I had thought to offer you a picture, and all I have given you is a sketch5; but you will pardon me; for who, in times like the present,12 can sit down to finish a grave and important work? My hope is that some one among you, on seeing it, will be led to exclaim, with the great artist, Anch’ io son pittore! and, seizing the pencil, impart to my rude canvas colour and flesh, light and shade, sentiment and life.
You may think the title of the work somewhat ambitious; and assuredly I make no pretension6 to reveal the designs of Providence7 in the social order, and to explain the mechanism8 of all the forces with which God has endowed man for the realization9 of progress. All that I have aimed at is to put you on the right track, and make you acquainted with the truth, that all legitimate10 interests are in harmony. That is the predominant idea of my work, and it is impossible not to recognise its importance.
For some time it has been the fashion to laugh at what has been called the social problem: and no doubt some of the solutions which have been proposed afford but too much ground for raillery. But in the problem itself there is nothing laughable. It is the ghost of Banquo at the feast of Macbeth—and no dumb ghost either; for in formidable accents it calls out to terror-stricken society—a solution or death! [p034]
Now this solution, you will at once see, must be different according as men’s interests are held to be naturally harmonious11 or naturally antagonistic12.
In the one case, we must seek for the solution in Liberty—in the other, in Constraint14. In the one case, we have only to be passive—in the other, we must necessarily offer opposition15.
But Liberty assumes only one shape. Once convinced that each of the molecules16 which compose a fluid possesses in itself the force by which the general level is produced, we conclude that there is no surer or simpler way of seeing that level realized than not to interfere17 with it. All, then, who set out with this fundamental principle, that men’s interests are harmonious, will agree as to the practical solution of the social problem,—to abstain18 from displacing or thwarting19 those interests.
Constraint, on the other hand, may assume a thousand shapes, according to the views which we take of it, and which are infinitely20 varied21. Those schools which set out with, the principle, that men’s interests are antagonistic, have done nothing yet towards the solution of the problem, unless it be that they have thrust aside Liberty. Among the infinite forms of Constraint, they have still to choose the one which they consider good, if indeed any of them be so. And then, as a crowning difficulty, they have to obtain universal acceptance, among men who are free agents, for the particular form of Constraint to which they have awarded the preference.
But, on this hypothesis, if human interests are, by their very nature, urged into fatal collision, and if this shock can be avoided only by the accidental invention of an artificial social order, the destiny of the human race becomes very hazardous22, and we ask in terror,
1st, If any man is to be found who has discovered a satisfactory form of Constraint?
2d, Can this man bring to his way of thinking the innumerable schools who give the preference to other forms?
3d, Will mankind give in to that particular form which, by hypothesis, runs counter to all individual interests?
4th, Assuming that men will allow themselves to be rigged out in this new attire23, what will happen if another inventor presents himself, with a coat of a different and improved cut? Are we to persevere24 in a vicious organization, knowing it to be vicious; or must we resolve to change that organization every morning according as the caprices of fashion and the fertility of inventors’ brains may dictate25? [p035]
5th, Would not all the inventors whose plans have been rejected unite together against the particular organization which had been selected, and would not their success in disturbing society be in exact proportion to the degree in which that particular form of organization ran counter to all existing interests?
6th, And, last of all, it may be asked, Does there exist any human force capable of overcoming an antagonism26 which we presuppose to be itself the very essence of human force?
I might multiply such questions ad infinitum, and propose, for example, this difficulty:
If individual interest is opposed to the general interest, where are we to place the active principle of Constraint? Where is the fulcrum27 of the lever to be placed? Beyond the limits of human society? It must be so if we are to escape the consequences of your law. If we are to intrust some men with arbitrary power, prove first of all that these men are formed of a different clay from other mortals; that they in their turn will not be acted upon by the fatal principle of self-interest; and that, placed in a situation which excludes the idea of any curb28, any effective opposition, their judgments30 will be exempt31 from error, their hands from rapacity32, and their hearts from covetousness33.
The radical34 difference between the various Socialist35 schools (I mean here, those which seek the solution of the social problem in an artificial organization) and the Economist36 school, does not consist in certain views of detail or of governmental combination. We encounter that difference at the starting point, in the preliminary and pressing question—Are human interests, when left to themselves, antagonistic or harmonious?
It is evident that the Socialists37 have set out in quest of an artificial organization only because they judge the natural organization of society bad or insufficient38; and they have judged the latter bad and insufficient, only because they think they see in men’s interests a radical antagonism, for otherwise they would not have had recourse to Constraint. It is not necessary to constrain13 into harmony what is in itself harmonious.
Thus they have discovered antagonism everywhere:
Between the proprietor39 and the prolétaire;13
Between capital and labour;
Between the masses and the bourgeoisie;
Between agriculture and manufactures;
Between the native and the foreigner;
Between the producer and the consumer;
Between civilisation41 and organization;
In a word,
Between Liberty and Harmony.
And this explains why it happens that, although a certain kind of sentimental42 philanthropy finds a place in their hearts, gall43 and bitterness flow continually from their lips. Each reserves all his love for the new state of society he has dreamt of; but as regards the society in which we actually live and move, it cannot, in their opinion, be too soon crushed and overthrown45, to make room for the New Jerusalem they are to rear upon its ruins.
I have said that the Economist school, setting out with the natural harmony of interests, is the advocate of Liberty.
And yet I must allow that if Economists46 in general stand up for Liberty, it is unfortunately not equally true that their principles establish solidly the foundation on which they build—the harmony of interests.
Before proceeding47 further, and to forewarn you against the conclusions which will no doubt be drawn48 from this avowal49, I must say a word on the situations which Socialism and Political Economy respectively occupy.
It would be folly50 in me to assert that Socialism has never lighted upon a truth, and that Political Economy has never fallen into an error.
What separates, radically51 and profoundly, the two schools is their difference of methods. The one school, like the astrologer and the alchemist, proceeds on hypothesis; the other, like the astronomer52 and the chemist, proceeds on observation.
Two astronomers53, observing the same fact, may not be able to arrive at the same result.
In spite of this transient disagreement, they feel themselves united by the common process which sooner or later will cause that disagreement to disappear. They recognise each other as of the same communion. But between the astronomer, who observes, and the astrologer, who imagines, the gulf54 is impassable, although accidentally they may sometimes approximate.
The same thing holds of Political Economy and Socialism.
The Economists observe man, the laws of his organization, and the social relations which result from those laws. The Socialists conjure55 up an imaginary society, and then create a human heart to suit that society. [p037]
Now, if philosophy never errs56, philosophers often do. I deny not that Economists may make false observations; I will add, that they must necessarily begin by doing so.
But, then, what happens? If men’s interests are harmonious, it follows that every incorrect observation will lead logically to antagonism. What, then, are the Socialist tactics? They gather from the works of Economists certain incorrect observations, follow them out to their consequences, and show those consequences to be disastrous57. Thus far they are right. Then they set to work upon the observer, whom we may assume to be Malthus or Ricardo. Still they have right on their side. But they do not stop there. They turn against the science of Political Economy itself, accusing it of being heartless, and leading to evil. Here they do violence to reason and justice, inasmuch as science is not responsible for incorrect observation. At length they proceed another step. They lay the blame on society itself:—they threaten to overthrow44 it for the purpose of reconstructing the edifice58:—and why? Because, say they, it is proved by science that society as now constituted is urged onwards to destruction. In this they outrage59 good sense—for either science is not mistaken, and then why attack it?—or it is mistaken, and in that case they should leave society in repose60, since society is not menaced.
But these tactics, illogical as they are, have not been the less fatal to economic science, especially when the cultivators of that science have had the misfortune, from a chivalrous61 and not unnatural62 feeling, to render themselves liable, singuli in solidum, for their predecessors63 and for one another. Science is a queen whose gait should be frank and free:—the atmosphere of the coterie64 stifles65 her.
I have already said that in Political Economy every erroneous proposition must lead ultimately to antagonism. On the other hand, it is impossible that the voluminous works of even the most eminent67 economists should not include some erroneous propositions. It is ours to mark and to rectify68 them in the interest of science and of society. If we persist in maintaining them for the honour of the fraternity, we shall not only expose ourselves, which is of little consequence, but we shall expose truth itself, which is a serious affair, to the attacks of Socialism.
To return: the conclusion of the Economists is for Liberty. But in order that this conclusion should take hold of men’s minds and hearts, it must be solidly based on this fundamental principle, that interests, left to themselves, tend to harmonious combinations, and to the progressive preponderance of the general good. [p038]
Now many Economists, some of them writers of authority, have advanced propositions, which, step by step, lead logically to absolute evil, necessary injustice69, fatal and progressive inequality, and inevitable70 pauperism71, etc.
Thus, there are very few of them who, so far as I know, have not attributed value to natural agents, to the gifts which God has vouchsafed72 gratuitously73 to His creatures. The word value implies that we do not give away the portion of it which we possess except for an equivalent consideration. Here, then, we have men, especially proprietors74 of land, bartering75 for effective labour the gifts of God, and receiving recompense for utilities in the creation of which their labour has had no share—an evident, but a necessary, injustice, say these writers.
Then comes the famous theory of Ricardo, which may be summed up in a few words: The price of the necessaries of life depends on the labour required to produce them on the least productive land in cultivation76. Then the increase of population obliges us to have recourse to soils of lower and lower fertility. Consequently mankind at large (all except the landowners) are forced to give a larger and larger amount of labour for the same amount of subsistence; or, what comes to the same thing, to receive a less and less amount of subsistence for the same amount of labour,—whilst the landowners see their rentals77 swelling78 by every new descent to soils of an inferior quality. Conclusion: Progressive opulence79 of men of leisure—progressive poverty of men of labour; in other words, fatal inequality.
Finally, we have the still more celebrated80 theory of Malthus, that population has a tendency to increase more rapidly than the means of subsistence, and that at every given moment of the life of man. Now, men cannot be happy, or live in peace, if they have not the means of support; and there are but two obstacles to this increase of population which is always threatening us, namely, a diminished number of births, or an increase of mortality in all its dreadful forms. Moral restraint, to be efficacious, must be universal, and no one expects that. There remains81, then, only the repressive obstacles—vice, poverty, war, pestilence82, famine; in other words, pauperism and death.
I forbear to mention other systems of a less general bearing, which tend in the same way to bring us to a dead-stand. Monsieur de Tocqueville, for example, and many others, tell us, if we admit the right of primogeniture, we arrive at the most concentrated aristocracy—if we do not admit it, we arrive at ruin and sterility83. [p039]
And it is worthy84 of remark, that these four melancholy85 theories do not in the least decree run foul86 of each other. If they did, we might console ourselves with the reflection that they are alike false, since they refute each other. But no,—they are in unison87, and make part of one and the same general theory, which, supported by numerous and specious88 facts, would seem to explain the spasmodic state of modern society, and, fortified89 by the assent90 of many masters in the science, presents itself with frightful91 authority to the mind of the confused and discouraged inquirer.
We have still to discover how the authors of this melancholy theory have been able to lay down, as their principle, the harmony of interests, and, as their conclusion, Liberty.
For if mankind are indeed urged on by the laws of Value towards Injustice,—by the laws of Rent towards Inequality,—by the laws of Population towards Poverty,—by the laws of Inheritance towards Sterility,—we can no longer affirm that God has made the moral as He has made the natural world—a harmonious work; we must bow the head and confess that it has pleased Him to base it on revolting and irremediable dissonance.
You must not suppose, young men, that the Socialists have refuted and repudiated92 what, in order to wound no one’s susceptibilities, I shall call the theory of dissonances. No; let them say as they will, they have assumed the truth of that theory, and it is just because they have assumed its truth that they propose to substitute Constraint for Liberty, artificial for natural organization, their own inventions for the work of God. They say to their opponents (and in this, perhaps, they are more consistent than the latter),—if, as you have told us, human interests when left to themselves tend to harmonious combination, we cannot do better than welcome and magnify Liberty as you do. But you have demonstrated unanswerably that those interests, if allowed to develop themselves freely, urge mankind towards injustice, inequality, pauperism, and sterility. Your theory, then, provokes reaction precisely93 because it is true. We desire to break up the existing fabric94 of society just because it is subject to the fatal laws which you have described; we wish to make trial of our own powers, seeing that the power of God has miscarried.
The Economists to whom I have alluded96 say that the great providential laws urge on society to evil; but that we must take care not to disturb the action of those laws, because such action is happily impeded97 by the secondary laws which retard98 the final [p040] catastrophe99; and arbitrary intervention100 can only enfeeble the embankment, without stopping the fatal rising of the flood.
The Socialists say that the great providential laws urge on society to evil; we must therefore abolish them, and select others from our inexhaustible storehouse.
The Catholics say that the great providential laws urge on society to evil; we must therefore escape from them by renouncing101 worldly interests, and taking refuge in abnegation, sacrifice, asceticism102, and resignation.
It is in the midst of this tumult103, of these cries of anguish104 and distress105, of these exhortations106 to subversion107, or to resignation and despair, that I endeavour to obtain a hearing for this assertion, in presence of which, if it be correct, all difference of opinion must disappear—it is not true that the great providential laws urge on society to evil.
It is with reference to the conclusions to be deduced from their common premises that the various schools are divided and combat each other. I deny those premises, and I ask, Is not that the best way of putting an end to these disputes?
The leading idea of this work, the harmony of interests, is simple. Is simplicity108 not the touchstone of truth? The laws of light, of sound, of motion, appear to us to be all the truer for being simple—Why should it be otherwise with the law of interests?
This idea is conciliatory. What is more fitted to reconcile parties than to demonstrate the harmony of the various branches of industry: the harmony of classes, of nations, even of doctrines109?
It is consoling, seeing that it points out what is false in those systems which adopt, as their conclusion, progressive evil.
It is religious, for it assures us that it is not only the celestial110 but the social mechanism which reveals the wisdom of God, and declares His glory.
It is practical, for one can scarcely conceive anything more easily reduced to practice than this,—to allow men to labour, to exchange, to learn, to associate, to act and react on each other,—for, according to the laws of Providence, nothing can result from their intelligent spontaneity but order, harmony, progress, good, and better still; better ad infinitum.
Bravo, you will say; here we have the optimism of the Economists with a vengeance111! These Economists are so much the slaves of their own systems that they shut their eyes to facts for fear of seeing them. In the face of all the poverty, all the injustice, all the oppressions which desolate112 humanity, they coolly deny the existence of evil. The smell of revolutionary gunpowder113 does not [p041] reach their blunted senses—the pavement of the barricades114 has no voice for them; and were society to crumble115 to pieces before their eyes, they would still keep repeating, “All is for the best in the best of worlds.”
No indeed,—we do not think that all is for the best; but I have faith in the wisdom of the laws of Providence, and for the same reason I have faith in Liberty.
The question is, Have we Liberty?
The question is, Do these laws act in their plenitude, or is their action not profoundly troubled by the countervailing action of human institutions?
Deny evil! deny suffering! Who can? We must forget that our subject is man. We must forget that we are ourselves men. The laws of Providence may be regarded as harmonious without their necessarily excluding evil. Enough that evil has its explanation and its mission, that it checks and limits itself, that it destroys itself by its own action, and that each suffering prevents a greater suffering by repressing the cause of suffering.
Society has for its element man, who is a free agent; and since man is free, he may choose,—since he may choose, he may be mistaken,—since he may be mistaken, he may suffer.
I go further. I say he must be mistaken and suffer—for he begins his journey in ignorance, and for ignorance there are endless and unknown roads, all of which, except one, lead to error.
Now, every Error engenders116 suffering; but either suffering reacts upon the man who errs, and then it brings Responsibility into play,—or, if it affects others who are free from error, it sets in motion the marvellous reactionary117 machinery118 of Solidarity119.
The action of these laws, combined with the faculty120 which has been vouchsafed to us of connecting effects with their causes, must bring us back, by means of this very suffering, into the way of what is good and true.
Thus, not only do we not deny the existence of evil, but we acknowledge that it has a mission in the social, as it has in the material world.
But, in order that it should fulfil this mission, we must not stretch Solidarity artificially, so as to destroy Responsibility,—in other words, we must respect Liberty.
Should human institutions step in to oppose in this respect the divine laws, evil would not the less flow from error, only it would shift its position. It would strike those whom it ought not to strike. It would be no longer a warning and a monitor. It would no longer have the tendency to diminish and die away by its own [p042] proper action. Its action would be continued, and increase, as would happen in the physiological121 world if the imprudences and excesses of the men of one hemisphere were felt in their unhappy effects only by the inhabitants of the opposite hemisphere.
Now this is precisely the tendency not only of most of our governmental institutions, but likewise, and above all, of those which we seek to establish as remedies for the evils which we suffer. Under the philanthropical pretext122 of developing among men a factitious Solidarity, we render Responsibility more and more inert123 and inefficacious. By an improper124 application of the public force, we alter the relation of labour to its remuneration, we disturb the laws of industry and of exchange, we offer violence to the natural development of education, we give a wrong direction to capital and labour, we twist and invert125 men’s ideas, we inflame126 absurd pretensions127, we dazzle with chimerical128 hopes, we occasion a strange loss of human power, we change the centres of population, we render experience itself useless,—in a word, we give to all interests artificial foundations, we set them by the ears, and then we exclaim that—Interests are antagonistic: Liberty has done all the evil,—let us denounce and stifle66 Liberty.
And yet, as this sacred word has still power to stir men’s hearts and make them palpitate, we despoil129 Liberty of its prestige by depriving it of its name, and it is under the title of Competition that the unhappy victim is led to the sacrificial altar, amid the applause of a mob stretching forth130 their hands to receive the shackles131 of servitude.
It is not enough, then, to exhibit, in their majestic132 harmony, the natural laws of the social order; we must also explain the disturbing causes which paralyze their action; and this is what I have endeavoured to do in the second part of this work.
I have striven to avoid controversy133; and, in doing so, I have no doubt lost an opportunity of giving to the principles which I desire to disseminate134 the stability which results from a thorough and searching discussion. And yet, might not the attention of the reader, seduced135 by digressions, have been diverted from the argument taken as a whole? If I exhibit the edifice as it stands, what matters it in what light it has been regarded by others, even by those who first taught me to look at it?
And now I would appeal with confidence to men of all schools, who prefer truth, justice, and the public good to their own systems.
Economists! like you, I am the advocate of Liberty; and if I succeed in shaking some of those premises which sadden your generous hearts, perhaps you will see in this an additional incentive136 to love and to serve our sacred cause. [p043]
Socialists! you have faith in Association. I conjure you, after having read this book, to say whether society as it is now constituted, apart from its abuses and shackles, that is to say, under the condition of Liberty, is not the most beautiful, the most complete, the most durable137, the most universal, the most equitable138, of all Associations.
Egalitaires! you admit but one principle, the Mutuality139 of Services. Let human transactions be free, and I assert that they are not and cannot be anything else than a reciprocal exchange of services,—services always diminishing in value, always increasing in utility.
Communists! you desire that men, become brothers, should enjoy in common the goods which Providence has lavished140 on them. My aim is to demonstrate that society as it exists has only to acquire freedom in order to realize and surpass your wishes and your hopes. For all things are common to all, on the single condition that each man takes the trouble to gather what God has given, which is very natural; or remunerate freely those who take that trouble for him, which is very just.
Christians141 of all communions! unless you stand alone in casting doubt on the divine wisdom, manifested in the most magnificent of all God’s works which have come within the range of our knowledge, you will find in this book no expression which can shock the severest morals, or the most mysterious dogmas of your faith.
Proprietors! whatever be the extent of your possessions, if I establish that your rights, now so much contested, are limited, like those of the most ordinary workman, to the receiving of services in exchange for real and substantial services which have been actually rendered by you, or by your forefathers142, those rights will henceforth repose on a basis which cannot lie shaken.
