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
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
inconsistent.
Harm Of False Premise
We need not be surprised at this. On a wrong road,
inconsi 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 g 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
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
What is the change, then, which has taken place? An
additional national advan 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
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
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 first who
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
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, i 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
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
long then he has no longer a franc to dispose of,
to procure for the national lab 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
and this, again, is what is not
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
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
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 thirty-two francs should take the direction of
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 takin another, to get better
another, another, better furniture. It is thus
that the trades are bound together. They form a vast whole, whose
different parts communic 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
p 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
pa our business is with the productions
themselves, which are the real 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 plough of
But, in point of fact, no one borrows money for the sake of the
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
Whatever may be the amount of cash and of paper which is in
circulation, the whole of the borrowers cannot receive more ploughs,
houses, tools, and supplies of raw material, than the lenders
al 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 trea 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 ploughs, 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
F John and James wish to borrow it. John, by his honesty, his
property, and good reputation, offers security. He inspires
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 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 oblig 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 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 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
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 ca 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, le 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
th then they speak one after the other. What have
they said? Some very fine things, certainly, about the power and the
grandeur of F about the necessity of sowing,
about the brilliant future of 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 A for send 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
you only see where they go, and
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
the harbour made in Barbary i the work
caused in Bar a few less hands in France is
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
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' this is what is not
seen. He would have become a member of the Mutual Assistance
Society, 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 de 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 A 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
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 B 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
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 for paving the street which you are
passi for paying the magistrate who causes your
property and your lib 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 culti or that I may teach your son
something that you have no wish
or that the
Minister may add another to his score 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 th it points to the
cook and purveyor of the M it shows an emigrant, a soldier,
and a general, l 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
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, belo 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 it attracts
it is what is seen. T 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
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. Thi 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
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 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
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 benef a
blessing to the people. It is true, he r he
splashes the passers- his own dignity and that of human nature
but what of that? He does good with his fortune,
if not with himself. He cause he always sends the
tradespeople away satisfied. Is not money made round that it may
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 si and he is humane, too, and
benevolent, and generous, but he calculates. He does not spend his
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 expendi 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, 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
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 B and it is said,
"Th 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 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
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
he thinks he is bound in conscience to afford them
some relief, and therefore he devotes 10,000 francs to acts of
benevolence. Amongst the merchants, the manufacturers, and the
agriculturists, he has friends who are suffering under temporary
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 trad 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 recei 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 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,
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, he intends to increase his
ca 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 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
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
he is no longer the patron of t 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
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. HAVING A RIGHT TO WORK, HAVING A RIGHT TO PROFIT
"Brethren, you must club together to find me work at your own
price." This
i.e., elementary socialism of the
first degree.
"Brethren, you must club together to find me work at my own
price." This is 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- then I
must deprive myself of some clothing. I ca I
cannot repair my house."
And the country workmen said, "As our townsman deprives himself
of same clothing, there will be less as he does
not improve his field, there will be less
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
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 ef 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 questi 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 con an
immediate one, which is instantly recognized, and one in the distance,
which is not at first perceived. These consequences often contradict
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
designate, by the term, force of circumstances, or reason, what the
vulgar call P 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.
Unidentified translator, most likely
someone from the .
from David T. Freeman's
See also the