按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
How do we measure the value of land？ By its product。 If a piece of land yields one thousand francs； we say that at five per cent。 it is worth twenty thousand francs； at four per cent。 twenty…five thousand francs； &c。； which means； in other words； that in twenty or twenty…five years' time the purchaser would recover in full the amount originally paid for the land。 If； then； after a certain length of time； the price of a piece of land has been wholly recovered； why does the purchaser continue to be proprietor？ Because of the right of occupancy； in the absence of which every sale would be a redemption。
The theory of appropriation by labor is； then； a contradiction of the Code； and when the partisans of this theory pretend to explain the laws thereby； they contradict themselves。
〃If men succeed in fertilizing land hitherto unproductive； or even death…producing； like certain swamps； they create thereby property in all its completeness。〃
What good does it do to magnify an expression； and play with equivocations； as if we expected to change the reality thereby？ THEY CREATE PROPERTY IN ALL ITS COMPLETENESS。 You mean that they create a productive capacity which formerly did not exist； but this capacity cannot be created without material to support it。 The substance of the soil remains the same； only its qualities and modifications are changed。 Man has created every thingevery thing save the material itself。 Now； I maintain that this material he can only possess and use； on condition of permanent labor；granting； for the time being； his right of property in things which he has produced。
This； then； is the first point settled： property in product； if we grant so much； does not carry with it property in the means of production； that seems to me to need no further demonstration。 There is no difference between the soldier who possesses his arms； the mason who possesses the materials committed to his care； the fisherman who possesses the water； the hunter who possesses the fields and forests； and the cultivator who possesses the lands： all； if you say so； are proprietors of their productsnot one is proprietor of the means of production。 The right to product is exclusivejus in re； the right to means is commonjus ad rem。
％ 5。That Labor leads to Equality of Property。
Admit； however； that labor gives a right of property in material。
Why is not this principle universal？ Why is the benefit of this pretended law confined to a few and denied to the mass of laborers？ A philosopher； arguing that all animals sprang up formerly out of the earth warmed by the rays of the sun； almost like mushrooms； on being asked why the earth no longer yielded crops of that nature； replied： 〃Because it is old； and has lost its fertility。〃 Has labor； once so fecund； likewise become sterile？ Why does the tenant no longer acquire through his labor the land which was formerly acquired by the labor of the proprietor？
〃Because；〃 they say； 〃it is already appropriated。〃 That is no answer。 A farm yields fifty bushels per hectare； the skill and labor of the tenant double this product： the increase is created by the tenant。 Suppose the owner； in a spirit of moderation rarely met with； does not go to the extent of absorbing this product by raising the rent； but allows the cultivator to enjoy the results of his labor； even then justice is not satisfied。 The tenant； by improving the land； has imparted a new value to the property； he； therefore； has a right to a part of the property。 If the farm was originally worth one hundred thousand francs； and if by the labor of the tenant its value has risen to one hundred and fifty thousand francs； the tenant； who produced this extra value； is the legitimate proprietor of one…third of the farm。 M。 Ch。 Comte could not have pronounced this doctrine false； for it was he who said：
〃Men who increase the fertility of the earth are no less useful to their fellow…men； than if they should create new land。〃
Why； then； is not this rule applicable to the man who improves the land； as well as to him who clears it？ The labor of the former makes the land worth one； that of the latter makes it worth two： both create equal values。 Why not accord to both equal property？ I defy any one to refute this argument； without again falling back on the right of first occupancy。
〃But；〃 it will be said； 〃even if your wish should be granted； property would not be distributed much more evenly than now。 Land does not go on increasing in value for ever； after two or three seasons it attains its maximum fertility。 That which is added by the agricultural art results rather from the progress of science and the diffusion of knowledge； than from the skill of the cultivator。 Consequently； the addition of a few laborers to the mass of proprietors would be no argument against property。〃
This discussion would； indeed； prove a well…nigh useless one； if our labors culminated in simply extending land…privilege and industrial monopoly； in emancipating only a few hundred laborers out of the millions of proletaires。 But this also is a misconception of our real thought； and does but prove the general lack of intelligence and logic。
If the laborer； who adds to the value of a thing； has a right of property in it； he who maintains this value acquires the same right。 For what is maintenance？ It is incessant addition； continuous creation。 What is it to cultivate？ It is to give the soil its value every year； it is； by annually renewed creation； to prevent the diminution or destruction of the value of a piece of land。 Admitting； then； that property is rational and legitimate；admitting that rent is equitable and just；I say that he who cultivates acquires property by as good a title as he who clears； or he who improves； and that every time a tenant pays his rent； he obtains a fraction of property in the land entrusted to his care； the denominator of which is equal to the proportion of rent paid。 Unless you admit this； you fall into absolutism and tyranny； you recognize class privileges； you sanction slavery。
Whoever labors becomes a proprietorthis is an inevitable deduction from the acknowledged principles of political economy and jurisprudence。 And when I say proprietor； I do not mean simply （as do our hypocritical economists） proprietor of his allowance； his salary； his wages；I mean proprietor of the value which he creates； and by which the master alone profits。
As all this relates to the theory of wages and of the distribution of products；and as this matter never has been even partially cleared up；I ask permission to insist on it： this discussion will not be useless to the work in hand。 Many persons talk of admitting working…people to a share in the products and profits； but in their minds this participation is pure benevolence： they have never shownperhaps never suspectedthat it was a natural； necessary right； inherent in labor； and inseparable from the function of producer； even in the lowest forms of his work。
This is my proposition： THE LABORER RETAINS； EVEN AFTER HE HAS RECEIVED HIS WAGES； A NATURAL RIGHT OF PROPERTY IN THE THING WHICH HE HAS PRODUCED。
I again quote M。 Ch。 Comte：
〃Some laborers are employed in draining marshes； in cutting down trees and brushwood；in a word； in cleaning up the soil。 They increase the value； they make the amount of property larger； they are paid for the value which they add in the form of food and daily wages： it then becomes the property of the capitalist。〃
The price is not sufficient： the labor of the workers has created a value； now this value is their property。 But they have neither sold nor exchanged it； and you； capitalist； you have not earned it。 That you should have a partial right to the whole； in return for the materials that you have furnished and the provisions that you have supplied； is perfectly just。 You contributed to the production； you ought to share in the enjoyment。 But your right does not annihilate that of the laborers； who； in spite of you； have been your colleagues in the work of production。 Why do you talk of wages？ The money with which you pay the wages of the laborers remunerates them for only a few years of the perpetual p