Prolétaires! men who live by wages! I undertake to demonstrate that you obtain the fruits of the land of which you are not the owners with less pain and effort than if you were obliged to raise those fruits by your own direct labour,—with less than if that land had been given to you in its primitive143 state, and before being prepared for cultivation by labour.
Capitalists and labourers! I believe myself in a position to establish the law that, in proportion as capital is accumulated, the absolute share of the total product falling to the capitalist increases, and his proportional share is diminished; while both the absolute and relative share of the product falling to the labourer is augmented,—the reverse effects being produced when capital is lessened144 or dissipated.14 If this law be established, the obvious deduction145 is, [p044] a harmony of interests between labourers and those who employ them.
Disciples146 of Malthus! sincere and calumniated147 philanthropists, whose only fault has been in warning mankind against the effects of a law which you believe to be fatal, I shall have to submit to you another law more reassuring:—“C?teris paribus, increasing density148 of population is equivalent to increasing facility of production.” And if it be so, I am certain it will not be you who will grieve to see a stumbling-block removed from the threshold of our favourite science.
Men of spoliation! you who, by force or fraud, by law or in spite of law, batten on the people’s substance; you, who live by the errors you propagate, by the ignorance you cherish, by the wars you light up, by the trammels with which you hamper149 trade; you who tax labour after having rendered it unproductive, making it lose a sheaf for every handful you yourselves pluck from it; you who cause yourselves to be paid for creating obstacles, in order to get afterwards paid for partially150 removing those obstacles; incarnations of egotism in its worst sense; parasitical151 excrescences of a vicious policy, prepare for the sharpest and most unsparing criticism. To you alone I make no appeal, for the design of this book is to sacrifice you, or rather to sacrifice your unjust pretensions. In vain we cherish conciliation152. There are two principles which can never be reconciled—Liberty and Constraint.
If the laws of Providence are harmonious, it is when they act with freedom, without which there is no harmony. Whenever, then, we remark an absence of harmony, we may be sure that it proceeds from an absence of liberty, an absence of justice. Oppressors, spoliators, contemners of justice, you can have no part in the universal harmony, for it is you who disturb it.
Do I mean to say that the effect of this work may be to enfeeble power, to shake its stability, to diminish its authority? My design is just the opposite. But let me not be misunderstood.
It is the business of political science to distinguish between what ought and what ought not to fall under State control; and in making this important distinction we must not forget that the State always acts through the intervention of Force. The services which it renders us, and the services which it exacts from us in return, are alike imposed upon us under the name of contributions. [p045]
The question then comes back to this: What are the things which men have a right to impose upon each other by force? Now, I know but one thing in this situation, and that is Justice. I have no right to force any one whatever to be religious, charitable, well educated, or industrious153; but I have a right to force him to be just,—this is a case of legitimate defence.
Now, individuals in the aggregate154 can possess no right which did not pre-exist in individuals as such. If, then, the employment of individual force is justified155 only by legitimate defence, the fact that the action of government is always manifested by Force should lead us to conclude that it is essentially156 limited to the maintenance of order, security, and justice.
All action of governments beyond this limit is a usurpation157 upon conscience, upon intelligence, upon industry; in a word, upon human liberty.
This being granted, we ought to set ourselves unceasingly and without compunction to emancipate158 the entire domain159 of private enterprise from the encroachments of power. Without this we shall not have gained Freedom, or the free play of those laws of harmony which God has provided for the development and progress of the human race.
Will Power by this means be enfeebled? Will it have lost in stability because it has lost in extent? Will it have less authority because it has fewer functions to discharge? Will it attract to itself less respect because it calls forth fewer complaints? Will it be more the sport of factions160, when it has reduced those enormous budgets and that coveted162 influence which are the baits and allurements163 of faction161? Will it encounter greater danger when it has less responsibility?
To me it seems evident, that to confine public force to its one, essential, undisputed, beneficent mission,—a mission desired and accepted by all,—would be the surest way of securing to it respect and universal support. In that case, I see not whence could proceed systematic164 opposition, parliamentary struggles, street insurrections, revolutions, sudden changes of fortune, factions, illusions, the pretensions of all to govern under all forms, those dangerous and absurd systems which teach the people to look to government for everything, that compromising diplomacy165, those wars which are always in perspective, or armed truces166 which are nearly as fatal, those crushing taxes which it is impossible to levy167 on any equitable principle, that absorbing and unnatural mixing up of politics with everything, those great artificial displacements168 of capital and labour, which are the source of fruitless heartburnings, fluctuations169, stoppages, and commercial crises. All these causes of trouble, of [p046] irritation170, of disaffection, of covetousness, and of disorder171, and a thousand others, would no longer have any foundation, and the depositaries of power, instead of disturbing, would contribute to the universal harmony,—a harmony which does not indeed exclude evil, but which leaves less and less room for those ills which are inseparable from the ignorance and perversity172 of our feeble nature, and whose mission it is to prevent or chastise173 that ignorance and perversity.
Young men! in these days in which a grievous Scepticism would seem to be at once the effect and the punishment of the anarchy174 of ideas which prevails, I shall esteem175 myself happy if this work, as you proceed in its perusal176, should bring to your lips the consoling words, I believe,—words of a sweet-smelling savour, which are at once a refuge and a force, which are said to remove mountains, and stand at the head of the Christian’s creed177—I believe. “I believe, not with a blind and submissive faith, for we are not concerned here with the mysteries of revelation, but with a rational and scientific faith, befitting things which are left to man’s investigation178.—I believe that He who has arranged the material universe has not withheld179 His regards from the arrangements of the social world.—I believe that He has combined, and caused to move in harmony, free agents as well as inert molecules.—I believe that His overruling Providence shines forth as strikingly, if not more so, in the laws to which He has subjected men’s interests and men’s wills, as in the laws which He has imposed on weight and velocity180.—I believe that everything in human society, even what is apparently181 injurious, is the cause of improvement and of progress.—I believe that Evil tends to Good, and calls it forth, whilst Good cannot tend to Evil; whence it follows that Good must in the end predominate.—I believe that the invincible182 social tendency is a constant approximation of men towards a common moral, intellectual, and physical level, with, at the same time, a progressive and indefinite elevation183 of that level.—I believe that all that is necessary to the gradual and peaceful development of humanity is that its tendencies should not be disturbed, but have the liberty of their movements restored.—I believe these things, not because I desire them, not because they satisfy my heart, but because my judgment29 accords to them a deliberate assent.”
Ah! whenever you come to pronounce these words, I believe, you will be anxious to propagate your creed, and the social problem will soon be resolved, for, let them say what they will, it is not of difficult solution. Men’s interests are harmonious,—the solution, then, lies entirely184 in this one word—Liberty.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
fixed
|
|
| adj.固定的，不变的，准备好的；(计算机)固定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
devoid
|
|
| adj.全无的，缺乏的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
zeal
|
|
| n.热心，热情，热忱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
disinterestedness
|
|
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
sketch
|
|
| n.草图；梗概；素描；v.素描；概述 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
pretension
|
|
| n.要求；自命，自称；自负 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
providence
|
|
| n.深谋远虑，天道，天意；远见；节约；上帝 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
mechanism
|
|
| n.机械装置；机构，结构 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
realization
|
|
| n.实现；认识到，深刻了解 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
legitimate
|
|
| adj.合法的，合理的，合乎逻辑的；v.使合法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
harmonious
|
|
| adj.和睦的，调和的，和谐的，协调的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
antagonistic
|
|
| adj.敌对的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
constrain
|
|
| vt.限制，约束；克制，抑制 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
constraint
|
|
| n.(on)约束，限制；限制(或约束)性的事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
opposition
|
|
| n.反对，敌对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
molecules
|
|
| 分子( molecule的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
interfere
|
|
| v.(in)干涉，干预；(with)妨碍，打扰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
abstain
|
|
| v.自制，戒绝，弃权，避免 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
thwarting
|
|
| 阻挠( thwart的现在分词 )； 使受挫折； 挫败； 横过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
infinitely
|
|
| adv.无限地，无穷地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
varied
|
|
| adj.多样的，多变化的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
hazardous
|
|
| adj.(有)危险的，冒险的；碰运气的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
attire
|
|
| v.穿衣，装扮[同]array；n.衣着；盛装 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
persevere
|
|
| v.坚持，坚忍，不屈不挠 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
dictate
|
|
| v.口授；(使)听写；指令，指示，命令 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
antagonism
|
|
| n.对抗，敌对，对立 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
fulcrum
|
|
| n.杠杆支点 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
curb
|
|
| n.场外证券市场，场外交易；vt.制止，抑制 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
judgment
|
|
| n.审判；判断力，识别力，看法，意见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
judgments
|
|
| 判断( judgment的名词复数 )； 鉴定； 评价； 审判 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
exempt
|
|
| adj.免除的；v.使免除；n.免税者，被免除义务者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
rapacity
|
|
| n.贪婪，贪心，劫掠的欲望 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
covetousness
|
|
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
radical
|
|
| n.激进份子，原子团，根号；adj.根本的，激进的，彻底的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
socialist
|
|
| n.社会主义者；adj.社会主义的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
economist
|
|
| n.经济学家，经济专家，节俭的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
socialists
|
|
| 社会主义者( socialist的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
insufficient
|
|
| adj.(for，of)不足的，不够的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
proprietor
|
|
| n.所有人；业主；经营者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
rustic
|
|
| adj.乡村的，有乡村特色的；n.乡下人，乡巴佬 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
civilisation
|
|
| n.文明，文化，开化，教化 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
sentimental
|
|
| adj.多愁善感的，感伤的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
gall
|
|
| v.使烦恼，使焦躁，难堪；n.磨难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
overthrow
|
|
| v.推翻，打倒，颠覆；n.推翻，瓦解，颠覆 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
overthrown
|
|
| adj. 打翻的，推倒的，倾覆的 动词overthrow的过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
economists
|
|
| n.经济学家，经济专家( economist的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
proceeding
|
|
| n.行动，进行，(pl.)会议录，学报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
drawn
|
|
| v.拖，拉，拔出；adj.憔悴的，紧张的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
avowal
|
|
| n.公开宣称，坦白承认 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
folly
|
|
| n.愚笨，愚蠢，蠢事，蠢行，傻话 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
radically
|
|
| ad.根本地，本质地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
astronomer
|
|
| n.天文学家 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
astronomers
|
|
| n.天文学者，天文学家( astronomer的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
gulf
|
|
| n.海湾；深渊，鸿沟；分歧，隔阂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
conjure
|
|
| v.恳求，祈求；变魔术，变戏法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
errs
|
|
| 犯错误，做错事( err的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
disastrous
|
|
| adj.灾难性的，造成灾害的；极坏的，很糟的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
edifice
|
|
| n.宏伟的建筑物(如宫殿，教室) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
outrage
|
|
| n.暴行，侮辱，愤怒；vt.凌辱，激怒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
repose
|
|
| v.(使)休息；n.安息 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
chivalrous
|
|
| adj.武士精神的；对女人彬彬有礼的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
unnatural
|
|
| adj.不自然的；反常的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
predecessors
|
|
| n.前任( predecessor的名词复数 )；前辈；（被取代的）原有事物；前身 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
coterie
|
|
| n.(有共同兴趣的)小团体，小圈子 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
stifles
|
|
| （使）窒息， （使）窒闷( stifle的第三人称单数 )； 镇压，遏制 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
stifle
|
|
| vt.使窒息；闷死；扼杀；抑止，阻止 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
eminent
|
|
| adj.显赫的，杰出的，有名的，优良的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
rectify
|
|
| v.订正，矫正，改正 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
injustice
|
|
| n.非正义，不公正，不公平，侵犯（别人的）权利 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
inevitable
|
|
| adj.不可避免的，必然发生的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
pauperism
|
|
| n.有被救济的资格，贫困 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
vouchsafed
|
|
| v.给予，赐予( vouchsafe的过去式和过去分词 )；允诺 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
gratuitously
|
|
| 平白 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
proprietors
|
|
| n.所有人，业主( proprietor的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
bartering
|
|
| v.作物物交换，以货换货( barter的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
cultivation
|
|
| n.耕作，培养，栽培（法），养成 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
rentals
|
|
| n.租费，租金额( rental的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
swelling
|
|
| n.肿胀 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
opulence
|
|
| n.财富，富裕 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
celebrated
|
|
| adj.有名的，声誉卓著的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
remains
|
|
| n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
pestilence
|
|
| n.瘟疫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
sterility
|
|
| n.不生育，不结果，贫瘠，消毒，无菌 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
worthy
|
|
| adj.(of)值得的，配得上的；有价值的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
melancholy
|
|
| n.忧郁，愁思；adj.令人感伤（沮丧）的，忧郁的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
foul
|
|
| adj.污秽的；邪恶的；v.弄脏；妨害；犯规；n.犯规 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
unison
|
|
| n.步调一致，行动一致 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
specious
|
|
| adj.似是而非的；adv.似是而非地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
fortified
|
|
| adj. 加强的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
assent
|
|
| v.批准，认可；n.批准，认可 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
frightful
|
|
| adj.可怕的；讨厌的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
repudiated
|
|
| v.（正式地）否认( repudiate的过去式和过去分词 )；拒绝接受；拒绝与…往来；拒不履行（法律义务） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
precisely
|
|
| adv.恰好，正好，精确地，细致地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
fabric
|
|
| n.织物，织品，布；构造，结构，组织 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
premises
|
|
| n.建筑物，房屋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
alluded
|
|
| 提及，暗指( allude的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
impeded
|
|
| 阻碍，妨碍，阻止( impede的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
retard
|
|
| n.阻止，延迟；vt.妨碍，延迟，使减速 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
catastrophe
|
|
| n.大灾难，大祸 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
intervention
|
|
| n.介入，干涉，干预 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
renouncing
|
|
| v.声明放弃( renounce的现在分词 )；宣布放弃；宣布与…决裂；宣布摒弃 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
asceticism
|
|
| n.禁欲主义 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
tumult
|
|
| n.喧哗；激动，混乱；吵闹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
anguish
|
|
| n.(尤指心灵上的)极度痛苦，烦恼 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
distress
|
|
| n.苦恼，痛苦，不舒适；不幸；vt.使悲痛 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
exhortations
|
|
| n.敦促( exhortation的名词复数 )；极力推荐；（正式的）演讲；（宗教仪式中的）劝诫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
subversion
|
|
| n.颠覆，破坏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
simplicity
|
|
| n.简单，简易；朴素；直率，单纯 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
doctrines
|
|
| n.教条( doctrine的名词复数 )；教义；学说；（政府政策的）正式声明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
celestial
|
|
| adj.天体的；天上的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
vengeance
|
|
| n.报复，报仇，复仇 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
desolate
|
|
| adj.荒凉的，荒芜的；孤独的，凄凉的；v.使荒芜，使孤寂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
gunpowder
|
|
| n.火药 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
barricades
|
|
| 路障，障碍物( barricade的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
crumble
|
|
| vi.碎裂，崩溃；vt.弄碎，摧毁 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
engenders
|
|
| v.产生（某形势或状况），造成，引起( engender的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
reactionary
|
|
| n.反动者，反动主义者；adj.反动的，反动主义的，反对改革的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
machinery
|
|
| n.(总称)机械，机器；机构 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
solidarity
|
|
| n.团结；休戚相关 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
faculty
|
|
| n.才能；学院，系；(学院或系的)全体教学人员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
physiological
|
|
| adj.生理学的，生理学上的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
pretext
|
|
| n.借口，托词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
inert
|
|
| adj.无活动能力的，惰性的；迟钝的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
improper
|
|
| adj.不适当的，不合适的，不正确的，不合礼仪的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
invert
|
|
| vt.使反转，使颠倒，使转化 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
inflame
|
|
| v.使燃烧；使极度激动；使发炎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
pretensions
|
|
| 自称( pretension的名词复数 )； 自命不凡； 要求； 权力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
chimerical
|
|
| adj.荒诞不经的，梦幻的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
despoil
|
|
| v.夺取，抢夺 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
shackles
|
|
| 手铐( shackle的名词复数 )； 脚镣； 束缚； 羁绊 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
majestic
|
|
| adj.雄伟的，壮丽的，庄严的，威严的，崇高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
controversy
|
|
| n.争论，辩论，争吵 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
disseminate
|
|
| v.散布；传播 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
seduced
|
|
| 诱奸( seduce的过去式和过去分词 )； 勾引； 诱使堕落； 使入迷 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
incentive
|
|
| n.刺激；动力；鼓励；诱因；动机 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
durable
|
|
| adj.持久的，耐久的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
equitable
|
|
| adj.公平的；公正的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
mutuality
|
|
| n.相互关系，相互依存 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
lavished
|
|
| v.过分给予，滥施( lavish的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
Christians
|
|
| n.基督教徒( Christian的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
forefathers
|
|
| n.祖先，先人；祖先，祖宗( forefather的名词复数 )；列祖列宗；前人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
primitive
|
|
| adj.原始的；简单的；n.原(始)人，原始事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
lessened
|
|
| 减少的，减弱的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
deduction
|
|
| n.减除，扣除，减除额；推论，推理，演绎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
146
disciples
|
|
| n.信徒( disciple的名词复数 )；门徒；耶稣的信徒；（尤指）耶稣十二门徒之一 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
147
calumniated
|
|
| v.诽谤，中伤( calumniate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
148
density
|
|
| n.密集，密度，浓度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
149
hamper
|
|
| vt.妨碍，束缚，限制；n.(有盖的)大篮子 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
150
partially
|
|
| adv.部分地，从某些方面讲 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
151
parasitical
|
|
| adj. 寄生的(符加的) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
152
conciliation
|
|
| n.调解，调停 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
153
industrious
|
|
| adj.勤劳的，刻苦的，奋发的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
154
aggregate
|
|
| adj.总计的，集合的；n.总数；v.合计；集合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
155
justified
|
|
| a.正当的，有理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
156
essentially
|
|
| adv.本质上，实质上，基本上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
157
usurpation
|
|
| n.篡位；霸占 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
158
emancipate
|
|
| v.解放，解除 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
159
domain
|
|
| n.(活动等)领域，范围；领地，势力范围 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
160
factions
|
|
| 组织中的小派别，派系( faction的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
161
faction
|
|
| n.宗派，小集团；派别；派系斗争 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
162
coveted
|
|
| adj.令人垂涎的；垂涎的，梦寐以求的v.贪求，觊觎(covet的过去分词)；垂涎；贪图 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
163
allurements
|
|
| n.诱惑( allurement的名词复数 )；吸引；诱惑物；有诱惑力的事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
164
systematic
|
|
| adj.有系统的，有计划的，有方法的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
165
diplomacy
|
|
| n.外交；外交手腕，交际手腕 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
166
truces
|
|
| 休战( truce的名词复数 )； 停战（协定）； 停止争辩（的协议）； 中止 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
167
levy
|
|
| n.征收税或其他款项，征收额 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
168
displacements
|
|
| n.取代( displacement的名词复数 )；替代；移位；免职 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
169
fluctuations
|
|
| 波动，涨落，起伏( fluctuation的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
170
irritation
|
|
| n.激怒，恼怒，生气 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
171
disorder
|
|
| n.紊乱，混乱；骚动，骚乱；疾病，失调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
172
perversity
|
|
| n.任性；刚愎自用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
173
chastise
|
|
| vt.责骂，严惩 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
174
anarchy
|
|
| n.无政府状态；社会秩序混乱，无秩序 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
175
esteem
|
|
| n.尊敬，尊重；vt.尊重，敬重；把…看作 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
176
perusal
|
|
| n.细读，熟读；目测 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
177
creed
|
|
| n.信条；信念，纲领 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
178
investigation
|
|
| n.调查，调查研究 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
179
withheld
|
|
| withhold过去式及过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
180
velocity
|
|
| n.速度，速率 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
181
apparently
|
|
| adv.显然地；表面上，似乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
182
invincible
|
|
| adj.不可征服的，难以制服的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
183
elevation
|
|
| n.高度；海拔；高地；上升；提高 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
184
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |