Then M.Wolowski cites his authorities.Great God! what witnesses he brings forward! First, M.Troplong, the great metaphysician, whom we have discussed; then, M.Louis Blanc, editor of the "Revue du Progres," who came near being tried by jury for publishing his "Organization of Labor," and who escaped from the clutches of the public prosecutor only by a juggler's trick; Corinne,--I mean Madame de Stael,--who, in an ode, making a poetical comparison of the land with the waves, of the furrow of a plough with the wake of a vessel, says "that property exists only where man has left his trace," which makes property dependent upon the solidity of the elements; Rousseau, the apostle of liberty and equality, but who, according to M.
Wolowski, attacked property only AS A JOKE, and in order to point a paradox; Robespierre, who prohibited a division of the land, because he regarded such a measure as a rejuvenescence of property, and who, while awaiting the definitive organization of the republic, placed all property in the care?? of the people,--that is, transferred the right of eminent domain from the individual to society; Babeuf, who wanted property for the nation, and communism for the citizens; M.Considerant, who favors a division of landed property into shares,--that is, who wishes to render property nominal and fictitious: the whole being intermingled with jokes and witticisms (intended undoubtedly to lead people away from the HORNETS' NESTS) at the expense of the adversaries of the right of property!
In a very short article, which was read by M.Wolowski, M.
Louis Blanc declares, in substance, that he is not a communist (which I easily believe); that one must be a fool to attack property (but he does not say why); and that it is very necessary to guard against confounding property with its abuses.When Voltaire overthrew Christianity, he repeatedly avowed that he had no spite against religion, but only against its abuses.
November 26.--M.Wolowski supposes this objection: Land, like water, air, and light, is necessary to life, therefore it cannot be appropriated; and he replies: The importance of landed property diminishes as the power of industry increases.
Good! this importance DIMINISHES, but it does not DISAPPEAR;and this, of itself, shows landed property to be illegitimate.
Here M.Wolowski pretends to think that the opponents of property refer only to property in land, while they merely take it as a term of comparison; and, in showing with wonderful clearness the absurdity of the position in which he places them, he finds a way of drawing the attention of his hearers to another subject without being false to the truth which it is his office to contradict.
"Property," says M.Wolowski, "is that which distinguishes man from the animals." That may be; but are we to regard this as a compliment or a satire?
"Mahomet," says M.Wolowski, "decreed property." And so did Genghis Khan, and Tamerlane, and all the ravagers of nations.
What sort of legislators were they?
"Property has been in existence ever since the origin of the human race." Yes, and so has slavery, and despotism also; and likewise polygamy and idolatry.But what does this antiquity show?
The members of the Council of the State--M.Portalis at their head--did not raise, in their discussion of the Code, the question of the legitimacy of property."Their silence," says M.
Wolowski, "is a precedent in favor of this right." I may regard this reply as personally addressed to me, since the observation belongs to me.I reply, "As long as an opinion is universally admitted, the universality of belief serves of itself as argument and proof.When this same opinion is attacked, the former faith proves nothing; we must resort to reason.Ignorance, however old and pardonable it may be, never outweighs reason."Property has its abuses, M.Wolowski confesses."But," he says, "these abuses gradually disappear.To-day their cause is known.
They all arise from a false theory of property.In principle, property is inviolable, but it can and must be checked and disciplined." Such are the conclusions of the professor.
When one thus remains in the clouds, he need not fear to equivocate.Nevertheless, I would like him to define these ABUSES of property, to show their cause, to explain this true theory from which no abuse is to spring; in short, to tell me how, without destroying property, it can be governed for the greatest good of all."Our civil code," says M.Wolowski, in speaking of this subject, "leaves much to be desired." I think it leaves every thing undone.
Finally, M.Wolowski opposes, on the one hand, the concentration of capital, and the absorption which results therefrom; and, on the other, he objects to the extreme division of the land.Now Ithink that I have demonstrated in my First Memoir, that large accumulation and minute division are the first two terms of an economical trinity,--a THESIS and an ANTITHESIS.But, while M.Wolowski says nothing of the third term, the SYNTHESIS, and thus leaves the inference in suspense, I have shown that this third term is ASSOCIATION, which is the annihilation of property.
