God created the earth. On it, and within it, he has placed a multitude of things which are useful to man, inasmuch as they are adapted to satisfy his wants.
God has, besides, endued1 matter with forces—gravitation, elasticity2, porosity3, compressibility, heat, light, electricity, crystallization, vegetable life.
He has placed man in the middle of these materials and forces, which he has delivered over to him gratuitously4.
Men set themselves to exercise their activity upon these materials and forces; and in this way they render service to themselves. They also work for one another, and in this way render reciprocal services. These services, compared by the act of exchange, give rise to the idea of Value, and Value to that of Property.
Each man, then, becomes an owner or proprietor7 in proportion to the services he has rendered. But the materials and forces given by God to man gratuitously, at the beginning, have continued gratuitous5, and are and must continue to be so through all our transactions; for in the estimates and appreciations8 to which exchange gives rise, the equivalents are human services, not the gifts of God.
Hence it follows that no human being, so long as transactions are free, can ever cease to be the usufructuary of these gifts. A single condition is laid down, which is, that we shall execute the labour necessary to make them available to us, or, if any one makes this exertion10 for us, that we make for him an equivalent exertion.
If this account of the matter be true, Property is indeed unassailable. [p250]
The universal instinct of mankind, more infallible than the lucubrations of any individual, had adopted this view of the subject without refining upon it, when theory began to scrutinize12 the foundations of Property.
Theory unhappily began in confusion, mistaking Utility for Value, and attributing an inherent value, independent of all human service, to the materials or forces of nature. From that moment property became unintelligible13, and incapable14 of justification15.
For utility is the relation between commodities and our organization. It necessarily implies neither efforts, nor transactions, nor comparisons. We can conceive of it per se, and in relation to man in a state of isolation16. Value, on the contrary, is a relation of man to man. To exist at all, it must exist in duplicate. Nothing isolated17 can be compared. Value implies that the person in possession of it does not transfer it except for an equivalent value. The theory, then, which confounds these two ideas, takes for granted that a person, in effecting an exchange, gives pretended value of natural creation for true value of human creation, utility which exacts no labour for utility which does exact it; in other words, that he can profit by the labour of another without working himself. Property, thus understood, is called first of all a necessary monopoly, then simply a monopoly,—then it is branded as illegitimate, and last of all as robbery.
Landed Property receives the first blow, and so it should. Not that natural agents do not bear their part in all manufactures, but these agents manifest themselves more strikingly to the eyes of the vulgar in the phenomena19 of vegetable and animal life, in the production of food, and of what are improperly20 called matières premières [raw materials], which are the special products of agriculture.
Besides, if there be any one monopoly more revolting than another, it is undoubtedly21 a monopoly which applies to the first necessaries of life.
The confusion which I am exposing, and which is specious22 in a scientific view, since no theorist I am acquainted with has got rid of it, becomes still more specious when we look at what is passing around us.
We see the landed Proprietor frequently living without labour, and we draw the conclusion, which is plausible23 enough, that “he must surely be remunerated for something else than his work.” And what can this something else be, if not the fecundity24, the productiveness, the co-operation of the soil as an instrument? It is, then, the rent of land which we must brand, in the language [p251] of the times, with the names of necessary monopoly, privilege, illegitimacy, theft.
We must admit that the authors of this theory have encountered a fact which must have powerfully tended to mislead them. Few land estates in Europe have escaped from conquest and all its attendant abuses; and science has confounded the violent methods by which landed property has been acquired with the methods by which it is naturally formed.
But we must not imagine that the false definition of the word value tends only to unsettle landed property. Logic26 is a terrible and indefatigable27 power, whether it sets out with a good or a bad principle! As the earth, it is said, makes light, heat, electricity, vegetable life, etc., co-operate in the production of value, does not capital in the same way make gravitation, elasticity, the wind, etc., concur28 in producing value? There are other men, then, besides agriculturists who are paid for the intervention29 of natural agents. This remuneration comes to capitalists in the shape of Interest, just as it comes to proprietors30 in the shape of Rent. War, then, must be declared against Interest as it has been against Rent!
Property has had a succession of blows aimed at it in the name of this principle, false as I think, true according to the Economists32 and Egalitaires, namely, that natural agents possess or create value. This is a postulate33 upon which all schools are agreed. They differ only in the boldness or timidity of their deductions35.
The Economists say that property (in land) is a monopoly, but a monopoly which is necessary, and which must be maintained.
The Socialists37 say that property (in land) is a monopoly, but a monopoly which is necessary, and which must be maintained,—and they demand compensation for it in the shape of right to employment [le droit au travail38].
The Communists and Egalitaires say that property (in general) is a monopoly, and must be destroyed.
For myself, I say most emphatically that PROPERTY IS NOT A MONOPOLY. Your premises39 are false, and your three conclusions, although they differ, are false also. Property is not a monopoly, and consequently it is not incumbent40 on us either to tolerate it by way of favour, or to demand compensation for it, or to destroy it.
Let us pass briefly41 in review the opinions of writers of various schools on this important subject.
The English Economists lay down this principle, upon which they appear to be unanimous, that value comes from labour. Were they consistent in their use of terms, it might be so; but are they consistent? The reader will judge. He will see whether they [p252] do not always and everywhere confound gratuitous Utility, which is incapable of remuneration, and destitute42 of Value, with onerous43 Utility, which we owe exclusively to labour, and which according to them is alone possessed44 of value.
Adam Smith.—“In agriculture nature labours along with man; and although her labour costs no expense, its produce has its value, as well as that of the most expensive workmen.”55
Here we have nature producing value. The purchaser of corn must pay for it, although it has cost nothing to anybody, not even labour. Who then dares come forward to demand this pretended value? Substitute for that word the word utility, and all becomes clear, Property is vindicated45, and justice satisfied.
“This rent,” proceeds Smith, “may be considered as the produce of those powers of nature, the use of which the landlord lends to the farmer. . . . . It (rent!) is the work of nature, which remains47 after deducting48 or compensating49 everything which can be regarded as the work of man. It is seldom less than a fourth, and frequently more than a third of the whole produce. No equal quantity of productive labour employed in manufactures can ever occasion so great a reproduction. In them nature does nothing; man does all.”56
Is it possible in as few words to include a greater number of dangerous errors? At this rate a fourth or a third part of the value of human subsistence is due exclusively to the power of nature. And yet the proprietor is paid by the farmer, and the farmer by the corn-consumer, for this pretended value which remains after the work of man has been remunerated. And this is the basis on which it is desired to place Property! And, then, what becomes of the axiom that all value comes from labour?
Next, we have nature doing nothing in Manufactures! Do gravitation, the elasticity of the air, and animal force, not aid the manufacturer? These forces act in our manufactures just as they act in our fields; they produce gratuitously, not value, but utility. Were it otherwise, property in capital would be as much exposed to the attacks of Communism as property in land.
Buchanan.—This commentator51, adopting the theory of his master on Rent, is pressed by logic to blame him for having represented it as advantageous52:
“In dwelling53 on the reproduction of rent as so great an advantage to society, Smith does not reflect that rent is the effect of high price, and that what the landlord gains in this way, he gains at the expense of the community at large. There is no absolute gain to society by the reproduction of rent. It is only one class profiting at the expense of another class.”57
Ricardo.—“Rent is that portion of the produce of the earth which is paid to the landlord for the use of the original and indestructible powers of the soil.” [p253]
And, in order that there may be no mistake, the author adds:
“It is often confounded with the interest and profit of capital. . . . . It is evident that a portion only of the money annually55 to be paid for the improved farm would be for the original and indestructible powers of the soil, the other portion would be paid for the use of the capital which had been employed in ameliorating the quality of the land, and in erecting56 such buildings as were necessary to secure and preserve the produce. . . . In the future pages of this work, then, whenever I speak of the rent of land, I wish to be understood as speaking of that compensation which is paid to the owner of land for the use of its original and indestructible powers.”58
M’Culloch.—“What is properly termed Rent is the sum paid for the use of the natural and inherent powers of the soil. It is entirely57 distinct from the sum paid for the use of buildings, enclosures, roads, or other amelioration. Rent is then always a monopoly.”
Scrope.—“The value of land, and its power of yielding Rent, are due to two circumstances,—1st, The appropriation58 of its natural powers; 2d, The labour applied59 to its amelioration.”
We are not kept long waiting for the consequence:
“Under the first of these relations rent is a monopoly. It restricts our usufruct and enjoyment60 of the gifts which God has given to men for the satisfaction of their wants. This restriction61 is just, only in as far as it is necessary for the common good.”
In what perplexity must those good souls be landed who refuse to admit anything to be necessary which is not just?
Scrope ends with these words:
“When it goes beyond this point, it must be modified on the same principle which caused it to be established.”
It is impossible for the reader not to perceive that these authors lead us to a negation62 of Property, and lead us to it very logically, in setting out with the proposition that the proprietor is paid for the gifts of God. Here we have rent held up as an injustice established by Law under the pressure of necessity, and which laws may modify or destroy under the pressure of another necessity. The Communists have never gone farther than this.
Senior.—“The instruments of production are labour and natural agents. Natural agents having been appropriated, proprietors charge for their use under the form of Rent, which is the recompense of no sacrifice whatever, and is received by those who have neither laboured nor put by, but who merely hold out their hands to accept the offerings of the rest of the community.”
After giving this heavy blow to property, Mr Senior explains that one portion of Rent resolves itself into the Interest of Capital, and then adds:
“The surplus is taken by the proprietor of the natural agent, and is his reward, not for having laboured or abstained64, but simply for not having withheld65 what he was able to withhold66; for having permitted the gifts of nature to be accepted.”
You will observe that this is still the same theory. The proprietor is supposed to interpose himself between the hungry mouth and the food which God has vouchsafed67 under the condition of [p254] labour. The proprietor who has co-operated in the work of production, charges first of all for his co-operation, which is just, and then he makes a second charge for the work of nature, for the use of natural agents, for the indestructible powers of the soil, which is iniquitous68.
This theory of the English Economists, which has been farther developed by Mill, Malthus, and others, we are sorry to find making its way also on the Continent.
“When a franc’s worth of seed,” says Scialoja, “produces a hundred francs’ worth of corn, this augmentation of value is mainly due to the soil.”
This is to confound Utility with value; He might just as well have said, when water which costs only one sou at ten yards’ distance from the spring, costs ten sous at 100 yards, this augmentation of value is due in part to the intervention of nature.
Florez Estrada.—“Rent is that portion of the agricultural product which remains after all the costs of production have been defrayed.”
Then the proprietor receives something for nothing.
The English Economists all set out by announcing the principle that value comes from labour, and they are guilty of inconsistency when they afterwards attribute value to the inherent powers of the soil.
The French Economists in general make value to consist in utility; but, confounding gratuitous with onerous utility, they have not the less assisted in shaking the foundation of Property.
J. B. Say.—“Land is not the only natural agent which is productive, but it is the only one, or almost the only one, that man has been able to appropriate. The waters of the sea and of our rivers, by their aptitude70 to impart motion to machines, to afford nourishment71 to fishes, to float our ships, are likewise possessed of productive power. The wind and the sun’s rays work for us; but happily no one has been able to say, The wind and the sun are mine, and I must be paid for their services.”
M. Say appears from this to lament72 that any one should be able to say, The land belongs to me, and I must be paid for the service which it renders. Happily, say I, it is no more in the power of the proprietor to charge for the services of the soil than for the services of the sun and the wind.
“The earth,” continues M. Say, “is an admirable chemical workshop, in which are combined and elaborated a multitude of materials and elements which are produced in the shape of grain, fruit, flax, etc. Nature has presented to man, gratuitously, this vast workshop divided into a great number of compartments74 fitted for various kinds of production. But certain individual members of society have appropriated them, and proclaimed,—This compartment73 is mine,—that other is mine, and all that is produced in it is my exclusive property. And the astonishing thing is, that this usurped75 privilege, far from having been fatal to the community, has been found productive of advantage to it.”
Undoubtedly this arrangement has been advantageous; but why? Just because it is neither a privilege nor usurped, and [p255] that the man who exclaims, “This domain76 is mine,” has not had it in his power to add, “What has been produced on it is my exclusive property.” On the contrary, he says, “What has been produced is the exclusive property of whoever desires to purchase it, by giving me back simply the same amount of labour which I have undergone, and which in this instance I have saved his undergoing.” The co-operation of nature in the work of production, which is gratuitous for me, is gratuitous for him also.
M. Say indeed distinguishes, in the value of corn, the parts contributed by Property, by Capital, and by Labour. He has with the best intention been at great pains to justify77 this first part of the remuneration which accrues78 to the proprietor, and which is the recompense of no labour, either anterior79 or present; but he fails; for, like Scrope, he is obliged to fall back on the last and least satisfactory of all grounds of vindication80, necessity.
“If it be impossible,” he remarks, “for production to be effected, not only without land and without capital, but without these means of production previously81 becoming property, may it not be said that proprietors of land and capital exercise a productive function, since, without the employment of these means, production would not take place?—a convenient function no doubt, but which, in the present state of society, presupposes accumulation, which is the result of production or saving,” etc.
The confusion here is palpable. The accumulation has been effected by the proprietor in his character of Capitalist—a character with which at present we have no concern. But what M. Say represents as convenient is the part played by the proprietor, in his proper character of proprietor, exacting82 a price for the gifts of God. It is this part which it is necessary to vindicate46, and it has no connexion with either accumulation or saving.
“If, then, property in land and in capital” (why assimilate the two?) “be the fruit of production, I am warranted in representing such property as a working and productive machine, for which its author, although sitting with his hands across, is entitled to exact a recompense.”
Still the same confusion. The man who constructs a machine is proprietor of a capital, from which he legitimately84 derives86 an income, because he is paid, not for the labour of the machine, but for his own labour in constructing it. But land, or territorial87 property, is not the result of human production. What right, then, have we to be paid for its co-operation? The author has here mixed up two different kinds of property in the same category, in order that the same reasons which justify the one may serve for the vindication of the other.
Blanqui.—“The agriculturist who tills, manures, sows, and reaps his field, furnishes labour, without which nothing would be produced. But the action of the soil in making the seed germinate88, and of the sun in bringing the plant to maturity89, are independent of that labour, and co-operate in the formation of the value represented by the harvest. . . Smith and other Economists pretend that the labour of [p256] man is the exclusive source of value. Assuredly the industry of the labourer is not the exclusive source of the value of a sack of corn or a bushel of potatoes. His skill can no more succeed in producing the phenomenon of germination90 than the patience of the alchymist could succeed in discovering the philosopher’s stone. This is evident.”
It is impossible to imagine a more complete confusion than we have here, first between utility and value, and then between onerous and gratuitous utility.
Joseph Garnier.—“The rent of the proprietor differs essentially91 from the wages of the labourer and the profits of the capitalist, inasmuch as these two kinds of remuneration are the recompense, the one of trouble or pains taken, the other of a privation submitted to, and a risk encountered, whilst Rent is received by the proprietor gratuitously, and in virtue92 alone of a legal convention which recognises and maintains in certain individuals the right to landed property.”—(Eléments de l’économie Politique, 2e edition, p. 293.)
In other words, the labourer and capitalist are paid, in the name of equity93, for the services they render; and the proprietor is paid, in the name of law, for services which he does not render.
“The boldest innovators do not go farther than to propose the substitution of collective for individual property. It seems to us that they have reason on their side as regards human right; but they are wrong practically, inasmuch as they are unable to exhibit the advantages of a better Economical system.” . . . —(Ibid., pp. 377, 378.)
“But at the same time, in avowing94 that property is a privilege, a monopoly, we must add, that it is a natural and a useful monopoly. . . .
“In short, it seems to be admitted by Political Economy” [it is so, alas95! and here lies the evil] “that property does not flow from divine right, demesnial right, or any other speculative96 right, but simply from its utility. It is only a monopoly tolerated in the interest of all,” etc.
I think I have now satisfactorily shown that Political Economy, setting out with the false datum99, that “natural agents possess or create value,” has arrived at this conclusion, “that property (in as far as it appropriates and is remunerated for this value, which is independent of all human service) is a privilege, a monopoly, a usurpation100; but that it is a necessary monopoly, and must be maintained.”
It remains for me to show that the Socialists set out with the same postulate, only they modify the conclusion in this way: “Property is a necessary monopoly; it must be maintained, but we must demand, from those who have property, compensation to those who have none, in the shape of Right to Employment.”
I shall, then, dispose of the doctrine101 of the Communists, who, arguing from the same premises, conclude that “Property is a monopoly, and ought to be abolished.”
Finally, and at the risk of repetition, I shall, if I can, expose the fallacy of the premises on which all the three conclusions are based, namely, that natural agents possess or create value. If I succeed in [p257] this, if I demonstrate that natural agents, even when appropriated, produce, not Value, but Utility, which, passing from the hands of the proprietor without leaving anything behind it, reaches the consumer gratuitously,—in that case, all—Economists, Socialists, Communists—must at length come to a common understanding to leave the world, in this respect, just as it is.
M. Considérant.59—“In order to discover how and under what conditions private property may Legitimately manifest and develop itself, we must get possession of the fundamental principle of the Right of Property; and here it is:
“Every man POSSESSES LEGITIMATELY THE THINGS which have been CREATED by his labour, his intelligence, or, to speak more generally, BY HIS ACTIVITY.
“This Principle is incontestable, and it is right to remark that it contains implicitly103 the acknowledgment of the Right of all to the Soil. The earth not having been created by man, it follows in fact, from the fundamental principle of Property, that the Soil, which is a common fund given over to the species, can in no shape legitimately become the absolute and exclusive property of this or that individual who has not created this value. Let us establish, then, the true Theory of Property, by basing it exclusively on the unexceptionable principle which makes the legitimacy25 of Property hinge upon the fact of the CREATION of the thing, or of the value possessed. To accomplish this we must direct our reasoning to the origin of industry, that is to say, to the origin and development of agriculture, manufactures, the arts, etc., in human society.
“Suppose that on a solitary104 island, on the territory of a nation, or on the entire surface of the earth (for the extent of the field of action makes no difference in our estimate of facts), a generation of mankind devotes itself for the first time to industry—for the first time engages in agriculture, manufactures, etc. Each generation, by its labour, by its intelligence, by the exertion of its own proper activity, creates products, develops value, which did not exist on the earth in its rude and primitive105 state. Is it not perfectly106 evident that, among the first generation of labourers, Property would conform to Right, PROVIDED the value or wealth produced by the activity of all were distributed among the producers IN PROPORTION TO THE CO-OPERATION of each in the creation of the general riches? That is beyond dispute.
“Now, the results of the labour of this generation may be divided into two categories, which it is important to distinguish.
“The first category includes the products of the soil, which belong to this first generation in its character of usufructuary, as having been increased, refined, or manufactured by its labour, by its industry. These products, whether raw or manufactured, consist either of objects of consumption or of instruments of labour. It is clear that these products belong, in entire and legitimate18 property, to those who have created them by their activity. Each of them, then, has RIGHT, either to consume these products immediately, to store them up to be disposed of afterwards at pleasure, or to employ them, exchange them, give them away, or transmit them to any one he chooses, without receiving authority from anyone. On this hypothesis, this Property is evidently Legitimate, respectable, sacred. We cannot assail11 it without assailing107 Justice, Right, individual liberty,—without, in short, being guilty of Spoliation.
“Second category. But the creations attributable to the industrious108 activity of this first generation are not all included in the preceding category. This generation has created not only the products which we have just described (objects of consumption and instruments of labour),—it has also added an additional value to the primitive value of the soil, by cultivation109, by erections, by the permanent improvements which it has executed.
“This additional value constitutes evidently a product, a value, due to the activity of the first generation. Now, if by any means (we are not concerned at present with the question of means),—if by any means whatever the property of this additional value is equitably110 distributed among the different members of society, that is to say, is distributed among them proportionally to the co-operation of each in its creation, each will possess legitimately the portion which has fallen to him. He may, then, dispose of this individual Property, legitimate as he sees it to be, exchange it, give it away, or transmit it without control, society having over these values no right or power whatsoever111. [p258]
“We may, therefore, easily conceive that when the second generation makes its appearance, it will find upon the land two sorts of Capital:
“1st, The primitive or natural capital, which has not been created by the men of the first generation—that is, the value of the land in its rough, uncultivated state.
“2d, The capital created by the first generation: including (1), the products, commodities, and instruments, which shall not have been consumed or used by the first generation; (2), the additional value which the labour of the first generation has added to the value of the rough, uncultivated land.
“It is evident, then, and results clearly and necessarily from the fundamental principle of the Right of Property, which I have just explained, that each individual of the second generation has an equal right to the primitive or natural capital, whilst he has no right to the other species of capital which has been created by the labour of the first generation. Each individual of the first generation may, then, dispose of his share of this created capital in favour of whatever individual of the second generation he may please to select, children, friends, etc., and no one, not even the State itself, as we have just seen, has the slightest right (on pretence112 of Property) to control the disposal which, as donor113 or testator, he may have made of such capital.
“Observe that on this hypothesis the man of the second generation is already in a better situation than the man of the first, seeing that, besides his right to the primitive capital, which is preserved to him, he has his chance of receiving a portion of the created capital, that is to say, of a value which he has not produced, and which represents anterior labour.
“If, then, we suppose things to be arranged in society in such a way that,
“1st, The right to the primitive capital, that is, the usufruct of the soil in its natural state, is preserved, or that an EQUIVALENT RIGHT is conferred on every individual born within the territory;
“2d, That the created capital is continually distributed among men, as it is produced, in proportion to the co-operation of each in the production of that capital;
“If, we say, the mechanism114 of the social organization shall satisfy these two conditions, PROPERTY, under such a régime, would be established IN ITS ABSOLUTE LEGITIMACY, and Fact would be in unison115 with Right.”—(Théorie du droit de propriété et du droit au travail, 3e edition, p. 17.)
We see here that the socialist36 author distinguishes between two kinds of value, created value, which is the subject of legitimate property, and uncreated value, which he denominates the value of land in its natural state, primitive capital, natural capital, which cannot become individual property but by usurpation. Now, according to the theory which I am anxious to establish, the ideas expressed by the words uncreated, primitive, natural, exclude radically116 these other ideas, value, capital. This is the error in M. Considérant’s premises, by which he is landed in this melancholy117 conclusion:
“That, under the régime of Property, in all civilized118 nations, the common fund, over which the entire species has a full right of usufruct, has been invaded—has been confiscated—by the few, to the exclusion119 of the many. Why, were even a single human being excluded from his Right to the Usufruct of this common fund, that very exclusion would of itself constitute an attack upon Right by the Institution of Property, and that institution, by sanctioning such invasion of right, would be unjust and illegitimate.”
M. Considérant, however, acknowledges that the earth could not be cultivated but for the institution of individual property. Here, then, is a necessary monopoly. What can we do, then, to reconcile all, and preserve the rights which the prolétaires, or men of no property, have to the primitive, natural, uncreated capital, and to the value of the land in its rough and uncultivated state? [p259]
“Why, let Society, which has taken possession of the land, and taken away from man the power of exercising, freely and at will, his four natural rights on the surface of the soil,—let this industrious society cede120 to the individual, in compensation for the rights of which it has deprived him, the Right to Employment.”—[Le Droit au Travail.]
Now, nothing in the world is clearer than that this theory, except the conclusion which it seeks to establish, is exactly the theory of the Economists. The man who purchases an agricultural product remunerates three things: 1st, The actual labour—nothing more legitimate; 2dly, the additional value imparted to the soil by anterior labour—still nothing more legitimate; 3dly, and lastly, the primitive, or natural, or uncreated capital,—that gratuitous gift of God, which M. Considérant denominates the value of the land in its rough and natural state; Adam Smith, the indestructible powers of the soil; Ricardo, the productive and indestructible powers of the land; Say, natural agents. This is the part which has been usurped, according to M. Considérant; this is what has been usurped, according to J. B. Say. It is this which constitutes illegitimacy and spoliation in the eyes of the Socialists; which constitutes monopoly and privilege in the eyes of the Economists. They are at one as to the necessity and the utility of this arrangement. Without it the earth would produce nothing, say the disciples121 of Smith; without it we should return to the savage122 state, re-echo the disciples of Fourier.
We find that in theory, and as regards right (at least with reference to this important question), the understanding between the two schools is much more cordial than we should have imagined. They differ only as to the legislative123 consequences to be deduced from the fact on which they agree. “Seeing that property is tainted125 with illegitimacy, inasmuch as it assigns to the proprietor a part of the remuneration to which he has no right; and seeing, at the same time, that it is necessary, let us respect it, but demand indemnities126. No, say the Economists, although it is a monopoly, yet seeing that it is a necessary monopoly, let us respect it, and let it alone.” And yet they urge this weak defence but feebly; for one of their latest organs, M. J. Garnier, adds, “You have reason on your side, as regards human right, but you are wrong practically, inasmuch as you have failed to point out the effects of a better system.” To which the Socialists immediately reply, “We have found it; it is the Right to Employment—try it.”
In the meantime M. Proudhon steps in. You imagine, perhaps, that this redoubtable127 objector is about to question the premises on which the Economists and Socialists ground their agreement. Not at all. He can demolish128 property without that. [p260] He appropriates the premises, grasps them, closes with them, and most logically deduces his conclusion. “You grant,” he says, “that the gifts of God are possessed not only of utility but of value, and that these gifts the proprietor usurps129 and sells. Then Property is theft; and it is not necessary to maintain it; it is not necessary to demand compensation for it; what is necessary is to abolish it.”
M. Proudhon has brought forward many arguments against landed Property. The most formidable one—indeed the only formidable one—is that with which these authors have furnished him, by confounding utility with value.
“Who has the right,” he asks, “to charge for the use of the soil,—for that wealth which does not proceed from man’s act? Who is entitled to the rent of land? The producer of the land, without doubt. Who made it? God. Then, proprietor, begone.
“ . . . . But the Creator of the earth does not sell it—he gives it; and in giving it he shows no respect of persons. Why, then, among all his children, are some treated as eldest130 sons, and some as bastards131? If equality of inheritance be our original right, why should our posthumous132 right be inequality of conditions?”
Replying to J. B. Say, who had compared land to an instrument, he says:
“I grant it that land is an instrument; but who is the workman? Is it the proprietor? Is it he who, by the efficacious virtue of the right of property, communicates to it vigour133 and fertility? It is precisely here that we discover in what consists the monopoly of the proprietor,—he did not make the instrument, and he charges for its use. Were the Creator to present Himself and demand the rent of land, we must account for it to Him; but the proprietor, who represents himself as invested with the same power, ought to exhibit his procuration.”
That is evident. The three systems in reality make only one. Economists, Socialists, Egalitaires, all direct against landed proprietors the same reproach, that of charging for what they have no right to charge for. This wrong some call monopoly, some illegitimacy, others theft—these are but different phases of the same complaint.
Now I would appeal to every intelligent reader whether this complaint is or is not well founded? Have I not demonstrated that there is but one thing which comes between the gifts of God and the hungry mouth, namely, human service?
Economists say, that “Rent is what we pay to the proprietor for the use of the productive and indestructible powers of the soil.” I say, No—Rent is like what we pay to the water-carrier for the pains he has taken to construct his barrow, and the water would cost us more if he had carried it on his back. In the same way, corn, flax, wool, timber, meat, fruits, would have cost us more if the proprietor had not previously improved the instrument which furnishes them.
Socialists assert that “originally the masses enjoyed their right [p261] to the land on condition of labour, but that now they are excluded and robbed of their natural patrimony134.” I answer, No—they are neither excluded nor robbed—they enjoy, gratuitously, the utility contributed by the soil on condition of labour, that is to say, by repaying that labour to those who have saved it to them.
égalitaires allege135 that “the monopoly of the proprietor consists in this, that not having made the instrument, he yet charges for its use.” I answer, No—the land-instrument, so far as it is the work of God, produces utility, and that utility is gratuitous; it is beyond the power of the proprietor to charge for it. The land-instrument, so far as it is prepared by the proprietor,—so far as he has laboured it, enclosed it, drained it, improved it, and furnished it with other necessary instruments, produces value, and that value represents actual human services, and for these alone is the proprietor paid. You must either admit the legitimacy of this demand, or reject your own principle—the mutuality136 of services.
In order to satisfy ourselves as to the true elements of the value of land, let us attend to the way in which landed property is formed—not by conquest and violence, but according to the laws of labour and exchange. Let us see what takes place in the United States.
Brother Jonathan, a laborious137 water-carrier of New York, set out for the Far-west, carrying in his purse a thousand dollars, the fruit of his labour and frugality138.
He journeyed across many fertile provinces, where the soil, the sun, and the rain worked wonders, but which nevertheless were entirely destitute of value in the economical and practical sense of the word.
Being a little of a philosopher, he said to himself—“Let Adam Smith and Ricardo say what they will, value must be something else than the natural and indestructible productive power of the soil.”
At length, having reached the State of Arkansas, he found a beautiful property of about 100 acres, which the government had advertised for sale at the price of a dollar an acre.
A dollar an acre! he said—that is very little, almost nothing. I shall purchase this land, clear it, and sell the produce, and the drawer of water shall become a lord of the soil!
Brother Jonathan, being a merciless logician139, liked to have a reason for everything. He said to himself, But why is this land worth even a dollar an acre? No one has yet put a spade in it, or has bestowed140 on it the least labour. Can Smith and Ricardo, and the whole string of theorists down to Proudhon, be right after all? Can land have a value independent of all labour, all service, [p262] all human intervention? Must I admit that the productive and indestructible powers of the soil have value? In that case, why should they have no value in the countries through which I have passed? And, besides, since the powers of the soil surpass so enormously the powers of men, which, as Blanqui well remarks, can never go the length of creating the phenomena of germination, why should these marvellous powers be worth no more than a dollar?
But he was not long in perceiving that this value, like all other values, is of human and social creation. The American government demanded a dollar for the concession141 of each acre; but, on the other hand, it undertook to guarantee to a certain extent the security of the acquirer; it had formed in a rough way a road to the neighbourhood, facilitated the transmission of letters and newspapers, etc. Service for service, said Jonathan;—the government makes me pay a dollar, but it gives me an adequate equivalent. With deference142 to Ricardo, I can now account naturally for the value of this land, which value would be still greater if the road were extended and improved, the post more frequent and regular, and the protection more efficacious and secure.
While Jonathan argued, he worked; for we must do him the justice to say that he always made thinking and acting83 keep pace.
He expended143 the remainder of his dollars in buildings, enclosures, clearances144, trenching, draining, improving, etc.; and after having dug, laboured, sowed, harrowed, reaped, at length came the time to dispose of his crop. “Now I shall see,” said Jonathan, still occupied with the problem of value, “if in becoming a landed proprietor I have transformed myself into a monopolist, a privileged aristocrat145, a plunderer146 of my neighbour, an engrosser of the bounties147 of divine Providence148.”
He carried his grain to market, and began to talk with a Yankee:—Friend, said he, how much will you give me for this Indian corn?
The current price, replied the other.
The current price! but will that yield me anything beyond the interest of my capital and the wages of my labour?
I am a merchant, said the Yankee, and I know that I must content myself with the recompense of my present and former labour.
And I was content with it when I was a mere63 drawer of water, replied the other, but now I am a landed proprietor. The English and French Economists have assured me that in that character I [p263] ought, over and above the double remuneration you point at, to derive85 a profit from the productive and indestructible powers of the soil, and levy149 a tax on the gifts of God.
The gifts of God belong to all, said the merchant. I avail myself of the productive power of the wind for propelling my ships, but I make no one pay for it.
Still, as far as I am concerned, I expect that you will pay me something for these powers, in order that Messieurs Senior, Considérant, and Proudhon, should not call me a monopolist and usurper150 for nothing. If I am to have the disgrace, I may at least have the profit, of a monopolist.
In that case, friend, I must bid you good morning. To obtain the maize151 I am in quest of, I must apply to other proprietors, and if I find them of your mind, I shall cultivate it for myself.
Jonathan then understood the truth, that, under the empire of freedom, a man cannot be a monopolist at pleasure. As long as there are lands in the union to clear, said he, I can never be more than the simple setter in motion of these famous productive and indestructible forces. I shall be paid for my trouble, that is all, just as when I was a drawer of water I was paid for my own labour, and not for that of nature. I see now very clearly that the true usufructuary of the gifts of God is not the man who raises the corn, but the man who consumes it.
Some years afterwards, another enterprise having engaged the attention of Jonathan, he set about finding a tenant152 for his land. The dialogue which took place between the two contracting parties was curious, and would throw much light on the subject under consideration were I to give it entire.
Here is part of it:
Proprietor. What! you would give me no greater rent than the interest, at the current rate, of the capital I have actually laid out?
Farmer. Not a cent more.
Proprietor. Why so, pray?
Farmer. Just for this reason, that, with the outlay154 of an equal capital, I can put as much land in as good condition as yours.
Proprietor. That seems conclusive155. But consider that when you become my tenant, it is not only my capital which will work for you, but also the productive and indestructible powers of the soil. You will have enlisted156 in your service the marvellous influences of the sun and the moon, of affinity157 and electricity. Am I to give you all these things for nothing?
Farmer. Why not, since they cost you nothing, and since you derive nothing from them, any more than I do? [p264]
Proprietor. Derive nothing from them? I derive everything from them. Zounds! without these admirable phenomena, all my industry could not raise a blade of grass.
Farmer. Undoubtedly. But remember the Yankee you met at market. He would not give you a farthing for all this co-operation of nature any more than, when you were a water-carrier, the housewives of New York would give you a farthing for the admirable elaboration by means of which nature supplied the spring.
Proprietor. Ricardo and Proudhon, however, . . . .
Farmer. A fig158 for Ricardo. We must either treat on the basis which I have laid down, or I shall proceed to clear land alongside yours, where the sun and the moon will work for me gratis159.
It was always the same argument, and Jonathan began to see that God had wisely arranged so as to make it difficult for man to intercept160 His gifts.
Disgusted with the trade of proprietor, Jonathan resolved to employ his energies in some other department, and he determined161 to put up his land to sale.
It is needless to say that no one would give him more for it than it cost himself. In vain he cited Ricardo, and represented the inherent value of the indestructible powers of the soil—the answer always was, “There are other lands close by;” and these few words put an extinguisher on his exactions and on his illusions.
There is, moreover, in this transaction a fact of great Economic importance, and to which little attention has been paid.
It is easy to understand that if a manufacturer desires, after ten or fifteen years, to sell his apparatus162 and materials, even in their new state, he will probably be forced to submit to a loss. The reason is obvious. Ten or fifteen years can scarcely elapse without considerable improvements in machinery164 taking place. This is the reason why the man who sends to market machinery fifteen years old cannot expect a return exactly equal to the labour he has expended; for with an equal expenditure165 of labour the purchaser could, owing to the progress subsequently made, procure166 himself machinery of improved construction—which, we may remark in passing, proves more and more clearly that value is not in proportion to labour, but to services.
Hence we may conclude that machinery and instruments of labour have a tendency to lose part of their value in consequence of the mere lapse163 of time, without taking into account their deterioration167 by use—and we may lay down this formula, that “one of the effects of progress is to diminish the value of all existing instruments.” [p265]
It is clear, in fact, that the more rapid that progress is, the greater difficulty will the former instruments have in sustaining the rivalry168 of new and improved ones.
I shall not stop here to remark the harmony exhibited by the results of this law. What I desire you to observe at present is, that landed property no more escapes from the operation of this law than any other kind of property.
Brother Jonathan experiences this. He holds this language to the purchaser—“What I have expended on this property in permanent improvements represents a thousand days’ labour. I expect that you will, in the first place, reimburse169 me for these thousand days’ work, and then add something for the value which is inherent in the soil and independent of all human exertion.”
The purchaser replies:
“In the first place, I shall give you nothing for the value inherent in the soil, which is simply utility, which the adjoining property possesses as well as yours. Such native superhuman utility I can obtain gratis, which proves that it possesses no value.
“In the second place, since your books show that you have expended a thousand days’ work in bringing your land to its present state, I shall give you only 800 days’ labour; and my reason for it is, that with 800 days’ labour I can now-a-days accomplish the same improvements on the adjoining land as you have executed with 1000 days’ labour on yours. Pray consider that in the course of fifteen years the art of draining, clearing, building, sinking wells, designing farm-offices, transporting materials, has made great progress. Less labour is now required to effect each given result, and I cannot consent to give you ten for what I can get for eight, more especially as the price of grain has fallen in proportion to this progress, which is a profit neither to you nor to me, but to mankind at large.”
Thus Jonathan was left no alternative but to sell his land at a loss, or to keep it.
Undoubtedly the value of land is not affected170 by one circumstance exclusively. Other circumstances—such as the construction of a canal, or the erection of a town—may act in an opposite direction, and raise its value, but the improvements of which I have spoken, which are general and inevitable171, always necessarily tend to depress it.
The conclusion to be deduced from all I have said is, that as long as there exists in a country abundance of land to be cleared and brought under cultivation, the proprietor, whether he cultivates, or lets, or sells it, enjoys no privilege, no monopoly, no exceptional [p266] advantage,—above all, that he levies172 no tax upon the gratuitous liberality of nature. How could it be so, if we suppose men to be free? Have not people who are possessed of capital and energy a perfect right to make a choice between agriculture, manufactures, commerce, fisheries, navigation, the arts, or the learned professions? Will not capital and industry always tend to those departments which give extraordinary returns? Will they not desert those which entail173 loss? Is this inevitable shifting and redistribution of human efforts not sufficient to establish, according to our hypothesis, an equilibrium174 of profit and remuneration? Do agriculturists in the United States make fortunes more rapidly than merchants, shipowners, bankers, or physicians,—as would necessarily happen if they received the wages of their labour like other people, and the recompense of nature’s work into the bargain?
Would you like to know how a proprietor even in the United States could establish for himself a monopoly? I shall try to explain it.
Suppose Jonathan to assemble all the proprietors of the United States, and hold this language to them:
“I desired to sell my crops, and I found no one who would give me a high enough price for them. I wished then to let my land, and encountered the same difficulty. I resolved to sell it, but still experienced the same disappointment. My exactions have always been met by their telling me, that there is more land in the neighbourhood; so that, horrible to say, my services are estimated by the community like the services of other people, at what they are worth, in spite of the flattering promises of theorists. They will give me nothing, absolutely nothing, for those productive and indestructible powers of the soil, for those natural agents, for the solar and lunar rays, for the rain, the wind, the dew, the frost, which I was led to believe were mine, but of which I turn out to be only the nominal175 proprietor. Is it not an iniquitous thing that I am remunerated only for my services, and at a rate, too, reduced by competition? You are all suffering under the same oppression, you are all alike the victims of anarchical competition. It would be no longer so, you may easily perceive, if we organized landed property, if we laid our heads together to prevent anyone henceforward from clearing a yard of American soil. In that case, population pressing, by its increase, on a nearly fixed176 amount of subsistence, we should be able to make our own prices and attain177 immense wealth, which would be a great boon178 for all other classes; for being rich, we should provide them with work.”
If, in consequence of this discourse179, the combined proprietors [p267] seized the reins180 of government, and passed an act interdicting181 all new clearances, the consequence undoubtedly would be a temporary increase of their profits. I say temporary, for the natural laws of society would be wanting in harmony if the punishment of such a crime did not spring naturally from the crime itself. Speaking with scientific exactitude, I should not say that the new law we have supposed would impart value to the powers of the soil, or to natural agents (were this the case, the law would do harm to no one);—but I should say, that the equilibrium of services had been violently upset; that one class robbed all other classes, and that slavery had been introduced into that country.
Take another hypothesis, which indeed represents the actual state of things among the civilized nations of Europe—and suppose all the land to have passed into the domain of private property.
We are to inquire whether in that case the mass of consumers, or the community, would continue to be the gratuitous usufructuary of the productive powers of the soil, and of natural agents; whether the proprietors of land would be owners of anything else than of its value, that is to say, of their services fairly estimated according to the laws of competition; and whether, when they are recompensed for those services, they are not forced like everyone else to give the gifts of God into the bargain.
Suppose, then, the entire territory of Arkansas alienated182 by the government, parcelled into private domains183, and subjected to culture. When Jonathan brings his grain or his land to market, can he not now take advantage of the productive power of the soil, and make it an element of value? He could no longer be met, as in the preceding case, with the overwhelming answer. “There is more uncultivated land adjacent to yours.”
This new state of things presupposes an increase of population, which may be divided into two classes: 1st, That which furnishes to the community agricultural services; 2dly, That which furnishes manufacturing, intellectual, or other services.
Now this appears to me quite evident. Labourers (other than owners of land) who wished to procure supplies of grain, being perfectly free to apply either to Jonathan or to his neighbours, or to the proprietors of adjoining states, being in circumstances even to proceed to clear lands beyond the territory of Arkansas, it would be absolutely impossible for Jonathan to impose an unjust law upon them. The very fact that lands which have no value exist elsewhere would oppose to monopoly an invincible184 obstacle, and we should be landed again in the preceding hypothesis. Agricultural services are subject to the law of Universal Competition, [p268] and it is quite impossible to make them pass for more than they are worth. I add, that they are worth no more (c?teris paribus) than services of any other description. As the manufacturer, after charging for his time, his anxiety, his trouble, his risk, his advances, his skill (all which things constitute human service, and are represented by value), can demand no recompense for the law of gravitation, the expansibility of steam, the assistance of which he has availed himself of,—so in the same way, Jonathan can include in the value of his grain only the sum total of the personal services, anterior or recent, and not the assistance he has derived185 from the laws of vegetable physiology186. The equilibrium of services is not impaired187 so long as they are freely exchanged, the one for the other, at an agreed price; and the gifts of God, of which these services are the vehicle, given on both sides into the bargain, remain in the domain of community.
It may be said, no doubt, that in point of fact the value of the soil is constantly increasing; and this is true. In proportion as population becomes more dense188 and the people more wealthy, and the means of communication more easy, the landed proprietor derives more advantage from his services. Is this law peculiar189 to him? Does the same thing not hold of all other producers? With equal labour, does not a physician, a lawyer, a singer, a painter, a day labourer, procure a greater amount of enjoyments190 in the nineteenth than he could in the fourth century? in Paris than in Brittany? in France than in Morocco? But is this increased enjoyment obtained at the expense of any other body? That is the point. For the rest, we shall investigate still farther this law of value (using the word metonymically) of the soil, in a subsequent part of the work, when we come to consider the theory of Ricardo.
At present it is sufficient to show that Jonathan, in the case we have put, can exercise no oppression over the industrial classes, provided the exchange of services is free, and that labour can, without any legal impediment, be distributed, either in Arkansas or elsewhere, among different kinds of production. This liberty renders it impossible for the proprietors to intercept, for their own profit, the gratuitous benefits of nature.
It would no longer be the same thing if Jonathan and his brethren, availing themselves of their legislative powers, were to proscribe191 or shackle192 the liberty of trade,—were they to decree, for example, that not a grain of foreign corn should be allowed to enter the territory of Arkansas. In that case the value of services exchanged between proprietors and non-proprietors would no longer be regulated by justice. The one party could no longer control the [p269] pretensions194 of the other. Such a legislative measure would be as iniquitous as the one to which we have just alluded195. The effect would be quite the same as if Jonathan, having carried to market a sack of corn, which in other circumstances would have sold for fifteen francs, should present a pistol at the purchaser’s head, and say, Give me three francs more, or I will blow out your brains.
This (to give the thing its right name) is extortion. Brutal197 or legal, the character of the transaction is the same. Brutal, as in the case of the pistol, it violates property; legal, as in the case of the prohibition198, it still violates property, and repudiates199, moreover, the very principle upon which property is founded. The exclusive subject of property, as we have seen, is value, and Value is the appreciation9 of two services freely and voluntarily exchanged. It is impossible, then, to conceive anything more directly antagonistic200 to the very principle of property, than that which, in the name of right, destroys the equivalence of services.
It may not be out of place to add, that laws of this description are iniquitous and injurious, whatever may be the opinions entertained by those who impose them, or by those who are oppressed by their operation. In certain countries we find the working-classes standing102 up for these restrictions201, because they enrich the proprietors. They do not perceive that it is at their expense, and I know from experience that it is not always safe to tell them so.
Strange! that people should listen willingly to sectaries who preach Communism, which is slavery; for when a man is no longer master of his own services, he is a slave;—and that they should look askance at those who are always and everywhere the defenders202 of Liberty, which is the Community of the gifts of God.
We now come to the third hypothesis, which assumes that all the land capable of cultivation throughout the world has passed into the domain of individual appropriation.
We have still to do with two classes—those who possess land—and those who do not. Will the first not oppress the second? and will the latter not be always obliged to give more labour in exchange for the same amount of subsistence?
I notice this objection merely for argument’s sake, for hundreds of years must elapse before this hypothesis can become a reality.
Everything forewarns us, however, that the time must at last come when the exactions of proprietors can no longer be met by the words, There are other lands to clear.
I pray the reader to remark, that this hypothesis implies another—it implies that at the same epoch203 population will have reached [p270] the extreme limit of the means of subsistence which the earth can afford.
This is a new and important element in the question. It is very much as if one should put the question, What will happen when there is no longer enough of oxygen in the atmosphere to supply the lungs of a redundant204 population?
Whatever view we take of the principle of population, it is at least certain that population is capable of increase, nay205, that it has a tendency to increase, since in point of fact it does increase. All the economic arrangements of society appear to have been organized with the previous knowledge of this tendency, and are in perfect harmony with it. The landed proprietor always endeavours to get paid for the natural agents which he has appropriated, but he is as constantly foiled in this foolish and unjust pretension193 by the abundance of analogous206 natural agents which have not been appropriated. The liberality of nature, which is comparatively indefinite, constitutes him a simple custodier. But now you drive me into a corner, by supposing a period at which this liberality reaches its limit. Men have then no longer anything to expect from that quarter. The consequence is inevitable, that the tendency of mankind to increase will be paralyzed, that the progress of population will be arrested. No economic régime can obviate207 this necessity. According to the hypothesis we have laid down, every increase of population would be repressed by mortality. No philanthropy, no optimism, can make us believe that the increase of human beings can continue its progression when the progressive increase of subsistence has conclusively208 terminated.
Here, then, we have a new order of things and the harmony of the social laws might be called in question, had they not provided for a state of matters the existence of which is possible, although very different from that which now obtains.
The difficulty we have to deal with, then, comes to this: When a ship in mid-ocean cannot reach land in less than a month, and has only a fortnight’s provisions on board, what is to be done? Clearly this, reduce the allowance of each sailor. This is not cruelty—it is prudence209 and justice.
In the same way, when population shall have reached the extreme limit that all the land in the world can maintain, a law which, by gentle and infallible means prevents the further multiplication210 of mankind, cannot be considered either harsh or unjust. Now, it is landed property still which affords us solution of the difficulty. The institution of property, by applying the stimulant211 of self-interest, causes the land to produce the greatest possible [p271] quantity of subsistence, and by the division of inheritances puts each family in a situation to estimate the danger to itself of an imprudent multiplication. It is very clear that any other régime—Communism, for example—would be at once a less effective spur to production, and a less powerful curb212 to population.
After all, it appears to me that Political Economy has discharged her duty when she has proved that the great and just law of the mutuality of services operates harmoniously213, so long as human progress is not conclusively arrested. Is it not consoling to think that up to that point, and under the empire of freedom, it is not in the power of one class to oppress another? Is economic Science bound to solve this further problem: Given the tendency of mankind to multiply, what will take place when there is no longer room in the world for new inhabitants? Does God hold in reserve for that epoch some creative cataclasm, some marvellous manifestation214 of His almighty215 power? Or, as Christians216, do we believe in the doctrine of the world’s destruction? These evidently are not economical problems, and there is no science which does not encounter similar difficulties. Natural philosophers know well, that all bodies which move on the surface of the earth have a tendency to descend217, not to ascend218. After all, a day must come when the mountains shall have filled up the valleys, when the embouchure of our rivers will be on the same level as their source, when the waters can no longer flow, etc., etc. What will happen then? Is Natural Science to cease to observe and to admire the harmony of the actual world because she cannot divine by what other harmony God will provide for a state of things far distant, no doubt, but inevitable? It seems to me that at this point the Economist31, like the natural philosopher, should substitute for an exercise of curiosity an exercise of faith. He who has so marvellously arranged the medium in which we now live, knows best how to prepare another medium suitable to other circumstances.
We judge of the productiveness of the soil and of human skill by the facts of which we are witnesses. Is this a rational mode of proceeding219? Then, adopting it, we may say, Since it has required six thousand years to bring a tenth part of the earth to the sorry state of cultivation in which we find it, how many hundreds of ages must elapse before its entire surface shall be converted into a garden?
Yet in this appreciation, comforting as it is, we suppose merely the more general diffusion220 of our present knowledge, or rather our present ignorance, of agriculture. But is this, I repeat, an [p272] admissible rule? Does not analogy tell us that an impenetrable veil conceals221 from us the power—the indefinite power it may be—of art? The savage who lives by the chase requires a square league of territory. What would be his surprise were he told that the pastoral life enables ten times the number of men to subsist50 upon the same space? The nomad222 shepherd would, in like manner, be quite astonished to be told that a system of triennial cultivation [la culture triennale] admits easily of a population ten times greater still. Tell the peasant accustomed to this routine that the same progress will again be the result of alternate culture60 [la culture alterne], and he will not believe you. Alternate culture is for us the latest improvement—Is it the latest improvement for the human race? Let us comfort ourselves regarding the future destiny of the species—a long tract153 of ages is before us. At all events, let us not require Political Economy to resolve problems which are not within her domain—and let us with confidence commit the destinies of future races to the keeping of that great and good and wise Being who shall have called them into existence.
Let us recapitulate223 the ideas contained in this chapter.
These two phenomena, Utility and Value—the co-operation of nature and the co-operation of man, consequently Community and Property—are combined in the work of agriculture, as in every other department of industry.
In the production of corn which appeases224 our hunger, we remark something analogous to what takes place in the formation of water which quenches225 our thirst. The ocean, which is the theme of the poet’s inspiration, offers to the Economist also a fine subject of meditation227. It is this vast reservoir which gives drink to all human creatures. And yet how can that be, when many of them are situated228 at a great distance from its shores, and when its water is besides undrinkable? It is here that we have to admire the marvellous industry of nature. We mark how the sun warms the heaving mass, and subjects it to a slow evaporation229. The water takes the form of gas, and, disengaged from the salt, which rendered it unfit for use, it rises into the high regions of the atmosphere. Gales230 of wind, increasing in all directions, drift it towards inhabited continents. There it encounters cold, which condenses it, and attaches it in a solid form to the sides of mountains. By-and-by the gentle heat of spring melts it. Carried along by its weight, [p273] it is filtered and purified through beds of schist and gravel231. It ramifies and distributes itself, and supplies and feeds refreshing232 springs in all parts of the world. Here we have an immense and ingenious industry carried on by nature for the benefit of the human race. Change of form, change of place, utility, nothing is wanting. But where is value? Value has not yet come into existence; and if what we must call the work of God is to be paid for (it would be paid for if it possessed exchangeable value)—who could tell the value of a single drop of this precious liquid?
All men, however, have not a spring of pure water at their door. In order to quench226 their thirst they must take pains, make efforts, exert foresight233 and skill. It is this supplementary234 human labour which gives rise to arrangements, transactions, estimates. It is here, then, that we discover the origin and foundation of value.
Man is originally ignorant. Knowledge is acquired. At the beginning, then, he is forced to carry water, to accomplish the supplementary labour which nature has left him to execute with the maximum of trouble. It is at this stage that water has the greatest value in exchange. By degrees the water-carrier invents a barrow and wheels, trains horses, constructs pipes, discovers the law of the siphon, etc.; in short, he transfers part of his labour to the gratuitous forces of nature; and, in proportion as he does so, the value of water, but not its utility, is diminished.
There is here, however, a circumstance which it is necessary thoroughly235 to comprehend, if we would not see discordance236 where there is in reality only harmony. It is this, that the purchaser of water obtains it on easier terms, that is to say, gives a less amount of labour in exchange for a given quantity of it, each time that a step of progress of this kind is gained, although in such circumstances he has to give a remuneration for the instrument by means of which nature is constrained237 to act. Formerly238 he paid for the labour of carrying the water; now he pays not only for that, but for the labour expended in constructing the barrow, the wheel, and the pipe—and yet, everything included, he pays less; and this shows us how false and futile239 the reasoning is which would persuade us that that part of the remuneration which is applicable to capital is a burden on the consumer. Will these reasoners never understand that, for each result obtained, capital supersedes240 more labour than it exacts?
All that I have said is equally applicable to the production of corn. In that case also, anterior to all human labour, there has [p274] been an immense, a measureless, amount of natural industry at work, the secrets of which the most advanced science can yet give no account of. Gases, salts, are diffused241 through the soil and the atmosphere. Electricity, affinity, the wind, the rain, light, heat, vegetable life, play successively their parts, often unknown to us, in transporting, transforming, uniting, dividing, combining these elements; and this marvellous industry, the activity and utility of which elude242 our appreciation and even our imagination, has yet no value. Value makes its appearance at the first intervention of the labour of man, who has, in this, more perhaps than in the other instance we have given, a supplementary labour to perform, in order to complete what nature has begun.
To direct these natural forces, and remove the obstacles which impede243 their action, man takes possession of an instrument, which is the soil, and he does so without injury to anyone; for this instrument had previously no value. This is not a matter of argument, but a matter of fact. Show me, in any part of the world you choose, land which has not been subjected directly or indirectly244 to human action, and I will show you land destitute of value.61 [p275]
In the meantime, the agriculturist, in order to effect, in conjunction with nature, the production of corn, executes two kinds of labour which are quite distinct. The one kind is applicable directly and immediately to the crop of the year—is applicable only to that, and must be paid for by that—such as sowing, weeding, reaping, etc. The other, as building, clearing, draining, enclosing, is applicable to an indefinite series of crops, and must be charged to and spread over a course of years, and calculated according to the tables of interest and annuities245. The crops constitute the remuneration of the agriculturist if he consumes them himself. If he exchanges them, it is for services of another kind, and the appreciation of the services so exchanged constitutes their value.
Now it is easy to see that this class of permanent works executed by the agriculturist upon the land is a value which has not yet received its entire recompense, but which cannot fail to receive it. It cannot be supposed that he is to throw up his land and allow another to step into his shoes without compensation. The value has been incorporated and mixed up with the soil, and this is the reason why we can with propriety246 employ a metonymy and say the land has value. It has value, in fact, because it can be no longer acquired without giving in exchange the equivalent for this labour. But what I contend for is, that this land, on which its natural productive power had not originally conferred any value, [p276] has no value yet in this respect. This natural power, which was gratuitous then, is gratuitous now, and will be always gratuitous. We may say, indeed, that the land has value, but when we go to the root of the matter we find, that what possesses value is the human labour which has improved the land, and the capital which has been expended on it. Hence it is rigorously exact to say that the proprietor of the land is, after all, the proprietor only of a value which he has created, of services which he has rendered; and what property can be more legitimate? It is property created at no one’s expense, and neither intercepts247 nor taxes the gifts of God.
Nor is this all. The capital which has been advanced, and the interest of which is spread over the crop of successive years, is so far from increasing the price of the produce, and forming a burden on the consumers, that the latter acquire agricultural products cheaper in proportion as this capital is augmented248, that is to say, in proportion as the value of the soil is increased. I have no doubt that this assertion will be thought paradoxical and tainted with exaggerated optimism, so much have people been accustomed to regard the value of land as a calamity250, if not a piece of injustice. For my own part, I affirm, that it is not enough to say that the value of the soil has been created at no one’s expense; it is not enough to say that it injures no one; we should rather say that it benefits everybody. It is not only legitimate, but advantageous, even to those who possess no property.
We have here, in fact, the phenomenon of our previous illustration reproduced. We remarked that from the moment the water-carrier invented the barrow and the wheel, the purchaser of the water had to pay for two kinds of labour: 1st, The labour employed in making the barrow and the wheel, or rather the interest of the capital, and an annual contribution to a sinking fund to replace that capital when worn out; 2d, The direct labour which the water-carrier must still perform. But it is equally true that these two kinds of labour united do not equal in amount the labour which had to be undergone before the invention. Why? because a portion of the work has now been handed over to the gratuitous forces of nature. It is, indeed, in consequence of this diminution251 of human labour that the invention has been called forth252 and adopted.
All this takes place in exactly the same way in the case of land and the production of corn. As often as an agriculturist expends253 capital in permanent ameliorations, it is certain that the successive crops are burdened with the interest of that capital. But it is [p277] equally certain that the other species of labour—rude, unskilled, present, direct labour—is rendered unnecessary in a still greater proportion; so that each crop is obtained by the proprietor, and consequently by the consumer, on easier terms, on less onerous conditions—the proper action of capital consisting precisely in substituting natural and gratuitous co-operation for human labour which must be paid for.
Here is an example of it. In order to obtain a good crop, it is necessary that the field should be freed from superfluous254 moisture. Suppose this species of labour to be still included in the first category. Suppose that the cultivator goes every morning with a jar to carry off the stagnant255 water where it is productive of injury. It is clear that at the year’s end the land would have acquired no additional value, but the price of the grain would be enormously enhanced. It would be the same in the case of all those who followed the same process while the art of draining was in this primitive state. If the proprietor were to make a drain, that moment the land would acquire value, for this labour pertains256 to the second category—that which is incorporated with the land—and must be reimbursed257 by the products of consecutive258 years; and no one could expect to acquire the land without recompensing this work. Is it not true, however, that it would tend to lower the value of the crop? Is it not true that although during the first year it exacted an extraordinary exertion, it saves in the long-run more labour than it has occasioned? Is it not true that the draining thenceforth will be executed by the gratuitous law of hydrostatics more economically than it could be by muscular force? Is it not true that the purchasers of corn will benefit by this operation? Is it not true that they should esteem259 themselves fortunate in this new value acquired by the soil? And, having reference to more general considerations, is it not true, in fine, that the value of the soil attests260 a progress realized, not for the advantage of the proprietor only, but for that of society at large? How absurd, then, and suicidal in society to exclaim: The additional price charged for corn, to meet the interest of the capital expended on this drain, and ultimately to replace that capital, or its equivalent, as represented in the value of the land, is a privilege, a monopoly, a theft! At this rate, to cease to be a monopolist and a thief, the proprietor should have only to fill up his drain and betake himself to his jar. Would the man who has no property, and lives by wages, be any gainer by that?
Review all the permanent ameliorations of which the sum total makes up the value of land, and you will find that to each of them [p278] the same remark applies. Having filled up the drain, demolish the fence, and so force the agriculturist to mount guard upon his field; destroy the well, pull down the barn, dig up the road, burn the plough, efface262 the levelling, remove the artificial mould; replace in the field the loose stones, the weeds, the roots of trees; you will then have realized the Utopia of Equality. The land, and the human race along with it, wall have reverted263 to the primitive state, and will have no longer any value. The crops will have no longer any connexion with capital. Their price will be freed from that accursed element called interest. Everything, literally265 everything, will be done by actual labour, visible to the naked eye. Political Economy will be much simplified. Our country will support a man to the square league. The rest of her inhabitants will have died of hunger;—but then it can no longer be said that property is a monopoly, an injustice, and a theft.
Let us not be insensible, then, to those economic harmonies which unfold themselves to our view more and more as we analyze266 the ideas of exchange, of value, of capital, of interest, of property, of community.—Will it indeed be given me to describe the entire circle, and complete the demonstration267?—But we have already, perhaps, advanced sufficiently268 far to be convinced that the social world, not less than the material world, bears the impress of a Divine hand, from which flows wisdom and goodness, and towards which we should raise our eyes in gratitude269 and admiration270.
Setting out with the proposition, that the soil has a proper value, independent of all human labour, that it constitutes primitive and uncreated capital, he concludes, in perfect consistency69 with his own views, that appropriation is usurpation. This supposed iniquity272 leads him to indulge in violent tirades273 against the institutions of modern society. On the other hand, he allows that permanent ameliorations confer an additional value on this primitive capital, an accessory so mixed up with the principal that we cannot separate them. What are we to do, then? for we have here a total value composed of two elements, of which one, the fruit of labour, is legitimate property; and the other, the gift of God, appropriated by man, is an iniquitous usurpation.
This is no trifling274 difficulty. M. Considérant resolves it by reference to the Right to Employment [Droit au travail].
“The development of Mankind evidently demands that the Soil shall not be left in its wild and uncultivated state. The destiny of the human race is opposed to property in land retaining its rude and primitive form.
“In the midst of forests and savannas275, the savage enjoys four natural rights, [p279] namely, the rights of Hunting, of Fishing, of Gathering276 the fruits, of Pasturing. Such is the primitive form of property in land.
“In all civilized societies, the working-classes, the Prolétaires, who inherit nothing and possess nothing, are simply despoiled277 of these rights. We cannot say that the primitive Right has changed its form, for it no longer exists. The form and the substance have alike disappeared.
“Now in what Form can such Rights be reconciled with the conditions of an industrial Society? The answer is plain:
“In the savage state, in order to avail himself of his Right, man is obliged to act. The labour of Fishing, of Hunting, of Gathering, of Pasturing are the conditions of the exercise of his Right. The primitive Right, then, is a Right to engage in these employments.
“Very well, let an industrial Society, which has appropriated the land, and taken away from man the power of exercising freely and at will his four natural Rights, let this society cede to the individual, in compensation for those Rights, of which it had despoiled him, the Right to Employment. On this principle, rightly understood and applied, the individual has no longer any reason to complain.
“The condition sine qua non, then, of the Legitimacy of Property is, that Society should concede to the Prolétaire—the man who has no property—the Right to Employment; and, in exchange for a given exertion of activity, assure him of means of subsistence, at least as adequate as such exercise could have procured278 him in the primitive state.”
I cannot, without being guilty of tiresome279 repetition, discuss this question with M. Considérant in all its bearings. If I demonstrate, that what he terms uncreated capital is no capital at all; that what he terms the additional value of the soil, is not an additional value, but the total value; he must acknowledge that his argument has fallen to pieces, and, with it, all his complaints of the way in which mankind have judged it proper to live since the days of Adam. But this controversy280 would oblige me to repeat all that I have already said upon the essentially and indelibly gratuitous character of natural agents.
I shall only remark, that if M. Considérant speaks in behalf of the non-proprietary class, he is so very accommodating that they may think themselves betrayed. What! proprietors have usurped the soil, and all the miracles of vegetation which it displays! they have usurped the sun, the rain, the dew, oxygen, hydrogen, and azote, so far at least as these co-operate in the production of agricultural products—and you ask them to assure to the man who has no property, as a compensation, at least as much of the means of subsistence, in exchange for a given exertion of activity, as that exertion could have procured him in the primitive and savage state!
But do you not see that landed property has not waited for your injunctions in order to be a million times more generous? for to what is your demand limited?
In the primitive state, your four rights of fishing, hunting, gathering the fruits, and pasturing, maintain in existence, or rather in a state of vegetation, amid all the horrors of destitution281, nearly one man to the square league of territory. The usurpation of the [p280] land will then be legitimate, according to you, when those who have been guilty of that usurpation support one man for every square league, exacting from him at the same time as much activity as is displayed by a Huron or an Iroquois. Pray remark, that France consists of only thirty thousand square leagues; that consequently, if its whole territory supports thirty thousand inhabitants in that condition of existence which the savage state affords, you renounce282 in behalf of the non-proprietary class all farther demands upon property. Now, there are thirty millions of Frenchmen who have not an inch of land, and among the number we meet with many—the president of the republic, ministers, magistrates283, bankers, merchants, notaries284, advocates, physicians, brokers285, soldiers, sailors, professors, journalists, etc.—who would certainly not be disposed to exchange their condition for that of an Ioway. Landed property, then, must do much more for us than you exact from it. You demand from it the Right to Employment, up to a certain point—that is to say, until it yields to the masses—and in exchange for a given amount of labour, too—as much subsistence as they could earn in a state of barbarism. Landed property does much more than that—it gives more than the Right to employment—it gives Employment itself, and did it only clear the land-tax, it would do a hundred times more than you ask it to do.
I find to my great regret that I have not yet done with landed property and its value. I have still to state, and to refute, in as few words as possible, an objection which is specious and even formidable.
It is said,
“Your theory is contradicted by facts. Undoubtedly, as long as there is in a country abundance of uncultivated land, the existence of such land will of itself hinder the cultivated land from acquiring an undue286 value. It is also beyond doubt, that even when all the land has passed into the appropriated domain, if neighbouring nations have extensive tracts287 ready for the plough, freedom of trade is sufficient to restrain the value of landed property within just limits. In these two cases it would seem that the Price of land can only represent the capital advanced, and the Rent of land the interest of that capital. Whence we must conclude, as you do, that the proper action of the soil and the intervention of natural agents, going for nothing, and not influencing the value of the crops, remain gratuitous, and therefore common. All this is specious. We may have difficulty in discovering the error, and yet this reasoning is erroneous. In order to be convinced of it, it [p281] is sufficient to point to the fact, that there are in France cultivated lands which are worth from 100 francs to 6000 francs the hectare, an enormous difference, which is much easier explained by the difference of fertility than by the difference of the anterior labour applied to these lands. It is vain to deny, then, that fertility has its own value, for not a sale takes place which does not attest261 it. Every one who purchases a land estate examines its quality, and pays for it accordingly. If, of two properties which lie alongside each other, the one consists of a rich alluvium, and the other of barren sand, the first is surely of more value than the second, although both may have absorbed the same capital, and to say truth, the purchaser gives himself no trouble on that score. His attention is fixed upon the future, and not upon the past. What he looks at is not what the land has cost, but what it will yield, and he knows that its yield will be in proportion to its fertility. Then this fertility has a proper and intrinsic value which is independent of all human labour. To maintain the contrary is to endeavour to base the legitimacy of individual appropriation on a subtilty, or rather on a paradox249.”
Let us inquire, then, what is the true foundation of the value of land.
I pray the reader not to forget that this question is of grave importance at the present moment. Hitherto it has been neglected or glossed288 over by Economists, as a question of mere curiosity. The legitimacy of individual appropriation was not formerly contested, but this is no longer the case. Theories which have obtained but too much success have created doubts in the minds of our best thinkers on the institution of property. And upon what do the authors of these theories found their complaints? Why, exactly upon the assertion contained in the objection which I have just explained—upon the fact, unfortunately admitted by all schools, that the soil, by reason of its fertility, possesses an inherent value communicated to it by nature and not by human means. Now value is not transferred gratuitously. The very word excludes the idea of gratuitousness289. We say to the proprietor, then—you demand from me a value which is the fruit of my labour, and you offer me in exchange a value which is not the fruit of your labour, or of any labour, but of the liberality of nature.
Be assured that this would be a fearful complaint were it well founded. It did not originate with Messieurs Considérant and Proudhon. We find it in the works of Smith, of Ricardo, of Senior, of all the Economists without exception, not as a theory [p282] merely, but as a subject of complaint. These authors have not only attributed to the soil an extra-human value, they have boldly deduced the consequence, and branded landed property as a privilege, a monopoly, a usurpation. No doubt, after thus branding it, they have defended it on the plea of necessity. But what does such a defence amount to, but an error of reasoning which the Communist logicians have lost no time in rectifying290?
It is not, then, to indulge an unhappy love for subtilties that I enter on this delicate subject. I should have wished to save both the reader and myself the ennui291 which even now I feel hovering292 over the conclusion of this chapter.
The answer to the objection now under consideration is to be found in the theory of Value, explained in the fifth chapter of this work. I there said that value does not essentially imply labour; still less is it necessarily proportionate to labour. I have shown that the foundation of value is not so much the pains taken by the person who transfers it as the pains saved to the person who receives it; and it is for that reason that I have made it to reside in something which embraces these two elements—in service. I have said that a person may render a great service with very little effort, or that with a great effort one may render a very trifling service. The sole result is, that labour does not obtain necessarily a remuneration which is always in proportion to its intensity293, in the case either of man in an isolated condition, or of man in the social state.
Value is determined by a bargain between two contracting parties. In making that bargain, each has his own views. You offer to sell me corn. What matters it to me the time and pains it may have cost you to produce it? What I am concerned about is the time and pains it would have cost me to procure it from another quarter. The knowledge you have of my situation may render you more or less exacting; the knowledge I have of yours may render me more or less anxious to make the purchase. There is no necessary measure, then, of the recompense which you are to derive from your labour. That depends upon the circumstances, and the value which these circumstances confer upon the two services which we are desirous to exchange. By-and-by we shall call attention to an external force called Competition, whose mission is to regulate values, and render them more and more proportional to efforts. Still this proportion is not of the essence of value, seeing that the proportion is established under the pressure of a contingent294 fact.
Keeping this in view, I maintain that the value of land arises, fluctuates, and is determined, like that of gold, iron, water, the [p283] lawyer’s advice, the physician’s consultation295, the singer’s or dancer’s performance, the artist’s picture—in short, like all other values; that it is subject to no exceptional laws; that it constitutes a property the same in origin, the same in nature, and as legitimate, as any other property. But it does not at all follow, as you must now see, that, of two exertions296 of labour applied to the soil, one should not be much better remunerated than the other.
Let us revert264 again to that industry, the most simple of all, and the best fitted to show us the delicate point which separates the onerous labour of man from the gratuitous co-operation of nature. I allude196 to the humble297 industry of the water-carrier.
A man procures298 and brings home a barrel of water. Does he become possessed of a value necessarily proportionate to his labour? In that case, the value would be independent of the service the water may render. Nay more, it would be fixed; for the labour, once over, is no longer susceptible299 of increase or diminution.
Well, the day after he procures and brings home this barrel of water, it may lose its value, if, for example, it has rained during the night. In that case every one is provided—the water can render no service, and is no longer wanted. In economic language, it has ceased to be in demand.
On the other hand, it may acquire considerable value, if extraordinary wants, unforeseen and pressing, come to manifest themselves.
What is the consequence? that man, working for the future, is not exactly aware beforehand what value the future will attach to his labour. Value incorporated in a material object will be higher or lower, according as it renders more or less service, or, to express it more clearly, human labour, which is the source of value, receives according to circumstances a higher or lower remuneration. Such eventualities are an exercise for foresight, and foresight also has a right to remuneration.
But what connexion is there, I would ask, between these fluctuations300 of value, between these variations in the recompense of labour, and that marvellous natural industry, those admirable physical laws, which without our participation301 have brought the water of the ocean to the spring? Because the value of this barrel of water varies according to circumstances, are we to conclude that nature charges sometimes more, sometimes less, sometimes nothing at all, for evaporation, for carrying the clouds from the ocean to the mountains, for freezing, melting, and the whole of that admirable industry which supplies the spring? [p284]
It is exactly the same thing in the case of agricultural products.
The value of the soil, or rather of the capital applied to the soil, is made up not of one element but of two. It depends not only on the labour which has been employed, but also on the ability which society possesses to remunerate that labour—on Demand as well as on Supply.
Take the case of a field. Not a year passes, perhaps, in which there is not some labour bestowed upon it, the effects of which are permanent, and of course an increase of value is the result.
Roads of access, besides, are improved and made more direct, the security of person and property becomes more complete, markets are extended, population increases in number and in wealth—different systems of culture are introduced, and a new career is opened to intelligence and skill; the effect of this change of medium, of this general prosperity, being to confer additional value on both the present and the anterior labour, and consequently on the field.
There is here no injustice, no exception in favour of landed property. No species of labour, from that of the banker to that of the day-labourer, fails to exhibit the same phenomenon. No one fails to see his remuneration improved by the improvement of the society in which his work is carried on. This action and reaction of the prosperity of each on the prosperity of all, and vice6 versa, is the very law of value. So false is the conclusion which imputes302 to the soil and its productive powers an imaginary value, that intellectual labour, professions and trades which have no connexion with matter or the co-operation of physical laws, enjoy the same advantage, which in fact is not exceptional but universal. The lawyer, the physician, the professor, the artist, the poet, receive a higher remuneration for an equal amount of labour, in proportion as the town or country to which they belong increases in wealth and prosperity, in proportion as the taste or demand for their services becomes more generally diffused, in proportion as the public is more able and more willing to remunerate them. The acquisition of clients and customers is regulated by this principle. It is still more apparent in the case of the Basque Giant and Tom Thumb, who lived by the simple exhibition of their exceptional stature303, and reap a much better harvest, from the curiosity of the numerous and wealthy crowds of our large towns, than from that of a few poor and straggling villagers. In this case, demand not only enhances value, it creates it. Why, then, should we think it exceptional or unjust that demand should also exert an influence on the value of land and of agricultural products? [p285]
Is it alleged304 that land may thus attain an exaggerated value? They who say so have never reflected on the immense amount of labour which arable305 land has absorbed. I dare affirm, that there is not a field in this country which is worth what it has cost, which could be exchanged for as much labour as has been expended in bringing it to its present state of productiveness. If this observation is well founded, it is conclusive. It frees landed property from the slightest taint124 of injustice. For this reason, I shall return to the subject when I come to examine Ricardo’s theory of Rent, and I shall show that we must apply to agricultural capital the law which I have stated in these terms: In proportion as capital increases, products are divided between capitalists or proprietors and labourers, in such a way that the relative share of the former goes on continually diminishing, although their absolute share is increased, whilst the share of the latter is increased both absolutely and relatively306.
The illusion which has induced men to believe that the productive powers of the soil have an independent value, because they possess Utility, has led to many errors and catastrophes307. It has driven them frequently to the premature308 establishment of colonies, the history of which is nothing else than a lamentable309 martyrology. They have reasoned in this way: In our own country we can obtain value only by labour, and when we have done our work, we have obtained a value which is only proportionate to our labour. If we emigrate to Guiana, to the banks of the Mississippi, to Australia, to Africa, we shall obtain possession of vast territories, uncultivated but fertile; and our reward will be, that we shall become possessed not of the value we have created, but also of the inherent and independent value of the land we may reclaim310. They set out, and a cruel experience soon confirms the truth of the theory which I am now explaining. They labour, they clear, they exhaust themselves; they are exposed to privations, to sufferings, to diseases; and then if they wish to dispose of the land which they have rendered fit for production, they cannot obtain for it what it has cost them, and they are forced to acknowledge that value is of human creation. I defy you to give me an instance of the establishment of a colony which has not at the beginning been attended with disaster.
“Upwards of a thousand labourers were sent out to the Swan River Colony; but the extreme cheapness of land (eighteenpence, or less than two francs, an acre) and the extravagant311 rate of wages, afforded them such facilities and inducements to become landowners, that capitalists could no longer get any one to cultivate their lands. A capital of ￡200,000 (five millions of francs) was lost in consequence, and the colony became a scene of desolation. The labourers having left their employers from the delusive312 desire to become landowners, agricultural implements313 were allowed to rust—seeds rotted—and sheep, cattle, and horses perished for want of attention. A frightful314 famine [p286] cured the labourers of their infatuation, and they returned to ask employment from the capitalists; but it was too late.”—Proceedings of the South Australian Association.
The association, attributing this disaster to the cheapness of land, raised its price to 12s. an acre. But, adds Carey, from whom I borrow this quotation315, the real cause was, that the labourers, being persuaded that land possesses an inherent value, apart from the labour bestowed on it, were anxious to exercise “the power of appropriation,” to which the power to demand Rent is attributed.
What follows supplies us with an argument still more conclusive:
“In 1836, the landed estates in the colony of Swan River were to be purchased from the original settlers at one shilling an acre.”—New Monthly Magazine.
Thus the land which was sold by the company at 12s.—upon which the settlers had bestowed much labour and money—was disposed of by them at one shilling! What then became of the value of the natural and indestructible productive powers of the soil?62
I feel that the vast and important subject of the Value of Land has not been exhausted316 in this chapter, written by snatches and amid many distractions317. I shall return to it hereafter; but in the meantime I cannot resist submitting one observation to my readers, and more especially to Economists.
The illustrious savants who have done so much to advance the science, whose lives and writings breathe benevolence318 and philanthropy, and who have disclosed to us, at least in a certain aspect, and within the limits of their researches, the true solution of the social problem—the Quesnays, the Turgots, the Smiths, the Malthuses, the Says—have not however escaped, I do not say from refutation, for that is always legitimate, but from calumny319, disparagement320, and insult. To attack their writings, and even their motives321, has become fashionable. It may be said, perhaps, that in this chapter I am furnishing arms to their detractors, and truly the moment would be ill chosen for me to turn against those whom I candidly322 acknowledge as my initiators, my masters, and my guides.
But supreme323 homage324 is, after all, due to Truth, or what I regard as Truth. No book was ever written without some admixture of error. Now, a single error in Political Economy, if we press it, torture it, deduce from it rigorously its logical consequences, involves all kinds of errors—in fact, lands us in chaos325. There never was a book from which we could not extract one proposition, isolated, incomplete, false, including consequently a whole world [p287] of errors and confusion. In my conscience, I believe that the definition which the Economists have given of the word Value is of this number. We have just seen that this definition has led them to cast a serious doubt on the legitimacy of property in land, and, by consequence, in capital; and they have only been stopped short on this fatal road by an inconsistency. This inconsistency has saved them. They have resumed their march on the road of Truth; and their error, if it be one, is, in their works, an isolated blot326. Then the Socialists have come to lay hold of this false definition, not to refute it, but to adopt it, strengthen it, make it the foundation of their propaganda, and deduce from it all its consequences. Hence has arisen in our day an imminent327 social danger; and it is for that reason that I have thought it my duty to be explicit328 on this subject, and trace the erroneous theory to its source. If you conclude that I have separated myself from my masters Smith and Say, from my friends Blanqui and Garnier, because, by an oversight329 in their learned and admirable works, they have made, as I think, an erroneous application of the word value; if you conclude from this that I have no longer faith in Political Economy and Political Economists, I can only protest, and appeal to the very title of the present volume.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
endued
|
|
| v.授予，赋予（特性、才能等）( endue的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
elasticity
|
|
| n.弹性，伸缩力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
porosity
|
|
| n.多孔性，有孔性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
gratuitously
|
|
| 平白 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
gratuitous
|
|
| adj.无偿的，免费的；无缘无故的，不必要的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
vice
|
|
| n.坏事；恶习；[pl.]台钳，老虎钳；adj.副的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
proprietor
|
|
| n.所有人；业主；经营者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
appreciations
|
|
| n.欣赏( appreciation的名词复数 )；感激；评定；（尤指土地或财产的）增值 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
appreciation
|
|
| n.评价；欣赏；感谢；领会，理解；价格上涨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
exertion
|
|
| n.尽力，努力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
assail
|
|
| v.猛烈攻击，抨击，痛斥 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
scrutinize
|
|
| n.详细检查，细读 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
unintelligible
|
|
| adj.无法了解的，难解的，莫明其妙的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
incapable
|
|
| adj.无能力的，不能做某事的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
justification
|
|
| n.正当的理由；辩解的理由 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
isolation
|
|
| n.隔离，孤立，分解，分离 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
isolated
|
|
| adj.与世隔绝的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
legitimate
|
|
| adj.合法的，合理的，合乎逻辑的；v.使合法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
phenomena
|
|
| n.现象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
improperly
|
|
| 不正确地，不适当地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
undoubtedly
|
|
| adv.确实地，无疑地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
specious
|
|
| adj.似是而非的；adv.似是而非地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
plausible
|
|
| adj.似真实的，似乎有理的，似乎可信的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
fecundity
|
|
| n.生产力；丰富 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
legitimacy
|
|
| n.合法，正当 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
logic
|
|
| n.逻辑(学)；逻辑性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
indefatigable
|
|
| adj.不知疲倦的，不屈不挠的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
concur
|
|
| v.同意，意见一致，互助，同时发生 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
intervention
|
|
| n.介入，干涉，干预 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
proprietors
|
|
| n.所有人，业主( proprietor的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
economist
|
|
| n.经济学家，经济专家，节俭的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
economists
|
|
| n.经济学家，经济专家( economist的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
postulate
|
|
| n.假定，基本条件；vt.要求，假定 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
deduction
|
|
| n.减除，扣除，减除额；推论，推理，演绎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
deductions
|
|
| 扣除( deduction的名词复数 )； 结论； 扣除的量； 推演 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
socialist
|
|
| n.社会主义者；adj.社会主义的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
socialists
|
|
| 社会主义者( socialist的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
travail
|
|
| n.阵痛；努力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
premises
|
|
| n.建筑物，房屋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
incumbent
|
|
| adj.成为责任的，有义务的；现任的，在职的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
briefly
|
|
| adv.简单地，简短地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
destitute
|
|
| adj.缺乏的；穷困的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
onerous
|
|
| adj.繁重的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
possessed
|
|
| adj.疯狂的；拥有的，占有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
vindicated
|
|
| v.澄清（某人/某事物）受到的责难或嫌疑( vindicate的过去式和过去分词 )；表明或证明（所争辩的事物）属实、正当、有效等；维护 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
vindicate
|
|
| v.为…辩护或辩解，辩明；证明…正确 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
remains
|
|
| n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
deducting
|
|
| v.扣除，减去( deduct的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
compensating
|
|
| 补偿，补助，修正 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
subsist
|
|
| vi.生存，存在，供养 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
commentator
|
|
| n.注释者，解说者；实况广播评论员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
advantageous
|
|
| adj.有利的；有帮助的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
dwelling
|
|
| n.住宅，住所，寓所 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
injustice
|
|
| n.非正义，不公正，不公平，侵犯（别人的）权利 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
annually
|
|
| adv.一年一次，每年 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
erecting
|
|
| v.使直立，竖起( erect的现在分词 )；建立 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
appropriation
|
|
| n.拨款，批准支出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
applied
|
|
| adj.应用的；v.应用，适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
enjoyment
|
|
| n.乐趣；享有；享用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
restriction
|
|
| n.限制，约束 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
negation
|
|
| n.否定；否认 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
abstained
|
|
| v.戒（尤指酒），戒除( abstain的过去式和过去分词 )；弃权（不投票） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
withheld
|
|
| withhold过去式及过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
withhold
|
|
| v.拒绝，不给；使停止，阻挡 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
vouchsafed
|
|
| v.给予，赐予( vouchsafe的过去式和过去分词 )；允诺 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
iniquitous
|
|
| adj.不公正的；邪恶的；高得出奇的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
consistency
|
|
| n.一贯性，前后一致，稳定性；(液体的)浓度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
aptitude
|
|
| n.(学习方面的)才能，资质，天资 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
nourishment
|
|
| n.食物，营养品；营养情况 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
lament
|
|
| n.悲叹，悔恨，恸哭；v.哀悼，悔恨，悲叹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
compartment
|
|
| n.卧车包房，隔间；分隔的空间 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
compartments
|
|
| n.间隔( compartment的名词复数 )；（列车车厢的）隔间；（家具或设备等的）分隔间；隔层 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
usurped
|
|
| 篡夺，霸占( usurp的过去式和过去分词 )； 盗用； 篡夺，篡权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
domain
|
|
| n.(活动等)领域，范围；领地，势力范围 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
justify
|
|
| vt.证明…正当(或有理)，为…辩护 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
accrues
|
|
| v.增加( accrue的第三人称单数 )；（通过自然增长）产生；获得；（使钱款、债务）积累 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
anterior
|
|
| adj.较早的；在前的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
vindication
|
|
| n.洗冤，证实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
previously
|
|
| adv.以前，先前（地） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
exacting
|
|
| adj.苛求的，要求严格的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
acting
|
|
| n.演戏，行为，假装；adj.代理的，临时的，演出用的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
legitimately
|
|
| ad.合法地；正当地，合理地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
derive
|
|
| v.取得；导出；引申；来自；源自；出自 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
derives
|
|
| v.得到( derive的第三人称单数 )；（从…中）得到获得；源于；（从…中）提取 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
territorial
|
|
| adj.领土的，领地的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
germinate
|
|
| v.发芽；发生；发展 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
maturity
|
|
| n.成熟；完成；(支票、债券等)到期 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
germination
|
|
| n.萌芽，发生；萌发；生芽；催芽 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
essentially
|
|
| adv.本质上，实质上，基本上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
virtue
|
|
| n.德行，美德；贞操；优点；功效，效力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
equity
|
|
| n.公正，公平，（无固定利息的）股票 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
avowing
|
|
| v.公开声明，承认( avow的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
alas
|
|
| int.唉(表示悲伤、忧愁、恐惧等) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
speculative
|
|
| adj.思索性的，暝想性的，推理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
precisely
|
|
| adv.恰好，正好，精确地，细致地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
judgment
|
|
| n.审判；判断力，识别力，看法，意见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
datum
|
|
| n.资料；数据；已知数 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
usurpation
|
|
| n.篡位；霸占 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
standing
|
|
| n.持续，地位；adj.永久的，不动的，直立的，不流动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
implicitly
|
|
| adv. 含蓄地, 暗中地, 毫不保留地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
solitary
|
|
| adj.孤独的，独立的，荒凉的；n.隐士 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
primitive
|
|
| adj.原始的；简单的；n.原(始)人，原始事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
perfectly
|
|
| adv.完美地，无可非议地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
assailing
|
|
| v.攻击( assail的现在分词 )；困扰；质问；毅然应对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
industrious
|
|
| adj.勤劳的，刻苦的，奋发的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
cultivation
|
|
| n.耕作，培养，栽培（法），养成 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
equitably
|
|
| 公平地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
whatsoever
|
|
| adv.（用于否定句中以加强语气）任何；pron.无论什么 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
pretence
|
|
| n.假装，作假；借口，口实；虚伪；虚饰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
donor
|
|
| n.捐献者；赠送人；(组织、器官等的)供体 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
mechanism
|
|
| n.机械装置；机构，结构 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
unison
|
|
| n.步调一致，行动一致 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
radically
|
|
| ad.根本地，本质地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
melancholy
|
|
| n.忧郁，愁思；adj.令人感伤（沮丧）的，忧郁的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
civilized
|
|
| a.有教养的，文雅的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
exclusion
|
|
| n.拒绝，排除，排斥，远足，远途旅行 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
cede
|
|
| v.割让，放弃 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
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： |
|
|
|
|
122
savage
|
|
| adj.野蛮的；凶恶的，残暴的；n.未开化的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
legislative
|
|
| n.立法机构，立法权；adj.立法的，有立法权的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
taint
|
|
| n.污点；感染；腐坏；v.使感染；污染 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
tainted
|
|
| adj.腐坏的；污染的；沾污的；感染的v.使变质( taint的过去式和过去分词 )；使污染；败坏；被污染，腐坏，败坏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
indemnities
|
|
| n.保障( indemnity的名词复数 )；赔偿；赔款；补偿金 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
redoubtable
|
|
| adj.可敬的；可怕的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
demolish
|
|
| v.拆毁(建筑物等)，推翻(计划、制度等) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
usurps
|
|
| 篡夺，霸占( usurp的第三人称单数 )； 盗用； 篡夺，篡权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
eldest
|
|
| adj.最年长的，最年老的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
bastards
|
|
| 私生子( bastard的名词复数 )； 坏蛋； 讨厌的事物； 麻烦事 （认为别人走运或不幸时说）家伙 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
posthumous
|
|
| adj.遗腹的；父亡后出生的；死后的，身后的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
vigour
|
|
| （=vigor）n.智力，体力，精力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
patrimony
|
|
| n.世袭财产，继承物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
allege
|
|
| vt.宣称，申述，主张，断言 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
mutuality
|
|
| n.相互关系，相互依存 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
laborious
|
|
| adj.吃力的，努力的，不流畅 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
frugality
|
|
| n.节约，节俭 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
logician
|
|
| n.逻辑学家 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
bestowed
|
|
| 赠给，授予( bestow的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
concession
|
|
| n.让步，妥协；特许(权) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
deference
|
|
| n.尊重，顺从；敬意 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
expended
|
|
| v.花费( expend的过去式和过去分词 )；使用（钱等）做某事；用光；耗尽 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
clearances
|
|
| 清除( clearance的名词复数 )； 许可； （录用或准许接触机密以前的）审查许可； 净空 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
aristocrat
|
|
| n.贵族，有贵族气派的人，上层人物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
146
plunderer
|
|
| 掠夺者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
147
bounties
|
|
| （由政府提供的）奖金( bounty的名词复数 )； 赏金； 慷慨； 大方 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
148
providence
|
|
| n.深谋远虑，天道，天意；远见；节约；上帝 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
149
levy
|
|
| n.征收税或其他款项，征收额 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
150
usurper
|
|
| n. 篡夺者, 僭取者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
151
maize
|
|
| n.玉米 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
152
tenant
|
|
| n.承租人；房客；佃户；v.租借，租用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
153
tract
|
|
| n.传单，小册子，大片(土地或森林) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
154
outlay
|
|
| n.费用，经费，支出；v.花费 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
155
conclusive
|
|
| adj.最后的，结论的；确凿的，消除怀疑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
156
enlisted
|
|
| adj.应募入伍的v.（使）入伍， （使）参军( enlist的过去式和过去分词 )；获得（帮助或支持） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
157
affinity
|
|
| n.亲和力，密切关系 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
158
fig
|
|
| n.无花果(树) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
159
gratis
|
|
| adj.免费的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
160
intercept
|
|
| vt.拦截，截住，截击 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
161
determined
|
|
| adj.坚定的；有决心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
162
apparatus
|
|
| n.装置，器械；器具，设备 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
163
lapse
|
|
| n.过失，流逝，失效，抛弃信仰，间隔；vi.堕落，停止，失效，流逝；vt.使失效 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
164
machinery
|
|
| n.(总称)机械，机器；机构 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
165
expenditure
|
|
| n.(时间、劳力、金钱等)支出；使用，消耗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
166
procure
|
|
| vt.获得，取得，促成；vi.拉皮条 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
167
deterioration
|
|
| n.退化；恶化；变坏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
168
rivalry
|
|
| n.竞争，竞赛，对抗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
169
reimburse
|
|
| v.补偿，付还 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
170
affected
|
|
| adj.不自然的，假装的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
171
inevitable
|
|
| adj.不可避免的，必然发生的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
172
levies
|
|
| （部队）征兵( levy的名词复数 )； 募捐； 被征募的军队 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
173
entail
|
|
| vt.使承担，使成为必要，需要 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
174
equilibrium
|
|
| n.平衡，均衡，相称，均势，平静 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
175
nominal
|
|
| adj.名义上的；(金额、租金)微不足道的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
176
fixed
|
|
| adj.固定的，不变的，准备好的；(计算机)固定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
177
attain
|
|
| vt.达到，获得，完成 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
178
boon
|
|
| n.恩赐，恩物，恩惠 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
179
discourse
|
|
| n.论文，演说；谈话；话语；vi.讲述，著述 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
180
reins
|
|
| 感情，激情； 缰( rein的名词复数 )； 控制手段； 掌管； （成人带着幼儿走路以防其走失时用的）保护带 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
181
interdicting
|
|
| v.禁止（行动）( interdict的现在分词 )；禁用；限制 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
182
alienated
|
|
| adj.感到孤独的，不合群的v.使疏远( alienate的过去式和过去分词 )；使不友好；转让；让渡（财产等） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
183
domains
|
|
| n.范围( domain的名词复数 )；领域；版图；地产 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
184
invincible
|
|
| adj.不可征服的，难以制服的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
185
derived
|
|
| vi.起源；由来；衍生；导出v.得到( derive的过去式和过去分词 )；（从…中）得到获得；源于；（从…中）提取 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
186
physiology
|
|
| n.生理学，生理机能 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
187
impaired
|
|
| adj.受损的；出毛病的；有（身体或智力）缺陷的v.损害，削弱( impair的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
188
dense
|
|
| a.密集的，稠密的，浓密的；密度大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
189
peculiar
|
|
| adj.古怪的，异常的；特殊的，特有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
190
enjoyments
|
|
| 愉快( enjoyment的名词复数 )； 令人愉快的事物； 享有； 享受 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
191
proscribe
|
|
| v.禁止；排斥；放逐，充军；剥夺公权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
192
shackle
|
|
| n.桎梏，束缚物；v.加桎梏，加枷锁，束缚 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
193
pretension
|
|
| n.要求；自命，自称；自负 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
194
pretensions
|
|
| 自称( pretension的名词复数 )； 自命不凡； 要求； 权力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
195
alluded
|
|
| 提及，暗指( allude的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
196
allude
|
|
| v.提及，暗指 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
197
brutal
|
|
| adj.残忍的，野蛮的，不讲理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
198
prohibition
|
|
| n.禁止；禁令，禁律 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
199
repudiates
|
|
| v.（正式地）否认( repudiate的第三人称单数 )；拒绝接受；拒绝与…往来；拒不履行（法律义务） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
200
antagonistic
|
|
| adj.敌对的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
201
restrictions
|
|
| 约束( restriction的名词复数 )； 管制； 制约因素； 带限制性的条件（或规则） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
202
defenders
|
|
| n.防御者( defender的名词复数 )；守卫者；保护者；辩护者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
203
epoch
|
|
| n.(新)时代；历元 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
204
redundant
|
|
| adj.多余的，过剩的；(食物)丰富的；被解雇的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
205
nay
|
|
| adv.不；n.反对票，投反对票者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
206
analogous
|
|
| adj.相似的；类似的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
207
obviate
|
|
| v.除去，排除，避免，预防 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
208
conclusively
|
|
| adv.令人信服地，确凿地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
209
prudence
|
|
| n.谨慎，精明，节俭 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
210
multiplication
|
|
| n.增加，增多，倍增；增殖，繁殖；乘法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
211
stimulant
|
|
| n.刺激物，兴奋剂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
212
curb
|
|
| n.场外证券市场，场外交易；vt.制止，抑制 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
213
harmoniously
|
|
| 和谐地，调和地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
214
manifestation
|
|
| n.表现形式；表明；现象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
215
almighty
|
|
| adj.全能的，万能的；很大的，很强的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
216
Christians
|
|
| n.基督教徒( Christian的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
217
descend
|
|
| vt./vi.传下来，下来，下降 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
218
ascend
|
|
| vi.渐渐上升，升高；vt.攀登，登上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
219
proceeding
|
|
| n.行动，进行，(pl.)会议录，学报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
220
diffusion
|
|
| n.流布；普及；散漫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
221
conceals
|
|
| v.隐藏，隐瞒，遮住( conceal的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
222
nomad
|
|
| n.游牧部落的人，流浪者，游牧民 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
223
recapitulate
|
|
| v.节述要旨，择要说明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
224
appeases
|
|
| 安抚，抚慰( appease的第三人称单数 )； 绥靖（满足另一国的要求以避免战争） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
225
quenches
|
|
| 解（渴）( quench的第三人称单数 )； 终止（某事物）； （用水）扑灭（火焰等）； 将（热物体）放入水中急速冷却 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
226
quench
|
|
| vt.熄灭，扑灭；压制 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
227
meditation
|
|
| n.熟虑，（尤指宗教的）默想，沉思，（pl.）冥想录 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
228
situated
|
|
| adj.坐落在...的，处于某种境地的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
229
evaporation
|
|
| n.蒸发，消失 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
230
gales
|
|
| 龙猫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
231
gravel
|
|
| n.砂跞；砂砾层；结石 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
232
refreshing
|
|
| adj.使精神振作的，使人清爽的，使人喜欢的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
233
foresight
|
|
| n.先见之明，深谋远虑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
234
supplementary
|
|
| adj.补充的，附加的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
235
thoroughly
|
|
| adv.完全地，彻底地，十足地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
236
discordance
|
|
| n.不调和，不和，不一致性；不整合；假整合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
237
constrained
|
|
| adj.束缚的,节制的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
238
formerly
|
|
| adv.从前，以前 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
239
futile
|
|
| adj.无效的，无用的，无希望的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
240
supersedes
|
|
| 取代，接替( supersede的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
241
diffused
|
|
| 散布的，普及的，扩散的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
242
elude
|
|
| v.躲避，困惑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
243
impede
|
|
| v.妨碍，阻碍，阻止 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
244
indirectly
|
|
| adv.间接地，不直接了当地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
245
annuities
|
|
| n.养老金；年金( annuity的名词复数 )；（每年的）养老金；年金保险；年金保险投资 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
246
propriety
|
|
| n.正当行为；正当；适当 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
247
intercepts
|
|
| （数学）截距( intercept的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
248
Augmented
|
|
| adj.增音的 动词augment的过去式和过去分词形式 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
249
paradox
|
|
| n.似乎矛盾却正确的说法；自相矛盾的人(物) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
250
calamity
|
|
| n.灾害，祸患，不幸事件 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
251
diminution
|
|
| n.减少；变小 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
252
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
253
expends
|
|
| v.花费( expend的第三人称单数 )；使用（钱等）做某事；用光；耗尽 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
254
superfluous
|
|
| adj.过多的，过剩的，多余的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
255
stagnant
|
|
| adj.不流动的，停滞的，不景气的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
256
pertains
|
|
| 关于( pertain的第三人称单数 )； 有关； 存在； 适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
257
reimbursed
|
|
| v.偿还，付还( reimburse的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
258
consecutive
|
|
| adj.连续的，联贯的，始终一贯的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
259
esteem
|
|
| n.尊敬，尊重；vt.尊重，敬重；把…看作 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
260
attests
|
|
| v.证明( attest的第三人称单数 )；证实；声称…属实；使宣誓 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
261
attest
|
|
| vt.证明，证实；表明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
262
efface
|
|
| v.擦掉，抹去 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
263
reverted
|
|
| 恢复( revert的过去式和过去分词 )； 重提； 回到…上； 归还 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
264
revert
|
|
| v.恢复，复归，回到 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
265
literally
|
|
| adv.照字面意义，逐字地；确实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
266
analyze
|
|
| vt.分析，解析 (=analyse) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
267
demonstration
|
|
| n.表明，示范，论证，示威 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
268
sufficiently
|
|
| adv.足够地，充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
269
gratitude
|
|
| adj.感激，感谢 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
270
admiration
|
|
| n.钦佩，赞美，羡慕 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
271
reverting
|
|
| 恢复( revert的现在分词 )； 重提； 回到…上； 归还 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
272
iniquity
|
|
| n.邪恶；不公正 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
273
tirades
|
|
| 激烈的长篇指责或演说( tirade的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
274
trifling
|
|
| adj.微不足道的；没什么价值的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
275
savannas
|
|
| n.（美国东南部的）无树平原( savanna的名词复数 )；（亚）热带的稀树大草原 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
276
gathering
|
|
| n.集会，聚会，聚集 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
277
despoiled
|
|
| v.掠夺，抢劫( despoil的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
278
procured
|
|
| v.（努力）取得， （设法）获得( procure的过去式和过去分词 )；拉皮条 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
279
tiresome
|
|
| adj.令人疲劳的，令人厌倦的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
280
controversy
|
|
| n.争论，辩论，争吵 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
281
destitution
|
|
| n.穷困，缺乏，贫穷 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
282
renounce
|
|
| v.放弃；拒绝承认，宣布与…断绝关系 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
283
magistrates
|
|
| 地方法官，治安官( magistrate的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
284
notaries
|
|
| n.公证人，公证员( notary的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
285
brokers
|
|
| n.（股票、外币等）经纪人( broker的名词复数 )；中间人；代理商；（订合同的）中人v.做掮客（或中人等）( broker的第三人称单数 )；作为权力经纪人进行谈判；以中间人等身份安排… | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
286
undue
|
|
| adj.过分的；不适当的；未到期的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
287
tracts
|
|
| 大片土地( tract的名词复数 )； 地带； （体内的）道； （尤指宣扬宗教、伦理或政治的）短文 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
288
glossed
|
|
| v.注解( gloss的过去式和过去分词 )；掩饰（错误）；粉饰；把…搪塞过去 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
289
gratuitousness
|
|
| n.gratuitous（免费的，无偿的，无报酬的，不收酬劳的）的变形 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
290
rectifying
|
|
| 改正，矫正( rectify的现在分词 )； 精馏； 蒸流； 整流 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
291
ennui
|
|
| n.怠倦，无聊 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
292
hovering
|
|
| 鸟( hover的现在分词 )； 靠近（某事物）； （人）徘徊； 犹豫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
293
intensity
|
|
| n.强烈，剧烈；强度；烈度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
294
contingent
|
|
| adj.视条件而定的；n.一组，代表团，分遣队 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
295
consultation
|
|
| n.咨询；商量；商议；会议 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
296
exertions
|
|
| n.努力( exertion的名词复数 )；费力；（能力、权力等的）运用；行使 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
297
humble
|
|
| adj.谦卑的，恭顺的；地位低下的；v.降低，贬低 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
298
procures
|
|
| v.（努力）取得， （设法）获得( procure的第三人称单数 )；拉皮条 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
299
susceptible
|
|
| adj.过敏的，敏感的；易动感情的，易受感动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
300
fluctuations
|
|
| 波动，涨落，起伏( fluctuation的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
301
participation
|
|
| n.参与，参加，分享 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
302
imputes
|
|
| v.把（错误等）归咎于( impute的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
303
stature
|
|
| n.（高度）水平，（高度）境界，身高，身材 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
304
alleged
|
|
| a.被指控的，嫌疑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
305
arable
|
|
| adj.可耕的，适合种植的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
306
relatively
|
|
| adv.比较...地，相对地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
307
catastrophes
|
|
| n.灾祸( catastrophe的名词复数 )；灾难；不幸事件；困难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
308
premature
|
|
| adj.比预期时间早的；不成熟的，仓促的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
309
lamentable
|
|
| adj.令人惋惜的，悔恨的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
310
reclaim
|
|
| v.要求归还，收回；开垦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
311
extravagant
|
|
| adj.奢侈的；过分的；(言行等)放肆的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
312
delusive
|
|
| adj.欺骗的，妄想的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
313
implements
|
|
| n.工具( implement的名词复数 )；家具；手段；[法律]履行（契约等）v.实现( implement的第三人称单数 )；执行；贯彻；使生效 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
314
frightful
|
|
| adj.可怕的；讨厌的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
315
quotation
|
|
| n.引文，引语，语录；报价，牌价，行情 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
316
exhausted
|
|
| adj.极其疲惫的，精疲力尽的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
317
distractions
|
|
| n.使人分心的事[人]( distraction的名词复数 )；娱乐，消遣；心烦意乱；精神错乱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
318
benevolence
|
|
| n.慈悲，捐助 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
319
calumny
|
|
| n.诽谤，污蔑，中伤 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
320
disparagement
|
|
| n.轻视，轻蔑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
321
motives
|
|
| n.动机，目的( motive的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
322
candidly
|
|
| adv.坦率地，直率而诚恳地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
323
supreme
|
|
| adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
324
homage
|
|
| n.尊敬，敬意，崇敬 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
325
chaos
|
|
| n.混乱，无秩序 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
326
blot
|
|
| vt.弄脏（用吸墨纸）吸干；n.污点，污渍 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
327
imminent
|
|
| adj.即将发生的，临近的，逼近的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
328
explicit
|
|
| adj.详述的，明确的；坦率的；显然的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
329
oversight
|
|
| n.勘漏，失察，疏忽 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |