Part 40 (1/2)

Our civil code has a chapter entitled, ”On the ives a very complete nomenclature on this point When a s--in other words, when he has created a _value_--it can only pass into the hands of another by one of the following e, loan, or theft One word upon each of these, except the last, although it plays a greater part in the world than we ift, needs no definition It is essentially voluntary and spontaneous It depends exclusively upon the giver, and the receiver cannot be said to have any right to it Without a doubt, ion make it a duty for men, especially the rich, to deprive themselves voluntarily of that which they possess, in favor of their less fortunate brethren But this is an entirely ation If it were to be asserted on principle, admitted in practice, or sanctioned by law, that every ift would have no er virtues

Besides, such a doctrine would suddenly and universally arrest labor and production, as severe cold congeals water and suspends anier to be any connection between labor and the satisfying of our wants? Political econoifts It has hence been concluded that it disowns them, and that it is therefore a science devoid of heart This is a ridiculous accusation

That science which treats of the laws resulting from the _reciprocity of services_, had no business to inquire into the consequences of generosity with respect to him who receives, nor into its effects, perhaps stillevidently to the science of morals We must allow the sciences to have li or undervaluing what they look upon as foreign to their departainst which so ift, and assuredly the most natural of all That which a ive; what can be ive it to his children? It is this power, e to labor and to save Do you knohy the principle of right of inheritance is thus called in question? Because it is iined that the property thus transmitted is plundered from the masses This is a fatal error; political economy demonstrates, in the most peremptory manner, that all value produced is a creation which does no harm to any person whatever

For that reason, itany one; but I shall not pursue these reflections, which do not belong to the subject

Exchange is the principal department of political economy, because it is by far theto the free and voluntary agreements of the laws and effects of which this science treats

Properly speaking, exchange is the reciprocity of services The parties say between theive you that;” or, ”Do this for me, and I will do that for you” It is well to reht on the notion of value), that the second form is always implied in the first When it is said, ”Do this for e of service for service is proposed Again, when it is said, ”Give , ”I yield to you what I have done, yield to me what you have done” The labor is past, instead of present; but the exchange is not the less governed by the comparative valuation of the two services; so that it is quite correct to say, that the principle of _value_ is in the services rendered and received on account of the productions exchanged, rather than in productions theed directly There is a medium, which is termed _money_ Paul has completed a coat, for which he wishes to receive a little bread, a little wine, a little oil, a visit froe cannot be effected in kind; so what does Paul do? He first exchanges his coat for soes this s which he wants, which is called _purchase_; and now, only, has the reciprocity of services completed its circuit; now, only, the labor and the compensation are balanced in the same individual,--”I have done this for society, it has done that for e is actually acco can be more correct than this observation of JB Say: ”Since the introduction of e is resolved into two elements, _sale_ and _purchase_ It is the reunion of these two elee complete”

We must remark, also, that the constant appearance of e has overturned andthat money was true riches, and that to multiply it was to multiply services and products Hence the prohibitory system; hence paper ains the other loses;” and all the errors which have ruined the earth, and imbrued it with blood[17] After much research it has been found, that in order to ed of equivalent value, and in order to render the exchange _equitable_, the best means was to allow it to be free However plausible, at first sight, the intervention of the State ht be, it was soon perceived that it is always oppressive to one or other of the contracting parties When we look into these subjects, we are always compelled to reason upon this maxim, that _equal value_ results fro whether, at a given moment, two services are of the sa whether they can be readily and freely exchanged Allow the State, which is the sa as force, to interfere on one side or the other, and from that moment all the led, instead of becoht to be the part of the State to prevent, and, above all, to repress artifice and fraud; that is, to secure liberty, and not to violate it I have enlarged a little upon exchange, although loan is my principal object: my excuse is, that I conceive that there is in a loan an actual exchange, an actual service rendered by the lender, and which makes the borrower liable to an equivalent service,--two services, whose comparative value can only be appreciated, like that of all possible services, by freedom Now, if it is so, the perfect lawfulness of what is called house-rent, farm-rent, interest, will be explained and justified Let us consider the case of _loan_

[Footnote 17: This error will be combated in a pamphlet, entitled ”_Cursed Money_”]

Suppose two e two services or two objects, whose equal value is beyond all dispute Suppose, for exaive you a five-shi+lling piece” We cannot iain is ed services are equal Thus it follows, that if one of the parties wishes to introduce into the bargain an additional clause, advantageous to hiree to a second clause, which shall re-establish the equilibrium, and the law of justice It would be absurd to deny the justice of a second clause of coranted, ill suppose that Peter, after having said to Paul, ”Give ive ive you the crown-piece _in a year_;”

it is very evident that this new proposition alters the claiain; that it alters the proportion of the two services Does it not appear plainly enough, in fact, that Peter asks of Paul a new and an additional service; one of a different kind? Is it not as if he had said, ”Renders which belong to you, and which you ood reason have you to ratuitously; that he has no right to de ht to interfere to force him to submit? Is it not incomprehensible that the economist, who preaches such a doctrine to the people, can reconcile it with his principle of _the reciprocity of services_? Here I have introduced cash; I have been led to do so by a desire to place, side by side, two objects of exchange, of a perfect and indisputable equality of value I was anxious to be prepared for objections; but, on the other hand,still, if I had illustratedthe services or the productions themselves

Suppose, for example, a house and a vessel of a value so perfectly equal that their proprietors are disposed to exchange them even-handed, without excess or abateain be settled by a lawyer At thepossession, the shi+p-owner says to the citizen, ”Very well; the transaction is co can prove its perfect equity better than our free and voluntary consent Our conditions thus fixed, I shall propose to you a little practical modification You shall let me have your house to-day, but I shall not put you in possession of my shi+p for a year; and the reason Ithis year of _delay_, I wish to use the vessel” That we may not be embarrassed by considerations relative to the deterioration of the thing lent, I will suppose the shi+p-owner to add, ”I will engage, at the end of the year, to hand over to you the vessel in the state in which it is to-day” I ask of every candid man, I ask of M Proudhon hiht to answer, ”The new clause which you propose entirely alters the proportion or the equal value of the exchanged services By it, I shall be deprived, for the space of a year, both at once of my house and of your vessel By it, you will ain was just, for the same reason the clause is injurious to ain to you You are requiring of ht to refuse, or to require of you, as a coreed upon this compensation, the principle of which is incontestable, we can easily distinguish two transactions in one, two exchanges of service in one First, there is the exchange of the house for the vessel; after this, there is the delay granted by one of the parties, and the compensation correspondent to this delay yielded by the other These t services take the generic and abstract nae the nature of things; and I defy any one to dare to maintain that there exists here, when all is done, a service for a service, or a reciprocity of services To say that one of these services does not challenge the other, to say that the first ought to be rendered gratuitously, without injustice, is to say that injustice consists in the reciprocity of services--that justice consists in one of the parties giving and not receiving, which is a contradiction in terive an idea of interest and its mechanism, allow me to make use of two or three anecdotes But, first, I must say a feords upon capital

There are soine that capital is money, and this is precisely the reason why they deny its productiveness; for, as M Thore says, crowns are not endoith the power of reproducing themselves

But it is not true that capital andBefore the discovery of the precious metals, there were capitalists in the world; and I venture to say that at that time, as now, everybody was a capitalist, to a certain extent

What is capital, then? It is cos:

1st Of the materials upon which men operate, when these materials have already a value communicated by some human effort, which has bestowed upon them the principle of remuneration--wool, flax, leather, silk, wood, etc

2nd Instru--tools, es, etc

3rd Provisions which are consu labor--victuals, stuffs, houses, etc

Without these things, the labor of man would be unproductive, and als have required much work, especially at first This is the reason that so much value has been attached to the possession of thee and to sell theain remuneration from them if lent

Now for my anecdotes

THE SACK OF CORN

Mathurin, in other respects as poor as Job, and obliged to earn his bread by day-labor, became, nevertheless, by some inheritance, the owner of a fine piece of uncultivated land He was exceedingly anxious to cultivate it ”Alas!” said he, ”to make ditches, to raise fences, to break the soil, to clear away the brain a year or two; but certainly not to-day, or to- it, without previously saving some provisions for my subsistence until the harvest; and I know, by experience, that preparatory labor is indispensable, in order to render present labor productive” The good Mathurin was not content withthese reflections He resolved to work by the day, and to save soes to buy a spade and a sack of corn; without which things, he ricultural projects He acted so well, was so active and steady, that he soon saw himself in possession of the wished-for sack of corn ”I shall take it to the h to live upon till my field is covered with a rich harvest” Just as he was starting, Jerome came to borrow his treasure of him ”If you will lend reat service; for I have some very lucrative work in viehich I cannot possibly undertake, for want of provisions to live upon until it is finished” ”I was in the same case,”

answered Mathurin, ”and if I have now secured bread for several months, it is at the expense of my arms and my stomach Upon what principle of justice can it be devoted to the realization of _your_ enterprise instead of _ one However, it was finished at length, and on these conditions: