what is property-第87节

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！


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！

＇1＇　　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　StateM。　Portalis　at　their　headdid　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　I　think　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。

November　30。LITERARY　PROPERTY。　　M。　Wolowski　grants　that　it　is　just　to　recognize　the　rights　of　talent　（which　is　not　in　the　least　hostile　to　equality）；　but　he　seriously　objects　to　perpetual　and　absolute　property　in　the　works　of　genius；　to　the　profit　of　the　authors'　heirs。　　His　main　argument　is；　that　society　has　a　right　of　collective　production　over　every　creation　of　the　mind。　　Now；　it　is　precisely　this　principle　of　collective　power　that　I　developed　in　my　〃Inquiries　into　Property　and　Government；〃　and　on　which　I　have　established　the　complete　edifice　of　a　new　social　organization。　　M。　Wolowski　is；　as　far　as　I　know；　the　first　jurist　who　has　made　a　legislative　application　of　this　economical　law。　　Only；　while　I　have　extended　the　principle　of　collective　power　to　every　sort　of　product；　M。　Wolowski；　more　prudent　than　it　is　my　nature　to　be；　confines　it　to　neutral　ground。　　So；　that　that　which　I　am　bold　enough　to　say　of　the　whole；　he　is　contented　to　affirm　of　a　part；　leaving　the　intelligent　hearer　to　fill　up　the　void　for　himself。　　However；　his　arguments　are　keen　and　close。　　One　feels　that　the　professor；　finding　himself　more　at　ease　with　one　aspect　of　property；　has　given　the　rein　to　his　intellect；　and　is　rushing　on　towards　liberty。

1。　Absolute　literary　property　would　hinder　the　activity　of　other　men；　and　obstruct　the　development　of　humanity。　　It　would　be　the　death　of　progress；　it　would　be　suicide。　　What　would　have　happened　if　the　first　inventions；the　plough；　the　level；　the　saw；　&c。；　had　been　appropriated？

Such　is　the　first　proposition　of　M。　Wolowski。

I　reply：　　Absolute　property　in　land　and　tools　hinders　human　activity；　and　obstructs　progress　and　the　free　development　of　man。

What　happened　in　Rome；　and　in　all　the　ancient　nations？　　What　occurred　in　the　middle　ages？　　What　do　we　see　to…day　in　England；　in　consequence　of　absolute　property　in　the　sources　of　production？

The　suicide　of　humanity。

2。　Real　and　personal　property　is　in　harmony　with　the　social　interest。　　In　consequence　of　literary　property；　social　and　individual　interests　are　perpetually　in　conflict。

The　statement　of　this　proposition　contains　a　rhetorical　figure；　common　with　those　who　do　not　enjoy　full　and　complete　liberty　of　speech。　　This　figure　is　the　_anti…phrasis_　or　_contre…verite_。　　It　consists；　according　to　Dumarsais　and　the　best　humanists；　in　saying　one　thing　while　meaning　another。　　M。　Wolowski's　proposition；　naturally　expressed；　would　read　as　follows：　　〃Just　as　real　and　personal　property　is　essentially　hostile　to　society；　so；　in　consequence　of　literary　property；　social　and　individual　interests　are　perpetually　in　conflict。〃

3。　M。　de　Montalembert；　in　the　Chamber　of　Peers；　vehemently　protested　against　the　assimilation　of　authors　to　inventors　of　machinery；　an　assimilation　which　he　claimed　to　be　injurious　to　the　former。　　M。　Wolowski　replies；　that　the　rights　of　authors；　without　machinery；　would　be　nil；　that；　without　paper…mills；　type　foundries；　and　printing…offices；　there　could　be　no　sale　of　verse　and　prose；　that　many　a　mechanical　invention；the　compass；　for　instance；　the　telescope；　or　the　steam…engine；is　quite　as　valuable　as　a　book。

Prior　to　M。　Montalembert；　M。　Charles　Comte　had　laughed　at　the　inference　in　favor　of　mechanical　inventions；　which　logical　minds　never　fail　to　draw　from　the　privileges　granted　to　authors。　　〃He；〃　says　M。　Comte；　〃who　first　conceived　and　executed　the　idea　of　transforming　a　piece　of　wood　into　a　pair　of　sabots；　or　an　animal's　hide　into　a　pair　of　sandals；　would　thereby　have　acquired　an　exclusive　right　to　make　shoes　for　the　human　race！〃　　Undoubtedly；　under　the　system　of　property。　　For；　in　fact；　this　pair　of　sabots；　over　which　you　make　so　merry；　is　the　creation　of　the　shoemaker；　the　work　of　his　genius；　the　expression　of　his　thought；　to　him　it　is　his　poem；　quite　as　much　as　〃Le　Roi　s'amuse；〃　is　M。　Victor　Hugo's　drama。　　Justice　for　all　alike。　　If　you　refuse　a　patent　to　a　perfecter　of　boots；　refuse　also　a　privilege　to　a　maker　of　rhymes。

4。　That　which　gives　importance　to　a　book　is　a　fact　external　to　the　author　and　his　work。　　Without　the　intelligence　of　society；　without　its　development；　and　a　certain　community　of　ideas；　passions；　and　interests　between　it　and　the　authors；　the　works　of　the　latter　would　be　worth　nothing。　　The　exchangeable　value　of　a　book　is　due　even　more　to　the　SOCIAL　CONDITION　than　to　the　talent　displayed　in　it。

Indeed；　it　seems　as　if　I　were　copying　my　own　words。　　This　proposition　of　M。　Wolowski　contains　a　special　expression　of　a　general　and　absolute　idea；　one　of　the　strongest　and　most　conclusive　against　the　right　of　property。　　Why　do　artists；　like　mechanics；　find　the　means　to　live？　　Because　society　has　made　the　fine　arts；　like　the　rudest　industries；　objects　of　consumption　and　exchange；　governed　consequently　by　all　the　laws