According to Quesnay and the early economists, all production comes from the land.Smith, Ricardo, and de Tracy, on the contrary, say that labor is the sole agent of production.Say, and most of his successors, teach that BOTH land AND labor AND capital are productive.The latter constitute the eclectic school of political economy.The truth is, that NEITHER land NOR labor NOR capital is productive.Production results from the co-operation of these three equally necessary elements, which, taken separately, are equally sterile.
Political economy, indeed, treats of the production, distribution, and consumption of wealth or values.But of what values? Of the values produced by human industry; that is, of the changes made in matter by man, that he may appropriate it to his own use, and not at all of Nature's spontaneous productions.
Man's labor consists in a simple laying on of hands.When he has taken that trouble, he has produced a value.Until then, the salt of the sea, the water of the springs, the grass of the fields, and the trees of the forests are to him as if they were not.The sea, without the fisherman and his line, supplies no fish.The forest, without the wood-cutter and his axe, furnishes neither fuel nor timber.The meadow, without the mower, yields neither hay nor aftermath.Nature is a vast mass of material to be cultivated and converted into products; but Nature produces nothing for herself: in the economical sense, her products, in their relation to man, are not yet products.
Capital, tools, and machinery are likewise unproductive.The hammer and the anvil, without the blacksmith and the iron, do not forge.The mill, without the miller and the grain, does not grind, &c.Bring tools and raw material together; place a plough and some seed on fertile soil; enter a smithy, light the fire, and shut up the shop,--you will produce nothing.The following remark was made by an economist who possessed more good sense than most of his fellows: "Say credits capital with an active part unwarranted by its nature; left to itself, it is an idle tool." (J.Droz: Political Economy.)Finally, labor and capital together, when unfortunately combined, produce nothing.Plough a sandy desert, beat the water of the rivers, pass type through a sieve,--you will get neither wheat, nor fish, nor books.Your trouble will be as fruitless as was the immense labor of the army of Xerxes; who, as Herodotus says, with his three million soldiers, scourged the Hellespont for twenty-four hours, as a punishment for having broken and scattered the pontoon bridge which the great king had thrown across it.
Tools and capital, land and labor, considered individually and abstractly, are not, literally speaking, productive.The proprietor who asks to be rewarded for the use of a tool, or the productive power of his land, takes for granted, then, that which is radically false; namely, that capital produces by its own effort,--and, in taking pay for this imaginary product, he literally receives something for nothing.
OBJECTION.--But if the blacksmith, the wheelwright, all manufacturers in short, have a right to the products in return for the implements which they furnish; and if land is an implement of production,--why does not this implement entitle its proprietor, be his claim real or imaginary, to a portion of the products; as in the case of the manufacturers of ploughs and wagons?
REPLY.--Here we touch the heart of the question, the mystery of property; which we must clear up, if we would understand any thing of the strange effects of the right of increase.
He who manufactures or repairs the farmer's tools receives the price ONCE, either at the time of delivery, or in several payments; and when this price is once paid to the manufacturer, the tools which he has delivered belong to him no more.Never does he claim double payment for the same tool, or the same job of repairs.If he annually shares in the products of the farmer, it is owing to the fact that he annually makes something for the farmer.
The proprietor, on the contrary, does not yield his implement;eternally he is paid for it, eternally he keeps it.
In fact, the rent received by the proprietor is not intended to defray the expense of maintaining and repairing the implement;this expense is charged to the borrower, and does not concern the proprietor except as he is interested in the preservation of the article.If he takes it upon himself to attend to the repairs, he takes care that the money which he expends for this purpose is repaid.
This rent does not represent the product of the implement, since of itself the implement produces nothing; we have just proved this, and we shall prove it more clearly still by its consequences.
Finally, this rent does not represent the participation of the proprietor in the production; since this participation could consist, like that of the blacksmith and the wheelwright, only in the surrender of the whole or a part of his implement, in which case he would cease to be its proprietor, which would involve a contradiction of the idea of property.
Then, between the proprietor and his tenant there is no exchange either of values or services; then, as our axiom says, farm-rent is real increase,--an extortion based solely upon fraud and violence on the one hand, and weakness and ignorance upon the other.PRODUCTS say the economists, ARE BOUGHT ONLY BYPRODUCTS.This maxim is property's condemnation.The proprietor, producing neither by his own labor nor by his implement, and receiving products in exchange for nothing, is either a parasite or a thief.Then, if property can exist only as a right, property is impossible.
