ul of lives。
They tell of a celebrated singer who demanded of the Empress of Russia （Catherine II） twenty thousand roubles for his services： 〃That is more than I give my field…marshals；〃 said Catherine。 〃Your majesty；〃 replied the other； 〃has only to make singers of her field…marshals。〃
If France （more powerful than Catherine II） should say to Mademoiselle Rachel； 〃You must act for one hundred louis； or else spin cotton；〃 to M。 Duprez； 〃You must sing for two thousand four hundred francs； or else work in the vineyard；〃do you think that the actress Rachel； and the singer Duprez； would abandon the stage？ If they did； they would be the first to repent it。
Mademoiselle Rachel receives； they say； sixty thousand francs annually from the Comedie…Francaise。 For a talent like hers； it is a slight fee。 Why not one hundred thousand francs； two hundred thousand francs？ Why！ not a civil list？ What meanness！ Are we really guilty of chaffering with an artist like Mademoiselle Rachel？
It is said； in reply； that the managers of the theatre cannot give more without incurring a loss； that they admit the superior talent of their young associate； but that； in fixing her salary； they have been compelled to take the account of the company's receipts and expenses into consideration also。
That is just； but it only confirms what I have said； namely； that an artist's talent may be infinite； but that its mercenary claims are necessarily limited；on the one hand； by its usefulness to the society which rewards it； on the other； by the resources of this society： in other words； that the demand of the seller is balanced by the right of the buyer。
Mademoiselle Rachel； they say； brings to the treasury of the Theatre…Francais more than sixty thousand francs。 I admit it； but then I blame the theatre。 From whom does the Theatre… Francais take this money？ From some curious people who are perfectly free。 Yes； but the workingmen； the lessees； the tenants； those who borrow by pawning their possessions； from whom these curious people recover all that they pay to the theatre； are they free？ And when the better part of their products are consumed by others at the play； do you assure me that their families are not in want？ Until the French people； reflecting on the salaries paid to all artists； savants； and public functionaries； have plainly expressed their wish and judgment as to the matter； the salaries of Mademoiselle Rachel and all her fellow…artists will be a compulsory tax extorted by violence； to reward pride； and support libertinism。
It is because we are neither free nor sufficiently enlightened； that we submit to be cheated in our bargains； that the laborer pays the duties levied by the prestige of power and the selfishness of talent upon the curiosity of the idle； and that we are perpetually scandalized by these monstrous inequalities which are encouraged and applauded by public opinion。
The whole nation； and the nation only； pays its authors； its savants； its artists； its officials； whatever be the hands through which their salaries pass。 On what basis should it pay them？ On the basis of equality。 I have proved it by estimating the value of talent。 I shall confirm it in the following chapter； by proving the impossibility of all social inequality。
What have we shown so far？ Things so simple that really they seem silly：
That； as the traveller does not appropriate the route which he traverses； so the farmer does not appropriate the field which he sows；
That if； nevertheless； by reason of his industry； a laborer may appropriate the material which he employs； every employer of material becomes； by the same title； a proprietor；
That all capital； whether material or mental； being the result of collective labor； is； in consequence； collective property；
That the strong have no right to encroach upon the labor of the weak； nor the shrewd to take advantage of the credulity of the simple；
Finally； that no one can be forced to buy that which he does not want； still less to pay for that which he has not bought； and； consequently； that the exchangeable value of a product； being measured neither by the opinion of the buyer nor that of the seller； but by the amount of time and outlay which it has cost； the property of each always remains the same。
Are not these very simple truths？ Well； as simple as they seem to you； reader； you shall yet see others which surpass them in dullness and simplicity。 For our course is the reverse of that of the geometricians： with them； the farther they advance； the more difficult their problems become； we； on the contrary； after having commenced with the most abstruse propositions； shall end with the axioms。
But I must close this chapter with an exposition of one of those startling truths which never have been dreamed of by legists or economists。
％ 8。That； from the Stand…point of Justice； Labor destroys Property。
This proposition is the logical result of the two preceding sections； which we have just summed up。
The isolated man can supply but a very small portion of his wants； all his power lies in association； and in the intelligent combination of universal effort。 The division and co…operation of labor multiply the quantity and the variety of products； the individuality of functions improves their quality。
There is not a man； then； but lives upon the products of several thousand different industries； not a laborer but receives from society at large the things which he consumes； and； with these； the power to reproduce。 Who； indeed； would venture the assertion； 〃I produce； by my own effort； all that I consume； I need the aid of no one else〃？ The farmer； whom the early economists regarded as the only real producerthe farmer； housed； furnished； clothed； fed； and assisted by the mason； the carpenter； the tailor； the miller； the baker； the butcher； the grocer； the blacksmith； &c。；the farmer； I say； can he boast that he produces by his own unaided effort？
The various articles of consumption are given to each by all； consequently； the production of each involves the production of all。 One product cannot exist without another； an isolated industry is an impossible thing。 What would be the harvest of the farmer； if others did not manufacture for him barns； wagons； ploughs； clothes； &c。？ Where would be the savant without the publisher； the printer without the typecaster and the machinist； and these； in their turn； without a multitude of other industries？ 。 。 。 Let us not prolong this catalogueso easy to extendlest we be accused of uttering commonplaces。 All industries are united by mutual relations in a single group； all productions do reciprocal service as means and end； all varieties of talent are but a series of changes from the inferior to the superior。
Now； this undisputed and indisputable fact of the general participation in every species of product makes all individual productions common； so that every product； coming from the hands of the producer； is mortgaged in advance by society。 The producer himself is entitled to only that portion of his product； which is expressed by a fraction whose denominator is equal to the number of individuals of which society is composed。 It is true that in return this same producer has a share in all the products of others； so that he has a claim upon all； just as all have a claim upon him； but is it not clear that this reciprocity of mortgages； far from authorizing property； destroys even possession？ The laborer is not even possessor of his product； scarcely has he finished it； when society claims it。
〃But；〃 it will be answered； 〃even if that is soeven if the product does not belong to the producerstill society gives each laborer an equivalent for his product； and this equivalent； this salary； this reward； this allowance； becomes his property。 Do you deny that this property is legitimate？ And if the laborer； instead of consuming his entire wages； chooses to economize；who dare question his right to do so？〃
The laborer is not even proprietor of the price of his labor； and cannot absolutely control its disposition。 Let us not be blinded by a spurious justice。 That which is given the laborer in exchange for his product is not given him as a reward for past labor； but to provide for and secure future labor。 We consume before we produce。 The laborer may say at the end of the day； 〃I have paid yesterday's expenses； to…morrow I shall pay those of today。〃 At every moment of his life； the member of society is in debt； he dies with the debt unpaid：how is it possible for him to accumulate？
They talk of economyit is the proprietor's hobby。 Under a system of equality； all economy which does not aim at subsequent reproduction or enjoyment is impossiblewhy？ Because the thing saved； since it cannot be converted into capital； has no object； and is without a FINAL CAUSE。 This will be explained more fully in the next chapter。
To conclude：
The laborer； in his relation to society； is a debtor who of necessity dies insolvent。 The proprietor is an unfaithful guardian who denies the receipt of the deposit committed to his care； and wishes to be paid for his guardianship down to the last day。
Lest the principles just set forth may appear to certain readers too metaphysical； I shall reproduce them in a more concrete form； intelligible to the dullest brains； and pregnant with the most important consequences。
Hitherto； I have considered property as a power of EXCLUSION； hereafter； I shall examine it as a power of INVASION。
CHAPTER IV。 THAT PROPERTY IS IMPOSSIBLE。
The last resort of proprietors；the overwhelming argument whose invincible potency reassures them；is that； in their opinion； equality of conditions is impossible。 〃Equality of conditions is a chimera；〃 they cry with a knowing air； 〃distribute wealth equally to…dayto…morrow this equality will have vanished。〃
To this hackneyed objection； which they repeat everywhere with the most marvellous assurance； they never fail to add the following comment； as a sort of GLORY BE TO THE FATHER： 〃If all men were equal； nobody would work。〃 This anthem is sung with variations。
〃If all were masters； nobody would obey。〃
〃If nobody were rich； who would employ the poor？〃
A