon
another.
-
Therefore, that which is not seen supersedes that which is
-
seen, and at this point there remains,
as the residue of the
-
operation, a piece of injustice, and,
sad to say, a piece of injustice
-
perpetrated by the law!
-
This is not all. I have said that there is always a third
-
person left in the back-ground. I must
now bring him forward, that
-
he may reveal to us a second loss of
five francs. Then we shall have
-
the entire results of the transaction.
-
James B. is the possessor of fifteen francs, the fruit of his
-
labour. He is now free. What does he
do with his fifteen francs? He
-
purchases some article of fashion for
ten francs, and with it he
-
pays (or the intermediate pay for him)
for the hundred-weight of
-
Belgian iron. After this he has five
francs left. He does not throw
-
them into the river, but (and this
is what is not seen) he gives
-
them to some tradesman in exchange
for some enjoyment; to a
-
bookseller, for instance, for Bossuet's
"Discourse on Universal
-
History."
-
Thus, as far as national labour is concerned, it is
-
encouraged to the amount of fifteen
francs, viz.: -ten francs for
-
the Paris article; five francs to the
bookselling trade.
-
-
As to James B., he obtains for his
fifteen francs two
-
gratifications, viz.:
-
1st.
A hundred-weight of iron.
-
2nd.
A book.
-
The
Decree is put in force. How does it affect the condition of
-
James B.? How does it affect the national
labour?
-
James
B. pays every centime of his five francs to M. Prohibant,
-
and therefore is deprived of the pleasure
of a book, or of some
-
other thing of equal value. He loses five
francs. This must be
-
admitted; it cannot fail to be admitted,
that when the restriction
-
raises the price of things, the consumer
loses the difference.
-
But,
then, it is said, national labour is the gainer.
-
No,
it is not the gainer; for, since the Act, it is no more
-
encouraged than it was before, to the amount
of fifteen francs.
-
The
only thing is that, since the Act, the fifteen francs of
-
James B. go to the metal trade, while,
before it was put in force,
-
they were divided between the milliner
and the bookseller.
-
The
violence used by M. Prohibant on the frontier, or that
-
which he causes to be used by the law,
may be judged very
-
differently in a moral point of view. Some
persons consider that
-
plunder is perfectly justifiable, if only
sanctioned by law. But,
-
for myself, I cannot imagine anything more
aggravating. However it may
-
be, the economical results are the same
in both cases.
-
Look
at the thing as you will; but if you are impartial, you
-
will see that no good can come of legal
or illegal plunder. We do
-
not deny that it affords M. Prohibant,
or his trade, or, if you
-
will, national industry, a profit of five
francs. But we affirm that
-
it causes two losses, one to James B.,
who pays fifteen francs where
-
he otherwise would have paid ten; the other
to national industry,
-
which does not receive the difference.
Take your choice of these two
-
losses, and compensate with it the profit
which we allow. The other
-
will prove not the less a dead loss. Here
is the moral: To take by
-
violence is not to produce, but to destroy.
Truly, if taking by
-
violence was producing, this country of
ours would be a little
-
richer than she is.
-
VIII. MACHINERY
-
"A
curse on machines! Every year, their increasing power
-
devotes millions of workmen to pauperism,
by depriving them of work,
-
and therefore of wages and bread. A curse
on machines!"
-
This
is the cry which is raised by vulgar prejudice, and echoed
-
in the journals.
-
But
to curse machines, is to curse the spirit of humanity!
-
It
puzzles me to conceive how any man can feel any satisfaction
-
in such a doctrine.
-
For,
if true, what is its inevitable consequence? That there is
-
no activity, prosperity, wealth, or happiness
possible for any people,
-
except for those who are stupid and inert,
and to whom God has not
-
granted the fatal gift of knowing how to
think, to observe, to
-
combine, to invent, and to obtain the greatest
results with the
-
smallest means. On the contrary, rags,
mean huts, poverty, and
-
inanition, are the inevitable lot of every
nation which seeks and
-
finds in iron, fire, wind, electricity,
magnetism, the laws of
-
chemistry and mechanics, in a word, in
the powers of nature, an
-
assistance to its natural powers. We might
as well say with Rousseau
-
-"Every man that thinks is a depraved animal."
-
This
is not all; if this doctrine is true, since all men
-
think and invent, since all, from first
to last, and at every moment
-
of their existence, seek the cooperation
of the powers of nature,
-
and try to make the most of a little, by
reducing either the work of
-
their hands, or their expenses, so as to
obtain the greatest
-
possible amount of gratification with the
smallest possible amount
-
of labour, it must follow, as a matter
of course, that the whole of
-
mankind is rushing towards its decline,
by the same mental
-
aspiration towards progress, which torments
each of its members.
-
Hence,
it ought to be made known, by statistics, that the
-
inhabitants of Lancashire, abandoning that
land of machines, seek
-
for work in Ireland, where they are unknown;
and, by history, that
-
barbarism darkens the epochs of civilization,
and that civilization
-
shaies in times of ignorance and barbarism.
-
There
is evidently in this mass of contradictions something
-
which revolts us, and which leads us to
suspect that the problem
-
contains within it an element of solution
which has not been
-
sufficiently disengaged.
-
Here
is the whole mystery: behind that which is seen, lies
-
something which is not seen. I will endeavour
to bring it to light.
-
The demonstration I shall give will only
be a repetition of the
-
preceding one, for the problems are one
and the same.
-
Men
have a natural propensity to make the best bargain they
-
can, when not prevented by an opposing
force; that is, they like to
-
obtain as much as they possibly can for
their labour, whether the
-
advantage is obtained from a foreign producer,
or a skillful
-
mechanical producer.
-
The
theoretical objection which is made to this propensity is
-
the same in both cases. In each case it
is reproached with the
-
apparent inactivity which it causes to
labour. Now, labour rendered
-
available, not inactive, is the very thing
which determines it. And,
-
therefore, in both cases, the same practical
obstacle -force, is
-
opposed to it also. The legislator prohibits
foreign competition,
-
and forbids mechanical competition. For
what other means can exist for
-
arresting a propensity which is natural
to all men, but that of
-
depriving them of their liberty?
-
In
many countries, it is true, the legislator strikes at only
-
one of these competitions, and confines
himself to grumbling at the
-
other. This only proves one thing, that
is, that the legislator is
-
inc+onsistent.
-
Harm
Of False Premise
-
We
need not be surprised at this. On a wrong road,
-
inconsistency is inevitable; if it were
not so, mankind would be
-
sacrificed. A false principle never has
been, and never will be,
-
carried out to the end.
-
Now
for our demonstration, which shall not be a long one.
-
James
B. had two francs which he had gained by two workmen; but
-
it occurs to him, that an arrangement of
ropes and weights might be
-
made which would diminish the labour by
half. Thus he obtains the same
-
advantage, saves a franc, and discharges
a workman.
-
He
discharges a workman: this is that which is seen.
-
And
seeing this only, it is said, "See how misery attends
-
civilization; this is the way that liberty
is fatal to equality. The
-
human mind has made a conquest, and immediately
a workman is cast into
-
the gulf of pauperism. James B. may possibly
employ the two workmen,
-
but then he will give them only half their
wages for they will compete
-
with each other, and offer themselves at
the lowest price. Thus the
-
rich are always growing richer, and the
poor, poorer. Society wants
-
remodelling." A very fine conclusion, and
worthy of the preamble.
-
Happily,
preamble and conclusion are both false, because,
-
behind the half of the phenomenon which
is seen, lies the other half
-
which is not seen.
-
The
franc saved by James B. is not seen, no more are the
-
necessary effects of this saving.
-
Since,
in consequence of his invention, James B. spends only
-
one franc on hand labour in the pursuit
of a determined advantage,
-
another franc remains to him.
-
If,
then, there is in the world a workman with unemployed arms,
-
there is also in the world a capitalist
with an unemployed franc.
-
These two elements meet and combine, and
it is as clear as daylight,
-
that between the supply and demand of labour,
and between the supply
-
and demand of wages, the relation is in
no way changed.
-
The
invention and the workman paid with the first franc, now
-
perform the work which was formerly accomplished
by two workmen. The
-
second workman, paid with the second franc,
realizes a new kind of
-
work.
-
What
is the change, then, which has taken place? An
-
additional national advantage has been
gained; in other words, the
-
invention is a gratuitous triumph -a gratuitous
profit for mankind.
-
From
the form which I have given to my demonstration, the
-
following inference might be drawn: -"It
is the capitalist who reaps
-
all the advantage from machinery. The working
class, if it suffers
-
only temporarily, never profits by it,
since, by your own showing,
-
they displace a portion of the national
labour, without diminishing
-
it, it is true, but also without increasing
it."
-
I
do not pretend, in this slight treatise, to answer every
-
objection; the only end I have in view,
is to combat a vulgar,
-
widely spread, and dangerous prejudice.
I want to prove, that a new
-
machine only causes the discharge of a
certain number of hands, when
-
the remuneration which pays them as abstracted
by force. These
-
hands, and this remuneration, would combine
to produce what it was
-
impossible to produce before the invention;
whence it follows that the
-
final result is an increase of advantages
for equal labour.
-
Who
is the gainer by these additional advantages?
-
First, it is true, the capitalist, the inventor; the first who
-
succeeds in using the machine; and this
is the reward of his genius
-
and his courage. In this case, as we have
just seen, he effects a
-
saving upon the expense of production,
which, in whatever way it may
-
be spent (and it always is spent), employs
exactly as many hands as
-
the machine caused to be dismissed.
-
But
soon competition obliges him to lower his prices in
-
proportion to the saving itself; and then
it is no longer the inventor
-
who reaps the benefit of the invention
-it is the purchaser of what is
-
produced, the consumer, the public, including
the workmen; in a
-
word, mankind.
-
And
that which is not seen is, that the saving thus procured
-
for all consumers creates a fund whence
wages may be supplied, and
-
which replaces that which the machine has
exhausted.
-
Thus,
to recur to the forementioned example, James B. obtains a
-
profit by spending two francs in wages.
Thanks to his invention, the
-
hand labour costs him only one franc. So
long as he sells the thing
-
produced at the same price, he employs
one workman less in producing
-
this particular thing, and that is what
is seen; but there is an
-
additional workman employed by the franc
which James B. has saved.
-
This is that which is not seen.
-
When,
by the natural progress of things, James B. is obliged to
-
lower the price of the thing produced by
one franc, then he no
-
longer realizes a saving; then he has no
longer a franc to dispose of,
-
to procure for the national labour a new
production; but then
-
another gainer takes his place, and this
gainer is mankind. Whoever
-
buys the thing he has produced, pays a
franc less, and necessarily
-
adds this saving to the fund of wages;
and this, again, is what is not
-
seen.
-
Another
solution, founded upon facts, has been given of this
-
problem of machinery.
-
It
was said, machinery reduces the expense of production, and
-
lowers the price of the thing produced.
The reduction of the profit
-
causes an increase of consumption, which
necessitates an increase of
-
production, and, finally, the introduction
of as many workmen, or
-
more, after the invention as were necessary
before it. As a proof of
-
this, printing, weaving, &c., are instanced.
-
This
demonstration is not a scientific one. It would lead us to
-
conclude, that if the consumption of the
particular production of
-
which we are speaking remains stationary,
or nearly so, machinery must
-
injure labour. This is not the case.
-
Suppose
that in a certain country all the people wore hats; if,
-
by machinery, the price could be reduced
half, it would not
-
necessarily follow that the consumption
would be doubled.
-
Would
you say, that in this case a portion of the national
-
labour had been paralyzed? Yes, according
to the vulgar demonstration;
-
but, according to mine, No; for even if
not a single hat more should
-
be bought in the country, the entire fund
of wages would not be the
-
less secure. That which failed to go to
the hat-making trade would
-
be found to have gone to the economy realized
by all the consumers,
-
and would thence serve to pay for all the
labour which the machine had
-
rendered useless, and to excite a new development
of all the trades.
-
And thus it is that things go on. I have
known newspapers to cost
-
eighty francs, now we pay forty-eight:
here is a saving of
-
thirty-two francs to the subscribers. It
is not certain, or, at least,
-
necessary, that the thirtytwo francs should
take the direction of
-
the journalist trade; but it is certain,
and necessary too, that if
-
they do not take this direction they will
take another. One makes
-
use of them for taking in more newspapers;
another, to get better
-
living; another, better clothes; another,
better furniture. It is thus
-
that the trades are bound together. They
form a vast whole, whose
-
different parts communicate by secret canals;
what is saved by one,
-
profits all. It is very important for us
to understand, that savings
-
never take place at the expense of labour
and wares.
-
IX. CREDIT
-
In
all times, but more especially of late years, attempts
-
have been made to extend wealth by the
extension of credit.
-
I
believe it is no exaggeration to say, that since the
-
revolution of February, the Parisian presses
have issued more than
-
10,000 pamphlets, crying up this solution
of the social problem. The
-
only basis, alas! of this solution, is
an optical delusion -if,
-
indeed, an optical delusion can be called
a basis at all.
-
The
first thing done is to confuse cash with produce, then
-
paper money with cash; and from these two
confusions it is pretended that a reality can be drawn.
-
It
is absolutely necessary in this question to forget money,
-
coin, bills, and the other instruments
by means of which productions pass from hand to hand; our business is with
the productions themselves, which are the real objects of the loan; for
when a farmer borrows fifty francs to buy a plough, it is not, in reality,
the fifty francs which are lent to him, but the plough: and when a merchant
borrows 20,000 francs to purchase a house, it is not the 20,000 francs
which he owes, but the house. Money only appears for the sake of facilitating
the arrangements between the parties.
-
Peter
may not be disposed to lend his plough, but James may
-
be willing to lend his money. What does
William do in this case? He
-
borrows money of James, and with this money
he buys the slough of Peter.
-
But,
in point of fact, no one borrows money for the sake of the
-
money itself; money is only the medium
by which to obtain possession of productions. Now, it is impossible in
any country to transmit from one person to another more productions than
that country contains.
-
Whatever
may be the amount of cash and of paper which is in
-
circulation, the whole of the borrowers
cannot receive more sloughs,
-
houses, tools, and supplies of raw material,
than the lenders
-
altogether can furnish; for we must take
care not to forget, that
-
every borrower supposes a lender, and that
what is once borrowed
-
implies a loan.
-
This
granted, what advantage is there in institutions of
-
credit? It is, that they facilitate, between
borrowers and lenders,
-
the means of finding and treating with
each other; but it is not in
-
their power to cause an instantaneous increase
of the things to be
-
borrowed and lent. And yet they ought to
be able to do so, if the
-
aim of the reformers is to be attained,
since they aspire to nothing
-
less than to place sloughs, houses, tools,
and provisions in the hands
-
of all those who desire them.
-
And
how do they intend to effect this?
-
By
making the State security for the loan.
-
Let
us try and fathom the subject, for it contains something
-
which is seen, and also something which
is not seen. We must endeavour
-
to look at both.
-
We
will suppose that there is but one plough in the world,
-
and that two farmers apply for it.
-
Peter
is the possessor of the only plough which is to be had in
-
France; John and James wish to borrow it.
John, by his honesty, his
-
property, and good reputation, offers security.
He inspires
-
confidence; he has credit. James inspires
little or no confidence.
-
It naturally happens that Peter lends his
plough to John.
-
But
now, according to the Socialist plan, the State interferes,
-
and says to Peter, "Lend your plough to
James, I will be security
-
for its return, and this security will
be better than that of John,
-
for he has no one to be responsible for
him -but himself; and I,
-
although it is true that I have nothing,
dispose of the fortune of the
-
taxpayers, and it is with their money that,
in case of need, I shall
-
pay you the principal and interest." Consequently,
Peter lends his
-
plough to James: this is what is seen.
-
And
the Socialists rub their hands, and say, "See how well
-
our plan has answered. Thanks to the intervention
of the State, poor
-
James has a plough. He will no longer be
obliged to dig the ground; he is on the road to make a fortune. It is a
good thing for him, and an
-
advantage to the nation as a whole."
-
Indeed,
gentlemen, it is no such thing; it is no advantage to
-
the nation, for there is something behind
which is not seen.
-
It
is not seen, that the plough is in the hands of James,
-
only because it is not in those of John.
-
It
is not seen, that if James farms instead of digging, John
-
will be reduced to the necessity of digging
instead of farming.
-
That,
consequently, what was considered an increase of loan, is
-
nothing but a displacement of loan. Besides,
it is not seen that
-
this displacement implies two acts of deep
injustice.
-
It
is an injustice to John, who, after having deserved and
-
obtained credit by his honesty and activity,
sees himself robbed of
-
it.
-
It
is an injustice to the tax-payers, who are made to pay a
-
debt which is no concern of theirs.
-
Will
any one say, that Government offers the same facilities to
-
John as it does to James? But as there
is only one plough to be had,
-
two cannot be lent. The argument always
maintains that, thanks to
-
the intervention of the State, more will
be borrowed than there are
-
things to be lent; for the plough represents
here the bulk of
-
available capitals.
-
It
is true, I have reduced the operation to the most simple
-
expression of it, but if you submit the
most complicated Government
-
institutions of credit to the same test,
you will be convinced that
-
they can have but on result; viz., to displace
credit, not to
-
augment it. In one country, and in a given
time, there is only a
-
certain amount of capital available, and
all are employed. In
-
guaranteeing the non-payers, the State
may, indeed, increase the
-
number of borrowers, and thus raise the
rate of interest (always to
-
the prejudice of the tax-payer), but it
has no power to increase the
-
number of lenders, and the importance of
the total of the loans.
-
There
is one conclusion, however, which I would not for the
-
world be suspected of drawing. I say, that
the law ought not to
-
favour, artificially, the power of borrowing,
but I do not say that it
-
ought not to restrain them artificially.
If, in our system of
-
mortgage, or in any other, there be obstacles
to the diffusion of
-
the application of credit, let them be
got rid of; nothing can be
-
better or more just than this. But this
is all which is consistent
-
with liberty, and it is all that any who
are worthy of the name of
-
reformers will ask.
-
X. ALGERIA
-
Here
are four orators disputing for the platform. First, all
-
the four speak at once; then they speak
one after the other. What have
-
they said? Some very fine things, certainly,
about the power and the
-
grandeur of France; about the necessity
of sowing, if we would reap;
-
about the brilliant future of our gigantic
colony; about the advantage
-
of diverting to a distance the surplus
of our population, &e. &e.
-
Magnificent pieces of eloquence, and always
adorned with this
-
conclusion: -"Vote fifty millions, more
or less, for making ports
-
and roads in Algeria; for sending emigrants
thither; for building
-
houses and breaking up land. By so doing,
you will relieve the
-
French workman, encourage African labour,
and give a stimulus to the
-
commerce of Marseilles. It would be profitable
every way."
-
Yes,
it is all very true, if you take no account of the fifty
-
millions until the moment when the State
begins to spend them; if
-
you only see where they go, and not whence
they come; if you look only
-
at the good they are to do when they come
out of the tax-gatherer's
-
bag, and not at the harm which has been
done, and the good which has
-
been prevented, by putting them into it.
Yes, at this limited point of
-
view, all is profit. The house which is
built in Barbary is that which
-
is seen; the harbour made in Barbary is
that which is seen; the work
-
caused in Barbary is what is seen; a few
less hands in France is
-
what is seen; a great stir with goods at
Marseilles is still that
-
which Is seen.
-
But,
besides all this, there is something which is not seen.
-
The fifty millions expended by the State
cannot be spent, as they
-
otherwise would have been, by the tax-payers.
It is necessary to
-
deduct, from all the good attributed to
the public expenditure which
-
has been effected, all the harm caused
by the prevention of private
-
expense, unless we say that James B. would
have done nothing with
-
the crown that he had gained, and of which
the tax had deprived him;
-
an absurd assertion, for if he took the
trouble to earn it, it was
-
because he expected the satisfaction of
using it, He would have
-
repaired the palings in his garden, which
he cannot now do, and this
-
is that which is not seen. He would have
manured his field, which
-
now he cannot do, and this is what is not
seen. He would have added
-
another story to his cottage, which he
cannot do now, and this is what
-
is not seen. He might have increased the
number of his tools, which he
-
cannot do now, and this is what is not
seen. He would have been better
-
fed, better clothed, have given a better
education to his children,
-
and increased his daughter's marriage portion;
this is that is not
-
seen. He would have become a member of
the Mutual Assistance
-
Society, but now he cannot; this is what
is not seen. On one hand, are
-
the enjoyments of which he has been deprived,
and the means of
-
action which have been destroyed in his
hands; on the other, are the
-
labour of the drainer, the carpenter, the
smith, the tailor, the
-
village-schoolmaster, which he would have
encouraged, and which are
-
now prevented - all this is what is not
seen.
-
Much
is hoped from the future prosperity of Algeria; be it
-
so. But the drain to which France is being
subjected ought not to be
-
kept entirely out of sight. The commerce
of Marseilles is pointed
-
out to me; but if this is to be brought
about by means of taxation,
-
I shall always show that an equal commerce
is destroyed thereby in
-
other parts of the country. It is said,
"There is an emigrant
-
transported into Barbary; this is a relief
to the population which
-
remains in the country." I answer, "How
can that be, if, in
-
transporting this emigrant to Algiers,
you also transport two or three
-
times the capital which would have served
to maintain him in France?"
-
The
Minister of War has lately asserted, that every
-
individual transported to Algeria has cost
the State 8,000 francs. Now
-
it is certain that these poor creatures
could have lived very well
-
in France on a capital of 4,000 francs.
I ask, how the French
-
population is relieved, when it is deprived
of a man, and of the means
-
of subsistence of two men?
-
The
only object I have in view is to make it evident to the
-
reader, that in every public expense, behind
the apparent benefit,
-
there is an evil which it is not so easy
to discern. As far as in me
-
'lies, I would make him form a habit of
seeing both, and taking
-
account of both.
-
When
a public expense is proposed, it ought to be examined in
-
itself, separately from the pretended encouragement
of labour which
-
results from it, for this encouragement
is a delusion. Whatever is
-
done in this way at the public expense,
private expense would have
-
done all the same; therefore, the interest
of labour is always out
-
of the question.
-
It
is not the object of this treatise to criticize the
-
intrinsic merit of the public expenditure
as applied to Algeria, but I
-
cannot withhold a general observation.
It is, that the presumption
-
is always unfavourable to collective expenses
by way of tax. Why?
-
For this reason: -First, justice always
suffers from it in some
-
degree. Since James B. had laboured to
gain his crown, in the hope -of
-
receiving a gratification from it, it is
to be regretted that the
-
exchequer should interpose, and take from
James B. this gratification,
-
to bestow it upon another. Certainly, it
behooves the exchequer, or
-
those who regulate it, to give good reasons
for this. It has been
-
shown that the State gives a very provoking
one, when it says, "With
-
this crown I shall employ workmen"; for
James B. (as soon as he sees
-
it) will be sure to answer, "It is all
very fine, but with this
-
crown I might employ them myself."
-
Apart
from this reason, others present themselves without
-
disguise, by which the debate between the
exchequer and poor James
-
becomes much simplified. If the State says
to him, "I take your
-
crown to pay the gendarme, who saves you
the trouble of providing
-
for your own personal safety; for paving
the street which you are
-
passing through every day; for paying the
magistrate who causes your
-
property and your liberty to be respected;
to maintain the soldier who
-
maintains our frontiers," -James B., unless
I am much mistaken, will
-
pay for all this without hesitation. But
if the State were to say to
-
him, I take this crown that I may give
you a little prize in case
-
you cultivate your field well; or that
I may teach your son
-
something that you have no wish that he
should learn; or that the
-
Minister may add another to his score of
dishes at dinner; I take it
-
to build a cottage in Algeria, in which
case I must take another crown
-
every year to keep an emigrant in it, and
another hundred to
-
maintain a soldier to guard this emigrant,
and another crown to
-
maintain a general to guard this soldier,"
&c., &c., -I think I hear
-
poor James exclaim, "This system of law
is very much like a system
-
of cheat!" The State foresees the objection,
and what does it do? It
-
jumbles all things together, and brings
forward just that provoking
-
reason which ought to have nothing whatever
to do with the question.
-
It talks of the effect of this crown upon
labour; it points to the
-
cook and purveyor of the Minister; it shows
an emigrant, a soldier,
-
and a general, living upon the crown; it
shows, in fact, what is seen,
-
and if James B. has not learned to take
into the account what is not
-
seen, James B. will be duped. And this
is why I want to do all I can
-
to impress it upon his mind, by repeating
it over and over again.
-
As
the public expenses displace labour without increasing it, a
-
second serious presumption presents itself
against them. To displace
-
labour is to displace labourers, and to
disturb the natural laws which
-
regulate the distribution of the population
over the country. If
-
50,000,000 fr. are allowed to remain in
the possession of the
-
taxpayers, since the tax-payers are everywhere,
they encourage
-
labour in the 40,000 parishes in France.
They act like a natural
-
tie, which keeps every one upon his native
soil; they distribute
-
themselves amongst all imaginable labourers
and trades. If the
-
State, by drawing off these 50,000,000
fr. from the citizens,
-
accumulates them, and expends them on some
given point, it attracts to
-
this point a proportional quantity of displaced
labour, a
-
corresponding number of labourers, belonging
to other parts; a
-
fluctuating population, which is out of
its place, and, I venture to
-
say, dangerous when the fund is exhausted.
Now here is the consequence
-
(and this confirms all I have said): this
feverish activity is, as
-
it were, forced into a narrow space; it
attracts the attention of all;
-
it is what is seen. The people applaud;
they are astonished at the
-
beauty and facility of the plan, and expect
to have it continued and
-
extended. That which they do not see is,
that an equal quantity of
-
labour, which would probably be more valuable,
has been paralyzed over
-
the rest of France.
-
XI. FRUGALITY AND
LUXURY
-
It is not only in the public expenditure that what is seen
-
eclipses what is not seen.
Setting aside what relates to political
-
economy, this phenomenon
leads to false reasoning. It causes nations
-
to consider their moral and
their material interests as
-
contradictory to each other.
What can be more discouraging, or more
-
dismal?
-
For instance, there is not a father of a family who does not
-
think it his duty to teach
his children order, system, the habits of
-
carefulness, of economy,
and of moderation in spending money.
-
There is no religion which does not thunder against pomp and
-
luxury. This is as it should
be; but, on the other hand, how
-
frequently do we hear the
following remarks:-
-
"To hoard, is to drain the veins of the people."
-
"The luxury of the great is the comfort of the little."
-
"Prodigals ruin themselves, but they enrich the State."
-
"It is the superfluity of the rich which makes bread for the
-
poor."
-
Here, certainly, is a striking contradiction between the
-
moral and the social idea.
-
How many eminent spirits, after having made the assertion,
-
repose in peace. It is a
thing I never could understand, for it
-
seems to me that nothing
can be more distressing than to discover
-
two opposite tendencies in
mankind. Why, it comes to degradation at
-
each of the extremes: economy
brings it to misery; prodigality plunges
-
it into moral degradation.
Happily, these vulgar maxims exhibit
-
economy and luxury in a false
light, taking account, as they do, of
-
those immediate consequences
which are seen, and not of the remote
-
ones, which are not seen.
Let us see if we can rectify this incomplete
-
view of the case.
-
Mondor and his brother Aristus, after dividing the paternal
-
inheritance, have each an
income of 50,000 francs. Mondor practises
-
the fashionable philanthropy.
He is what is called a squanderer of
-
money. He renews his furniture
several times a year; changes his
-
equipages every month. People
talk of his ingenious contrivances to
-
bring them sooner to an end:
in short, he surpasses the fast livers of
-
Balzac and Alexander Dumas.
-
Thus, everybody is singing his praises. It is, "Tell us about
-
Mondor? Mondor for ever!
He is the benefactor of the workman; a
-
blessing to the people. It
is true, he revels in dissipation; he
-
splashes the passers-by;
his own dignity and that of human nature
-
are lowered a little; but
what of that? He does good with his fortune,
-
if not with himself. He causes
money to circulate; he always sends the
-
tradespeople away satisfied.
Is not money made round that it may
-
roll?"
-
Aristus has adopted a very different plan of life. If he is not
-
an egotist, he is, at any
rate, an individualist, for he considers
-
expense, seeks only moderate
and reasonable enjoyments, thinks of
-
his children's prospects,
and, in fact, he economises.
-
And what do people say of him? "What is the good of a rich
-
fellow like him? He is a
skinflint. There is something imposing,
-
perhaps, in the simplicity
of his life; and he is humane, too, and
-
benevolent, and generous,
but he calculates. He does not spend his
-
income; his house is neither
brilliant nor bustling. What good does he
-
do to the paper hangers,
the carriage makers, the horse dealers, and
-
the confectioners?"
-
These opinions, which are fatal to morality, are founded upon
-
what strikes the eye: -the
expenditure of the prodigal; and another,
-
which is out of sight, the
equal and even superior expenditure of
-
the economist.
-
But things have been so admirably arranged by the Divine
-
inventor of social order,
that in this, as in everything else,
-
political economy and morality,
far from clashing, agree; and the
-
wisdom of Aristus is not
only more dignified, but still more
-
profitable, than the folly
of Mondor. And when I say profitable, I
-
do not mean only profitable
to Aristus, or even to society in general,
-
but more profitable to the
workmen themselves -to the trade of the
-
time.
-
To prove it, it is only necessary to turn the mind's eye to
-
those hidden consequences
of human actions, which the bodily eye
-
does not see.
-
Yes, the prodigality of Mondor has visible effects in every
-
point of view. Everybody
can see his landaus, his phaetons, his
-
berlins, the delicate paintings
on his ceilings, his rich carpets, the
-
brilliant effects of his
house. Every one knows that his horses run
-
upon the turf. The dinners
which he gives at the Hotel de Paris
-
attract the attention of
the crowds on the Boulevards; and it is said,
-
"That is a generous man;
far from saving his income, he is very likely
-
breaking into his capital."
This is what is seen.
-
It is not easy to see, with regard to the interest of
-
workers, what becomes of
the income of Aristus. If we were to trace it
-
carefully, however, we should
see that the whole of it, down to the
-
last farthing, affords work
to the labourers, as certainly as the
-
fortune of Mondor. Only there
is this difference: the wanton
-
extravagance of Mondor is
doomed to be constantly decreasing, and to
-
come to an end without fail;
whilst the wise expenditure of Aristus
-
will go on increasing from
year to year. And if this is the case,
-
then, most assuredly, the
public interest will be in unison with
-
morality.
-
Aristus spends upon himself and his household 20,000 francs a
-
year. If that is not sufficient
to content him, he does not deserve to
-
be called a wise man. He
is touched by the miseries which oppress
-
the poorer classes; he thinks
he is bound in conscience to afford them
-
some relief, and therefore
he devotes 10, francs to acts of
-
benevolence. Amongst the
merchants, the manufacturers, and the
-
agriculturists, he has friends
who are suffering under temporary
-
difficulties; he makes himself
acquainted with their situation, that
-
he may assist them with prudence
and efficiency, and to this work he
-
devotes 10,000 francs more.
Then he does not forget that he has
-
daughters to portion, and
sons for whose prospects it is his duty to
-
provide, and therefore he
considers it a duty to lay by and put out to
-
interest 10,000 francs every
year.
-
The following is a list of his expenses: -
-
1st, Personal expenses......... 20,000 fr.
-
2nd, Benevolent objects........ 10,000
-
3rd, Offices of friendship..... 10,000
-
4th, Saving.................... 10,000
-
Let us examine each of these items, and we shall see that not a
-
single farthing escapes the
national labour.
-
1st. Personal expenses. -These, as far as work-people and
-
tradesmen are concerned,
have precisely the same effect as an equal
-
sum spent by Mondor. This
is self-evident, therefore we shall say no
-
more about it.
-
2nd. Benevolent objects. -The 10,000 francs devoted to this
-
purpose benefit trade in
an equal degree; they reach the butcher,
-
the baker, the tailor, and
the carpenter. The only thing is, that
-
the bread, the meat, and
the clothing are not used by Aristus, but
-
by those whom he has made
his substitutes. Now, this simple
-
substitution of one consumer
for another, in no way effects trade in
-
general. It is all one, whether
Aristus spends a crown, or desires
-
some unfortunate person to
spend it instead.
-
3rd. Offices of friendship. -The friend to whom Aristus lends
-
or gives 10,000 francs, does
not receive them to bury them; that would
-
be against the hypothesis.
He uses them to pay for goods, or to
-
discharge debts. In the first
case, trade is encouraged. Will any
-
one pretend to say that it
gains more by Mondor's purchase of a
-
thorough-bred horse for 10,000
francs, than by the purchase of
-
10,000 francs' worth of stuffs
by Aristus or his friend? For, if
-
this sum serves to pay a
debt, a third person appears, viz. the
-
creditor, who will certainly
employ them upon something in his
-
trade, his household, or
his farm. He forms another medium between
-
Aristus and the workmen.
The names only are changed, the expense
-
remains, and also the encouragement
to trade.
-
4th. Saving. -There remains now the 10,000 francs saved; and it
-
is here, as regards the encouragement
to the arts, to trade, labour,
-
and the workmen, that Mondor
appears far superior to Aristus,
-
although, in a moral point
of view, Aristus shows himself, in some
-
degree, superior to Mondor.
-
I can never look at these apparent contradictions between the
-
great laws of nature, without
a feeling of physical uneasiness which
-
amounts to suffering. Were
mankind reduced to the necessity of
-
choosing between two parties,
one of whom injures his interest, and
-
the other his conscience,
we should have nothing to hope from the
-
future. Happily, this is
not the case; and to see Aristus regain his
-
economical superiority, as
well as his moral superiority, it is
-
sufficient to understand
this consoling maxim, which is no less true
-
from having a paradoxical
appearance, "To save, is to spend."
-
What is Aristus's object in saving 10,000 francs? Is it to bury
-
them in his garden? No, certainly;
he intends to increase his
-
capital and his income; consequently,
this money, instead of being
-
employed upon his own personal
gratification, is used for buying land,
-
a house, &c., or it is
placed in the hands of a merchant or a
-
banker. Follow the progress
of this money in any one of these cases,
-
and. you will be convinced,
that through the medium of vendors or
-
lenders, it is encouraging
labour quite as certainly as if Aristus,
-
following the example of
his brother, had exchanged it for
-
furniture, jewels, and horses.
-
For when Aristus buys lands or rents for 10,000 francs, he is
-
determined by the consideration
that he does not want to spend this
-
money. This is why you complain
of him.
-
But, at the same time, the man who sells the land or the
-
rent, is determined by the
consideration that he does want to spend
-
the 10,000 francs in some
way; so that the money is spent in any case,
-
either by Aristus, or by
others in his stead.
-
With respect to the working class, to the encouragement of
-
labour, there is only one
difference between the conduct of Aristus
-
and that of Mondor. Mondor
spends the money himself and therefore
-
the effect is seen. Aristus,
spending it partly through intermediate
-
parties, and at a distance,
the effect is not seen. But, in fact,
-
those who know how to attribute
effects to their proper causes, will
-
perceive, that what is not
seen is as certain as what is seen. This is
-
proved by the fact, that
in both cases the money circulates, and
-
does not lie in the iron
chest of the wise mall, any more than it does
-
in that of the spendthrift.
It is, therefore, false to say that
-
economy does actual harm
to trade; as described above, it is equally
-
beneficial with luxury.
-
But how far superior is it, if, instead of confining-our
-
thoughts to the present moment,
we let them embrace a longer period!
-
Ten years pass away. What is become of Mondor and his
-
fortune, and his great popularity?
Mondor is ruined. Instead of
-
spending 60,000 francs every
year in the social body, he is,
-
perhaps, a burden to it.
In any case, he is no longer the delight of
-
shopkeepers; he is no longer
the patron of the arts and of trade; he
-
is no longer of any use to
the workmen, nor are his successors, whom
-
he has brought to want.
-
At the end of the same ten years, Aristus not only continues to
-
throw his income into circulation,
but he -adds an increasing sum from
-
year to year to his expenses.
He enlarges the national capital, that
-
is, the fund which supplies
wages, and as it is upon the extent of
-
this fund that the demand
for hands depends, he assists in
-
progressively increasing
the remuneration of the working class; and if
-
he dies, he leaves children
whom he has taught to succeed him in
-
this work of progress and
civilization.
-
In a moral point of view, the superiority of frugality over
-
luxury is indisputable. It
is consoling to think that it is so in
-
political economy, to every
one who, not confining his views to the
-
immediate effects of phenomena,
knows how to extend his investigations
-
to their final effects.
-
XII. THE RIGHT TO
A JOB & THE RIGHT TO PROFIT
-
"Brethren,
you must club together to find me work at your own
-
price." This is the right to work; i.e.,
elementary socialism of the
-
first degree.
-
"Brethren,
you must club together to find me work at my own
-
price." This is the right to profit; i.e.,
refined socialism, or
-
socialism of the second degree.
-
Both
of these live upon such of their effects as are seen. They
-
will die by means of those effects which
are not seen.
-
That-which
is seen, is the labour and the profit excited by
-
social combination. That which is not seen,
is the labour and the
-
profit to which this same combination would
give rise, if it were left
-
to the tax-payers.
-
In
1848, the right to labour for a moment showed two faces.
-
This was sufficient to ruin it in public
opinion.
-
One
of these faces was called national workshops. The other,
-
forty-five centimes. Millions of francs
went daily from the Rue Rivoli
-
to the national workshops. This was the
fair side of the medal.
-
And
this is the reverse. If millions are taken out of a
-
cash-box, they must first have been put
into it. This is why the
-
organizers of the right to public labour
apply to the tax-payers.
-
Now,
the peasants said, "I must pay forty-five centimes; then I
-
must deprive myself of some clothing. I
cannot manure my field; I
-
cannot repair my house."
-
And
the country workmen said, "As our townsman deprives himself
-
of same clothing, there will be less work
for the tailor; as he does
-
not improve his field, there will be less
work for the drainer; as
-
he does not repair his house, there will
be less work for the
-
carpenter and mason."
-
It
was then proved that two kinds of meal cannot come out of
-
one sack, and that the work furnished by
the Government was done at
-
the expense of labour, paid for by the
tax-payer. This was the death
-
of the right to labour, which showed itself
as much a chimera as an
-
injustice. And yet, the right to profit,
which is only an exaggeration
-
of the right to labour, is still alive
and flourishing.
-
Ought
not the protectionist to blush at the part he would
-
make society play?
-
He
says to it, "You must give me work, and, more than that,
-
lucrative work. I have foolishly fixed
upon a trade by which I lose
-
ten per cent. If you impose a tax of twenty
francs upon my countrymen,
-
and give it to me, I shall be a gainer
instead of a loser. Now, profit
-
is my right; you owe it me." Now, any society
which would listen to
-
this sophist, burden itself with taxes
to satisfy him, and not
-
perceive that the loss to which any trade
is exposed is no less a loss
-
when others are forced to make up for it,
such a society, I say, would
-
deserve the burden inflicted upon it.
-
Thus
we learn, by the numerous subjects which I have treated,
-
that, to be ignorant of political economy
is to allow ourselves to
-
be dazzled by the immediate effect of a
phenomenon; to be acquainted
-
with it is to embrace in thought and in
forethought the whole
-
compass of effects.
-
I
might subject a host of other questions to the same test; but
-
I shrink from the monotony of a constantly
uniform demonstration,
-
and I conclude by applying to political
economy what Chateaubriand
-
says of history:-
-
"There
are," he says, "two consequences in history; an
-
immediate one, which is instantly recognized,
and one in the distance,
-
which is not at first perceived. These
consequences often contradict
-
each other; the former are the results
of our own limited wisdom,
-
the latter, those of that wisdom which
endures. The providential event
-
appears after the human event. God rises
up behind men. Deny, if you
-
will, the supreme counsel; disown its action;
dispute about words;
-
designate, by the term, force of circumstances,
or reason, what the
-
vulgar call Providence; but look to the
end of an accomplished fact,
-
and you will see that it has always produced
the contrary of what
-
was expected from it, if it was not established
at first upon morality
-
and justice."
-
Chateaubriand's Posthumous Memoirs.
-
.
-
_____________________________________________________________
-
To return to the top of the Home Page,
click here: http://www.Laissez-FaireRepublic.com
-
-
-