That is my only offence.I have reasoned upon property; I have searched for the criterion of justice; I have demonstrated, not the possibility, but the necessity, of equality of fortunes; Ihave allowed myself no attack upon persons, no assault upon the government, of which I, more than any one else, am a provisional adherent.If I have sometimes used the word PROPRIETOR, I have used it as the abstract name of a metaphysical being, whose reality breathes in every individual,--not alone in a privileged few.
Nevertheless, I acknowledge--for I wish my confession to be sincere--that the general tone of my book has been bitterly censured.They complain of an atmosphere of passion and invective unworthy of an honest man, and quite out of place in the treatment of so grave a subject.
If this reproach is well founded (which it is impossible for me either to deny or admit, because in my own cause I cannot be judge),--if, I say, I deserve this charge, I can only humble myself and acknowledge myself guilty of an involuntary wrong; the only excuse that I could offer being of such a nature that it ought not to be communicated to the public.All that I can say is, that I understand better than any one how the anger which injustice causes may render an author harsh and violent in his criticisms.When, after twenty years of labor, a man still finds himself on the brink of starvation, and then suddenly discovers in an equivocation, an error in calculation, the cause of the evil which torments him in common with so many millions of his fellows, he can scarcely restrain a cry of sorrow and dismay.
But, sir, though pride be offended by my rudeness, it is not to pride that I apologize, but to the proletaires, to the simple-minded, whom I perhaps have scandalized.My angry dialectics may have produced a bad effect on some peaceable minds.Some poor workingman--more affected by my sarcasm than by the strength of my arguments--may, perhaps, have concluded that property is the result of a perpetual Machiavelianism on the part of the governors against the governed,--a deplorable error of which my book itself is the best refutation.I devoted two chapters to showing how property springs from human personality and the comparison of individuals.Then I explained its perpetual limitation; and, following out the same idea, I predicted its approaching disappearance.How, then, could the editors of the "Revue Democratique," after having borrowed from me nearly the whole substance of their economical articles, dare to say: "The holders of the soil, and other productive capital, are more or less wilful accomplices in a vast robbery, they being the exclusive receivers and sharers of the stolen goods"?
The proprietors WILFULLY guilty of the crime of robbery!
Never did that homicidal phrase escape my pen; never did my heart conceive the frightful thought.Thank Heaven! I know not how to calumniate my kind; and I have too strong a desire to seek for the reason of things to be willing to believe in criminal conspiracies.The millionnaire is no more tainted by property than the journeyman who works for thirty sous per day.On both sides the error is equal, as well as the intention.The effect is also the same, though positive in the former, and negative in the latter.I accused property; I did not denounce the proprietors, which would have been absurd: and I am sorry that there are among us wills so perverse and minds so shattered that they care for only so much of the truth as will aid them in their evil designs.Such is the only regret which I feel on account of my indignation, which, though expressed perhaps too bitterly, was at least honest, and legitimate in its source.
However, what did I do in this essay which I voluntarily submitted to the Academy of Moral Sciences? Seeking a fixed axiom amid social uncertainties, I traced back to one fundamental question all the secondary questions over which, at present, so keen and diversified a conflict is raging This question was the right of property.Then, comparing all existing theories with each other, and extracting from them that which is common to them all, I endeavored to discover that element in the idea of property which is necessary, immutable, and absolute; and asserted, after authentic verification, that this idea is reducible to that of INDIVIDUAL AND TRANSMISSIBLE POSSESSION;SUSCEPTIBLE OF EXCHANGE, BUT NOT OF ALIENATION; FOUNDED ON LABOR, AND NOT ON FICTITIOUS OCCUPANCY, OR IDLE CAPRICE.I said, further, that this idea was the result of our revolutionary movements,--the culminating point towards which all opinions, gradually divesting themselves of their contradictory elements, converge.And I tried to demonstrate this by the spirit of the laws, by political economy, by psychology and history.
A Father of the Church, finishing a learned exposition of the Catholic doctrine, cried, in the enthusiasm of his faith, _"Domine, si error est, a te decepti sumus_ (if my religion is false, God is to blame)." I, as well as this theologian, can say, "If equality is a fable, God, through whom we act and think and are; God, who governs society by eternal laws, who rewards just nations, and punishes proprietors,--God alone is the author of evil; God has lied.The fault lies not with me."But, if I am mistaken in my inferences, I should be shown my error, and led out of it.It is surely worth the trouble, and Ithink I deserve this honor.There is no ground for proscription.
For, in the words of that member of the Convention who did not like the guillotine, _to kill is not to reply_.Until then, Ipersist in regarding my work as useful, social, full of instruction for public officials,--worthy, in short, of reward and encouragement.
