what is property- 第86部分

Originally；　the　word　PROPERTY　was　synonymous　with　PROPER　or　INDIVIDUAL　POSSESSION。　　It　designated　each　individual's　special　right　to　the　use　of　a　thing。　　But　when　this　right　of　use；　inert　（if　I　may　say　so）　as　it　was　with　regard　to　the　other　usufructuaries；　became　active　and　paramount；that　is；　when　the　usufructuary　converted　his　right　to　personally　use　the　thing　into　the　right　to　use　it　by　his　neighbor's　labor；then　property　changed　its　nature；　and　its　idea　became　complex。　　The　legists　knew　this　very　well；　but　instead　of　opposing；　as　they　ought；　this　accumulation　of　profits；　they　accepted　and　sanctioned　the　whole。　　And　as　the　right　of　farm…rent　necessarily　implies　the　right　of　use；in　other　words；　as　the　right　to　cultivate　land　by　the　labor　of　a　slave　supposes　one's　power　to　cultivate　it　himself；　according　to　the　principle　that　the　greater　includes　the　less；　the　name　property　was　reserved　to　designate　this　double　right；　and　that　of　possession　was　adopted　to　designate　the　right　of　use。

Whence　property　came　to　be　called　the　perfect　right；　the　right　of　domain；　the　eminent　right；　the　heroic　or　_quiritaire_　right；in　Latin；　_jus　perfectum；　jus　optimum；　jus　quiritarium；　jus　dominii_；while　possession　became　assimilated　to　farm…rent。

Now；　that　individual　possession　exists　of　right；　or；　better；　from　natural　necessity；　all　philosophers　admit；　and　can　easily　e　demonstrated；　but　when；　in　imitation　of　M。　Cousin；　we　assume　it　to　be　the　basis　of　the　domain　of　property；　we　fall　into　the　sophism　called　_sophisma　amphiboliae　vel　ambiguitatis_；　which　consists　in　changing　the　meaning　by　a　verbal　equivocation。

People　often　think　themselves　very　profound；　because；　by　the　aid　of　expressions　of　extreme　generality；　they　appear　to　rise　to　the　height　of　absolute　ideas；　and　thus　deceive　inexperienced　minds；　and；　what　is　worse；　this　is　commonly　called　EXAMINING　ABSTRACTIONS。　　But　the　abstraction　formed　by　the　comparison　of　identical　facts　is　one　thing；　while　that　which　is　deduced　from　different　acceptations　of　the　same　term　is　quite　another。　　The　first　gives　the　universal　idea；　the　axiom；　the　law；　the　second　indicates　the　order　of　generation　of　ideas。　　All　our　errors　arise　from　the　constant　confusion　of　these　two　kinds　of　abstractions。　　In　this　particular；　languages　and　philosophies　are　alike　deficient。　　The　less　common　an　idiom　is；　and　the　more　obscure　its　terms；　the　more　prolific　is　it　as　a　source　of　error：　a　philosopher　is　sophistical　in　proportion　to　his　ignorance　of　any　method　of　neutralizing　this　imperfection　in　language。　　If　the　art　of　correcting　the　errors　of　speech　by　scientific　methods　is　ever　discovered；　then　philosophy　will　have　found　its　criterion　of　certainty。

Now；　then；　the　difference　between　property　and　possession　being　well　established；　and　it　being　settled　that　the　former；　for　the　reasons　which　I　have　just　given；　must　necessarily　disappear；　is　it　best；　for　the　slight　advantage　of　restoring　an　etymology；　to　retain　the　word　PROPERTY？　　My　opinion　is　that　it　would　be　very　unwise　to　do　so；　and　I　will　tell　why。　　I　quote　from　the　〃Journal　du　Peuple：〃


〃To　the　legislative　power　belongs　the　right　to　regulate　property；　to　prescribe　the　conditions　of　acquiring；　possessing；　and　transmitting　it。　。　。　　It　cannot　be　denied　that　inheritance；　assessment；　commerce；　industry；　labor；　and　wages　require　the　most　important　modifications。〃


You　wish；　proletaires；　to　REGULATE　PROPERTY；　that　is；　you　wish　to　destroy　it　and　reduce　it　to　the　right　of　possession。　　For　to　regulate　property　without　the　consent　of　the　proprietors　is　to　deny　the　right　OF　DOMAIN；　to　associate　employees　with　proprietors　is　to　destroy　the　EMINENT　right；　to　suppress　or　even　reduce　farm…rent；　house…rent；　revenue；　and　increase　generally；　is　to　annihilate　PERFECT　property。　　Why；　then；　while　laboring　with　such　laudable　enthusiasm　for　the　establishment　of　equality；　should　you　retain　an　expression　whose　equivocal　meaning　will　always　be　an　obstacle　in　the　way　of　your　success？

There　you　have　the　first　reasona　wholly　philosophical　onefor　rejecting　not　only　the　thing；　but　the　name；　property。　　Here　now　is　the　political；　the　highest　reason。

Every　social　revolutionM。　Cousin　will　tell　youis　effected　only　by　the　realization　of　an　idea；　either　political；　moral；　or　religious。　　When　Alexander　conquered　Asia；　his　idea　was　to　avenge　Greek　liberty　against　the　insults　of　Oriental　despotism；　when　Marius　and　Caesar　overthrew　the　Roman　patricians；　their　idea　was　to　give　bread　to　the　people；　when　Christianity　revolutionized　the　world；　its　idea　was　to　emancipate　mankind；　and　to　substitute　the　worship　of　one　God　for　the　deities　of　Epicurus　and　Homer；　when　France　rose　in　'89；　her　idea　was　liberty　and　equality　before　the　law。　　There　has　been　no　true　revolution；　says　M。　Cousin；　with　out　its　idea；　so　that　where　an　idea　does　not　exist；　or　even　fails　of　a　formal　expression；　revolution　is　impossible。　　There　are　mobs；　conspirators；　rioters；　regicides。　　There　are　no　revolutionists。　　Society；　devoid　of　ideas；　twists　and　tosses　about；　and　dies　in　the　midst　of　its　fruitless　labor。

Nevertheless；　you　all　feel　that　a　revolution　is　to　come；　and　that　you　alone　can　accomplish　it。　　What；　then；　is　the　idea　which　governs　you；　proletaires　of　the　nineteenth　century？for　really　I　cannot　call　you　revolutionists。　　What　do　you　think？what　do　you　believe？what　do　you　want？　　Be　guarded　in　your　reply。　　I　have　read　faithfully　your　favorite　journals；　your　most　esteemed　authors。　　I　find　everywhere　only　vain　and　puerile　_entites_；　nowhere　do　I　discover　an　idea。

I　will　explain　the　meaning　of　this　word　_entite_；new；　without　doubt；　to　most　of　you。

By　_entite_　is　generally　understood　a　substance　which　the　imagination　grasps；　but　which　is　incognizable　by　the　senses　and　the　reason。　　Thus　the　SOPORIFIC　POWER　of　opium；　of　which　Sganarelle　speaks；　and　the　PECCANT　HUMORS　of　ancient　medicine；　are　_entites_。　　The　_entite_　is　the　support　of　those　who　do　not　wish　to　confess　their　ignorance。　　It　is　incomprehensible；　or；　as　St。　Paul　says；　the　_argumentum　non　apparentium_。　　In　philosophy；　the　_entite_　is　often　only　a　repetition　of　words　which　add　nothing　to　the　thought。

For　example；　when　M。　Pierre　Lerouxwho　says　so　many　excellent　things；　but　who　is　too　fond；　in　my　opinion；　of　his　Platonic　formulasassures　us　that　the　evils　of　humanity　are　due　to　our　IGNORANCE　OF　LIFE；　M。　Pierre　Leroux　utters　an　_entite；_　for　it　is　evident　that　if　we　are　evil　it　is　because　we　do　not　know　how　to　live；　but　the　knowledge　of　this　fact　is　of　no　value　to　us。

When　M。　Edgar　Quinet　declares　that　France　suffers　and　declines　because　there　is　an　ANTAGONISM　of　men　and　of　interests；　he　declares　an　_entite；_　for　the　problem　is　to　discover　the　cause　of　this　antagonism。

When　M。　Lamennais；　in　thunder　tones；　preaches　self…sacrifice　and　love；　he　proclaims　two　_entites_；　for　we　need　to　know　on　what　conditions　self…sacrifice　and　love　can　spring　up　and　exist。

So　also；　proletaires；　when　you　talk　of　LIBERTY；　PROGRESS；　and　THE　SOVEREIGNTY　OF　THE　PEOPLE；　you　make　of　these　naturally　intelligible　things　so　many　_entites_　in　space：　for；　on　the　one　hand；　we　need　a　new　definition　of　liberty；　since　that　of　'89　no　longer　suffices；　and；　on　the　other；　we　must　know　in　what　direction　society　should　proceed　in　order　to　be　in　progress。　　As　for　the　sovereignty　of　the　people；　that　is　a　grosser　_entite_　than　the　sovereignty　of　reason；　it　is　the　_entite_　of　_entites_。　　In　fact；　since　sovereignty　can　no　more　be　conceived　of　outside　of　the　people　than　outside　of　reason；　it　remains　to　be　ascertained　who；　among　the　people；　shall　exercise　the　sovereignty；　and；　among　so　many　minds；　which　shall　be　the　sovereigns。　　To　say　that　the　people　should　elect　their　representatives　is　to　say　that　the　people　should　recognize　their　sovereigns；　which　does　not　remove　the　difficulty　at　all。

But　suppose　that；　equal　by　birth；　equal　before　the　law；　equal　in　personality；　equal　in　social　functions；　you　wish　also　to　be　equal　in　conditions。

Suppose　that；　perceiving　all　the　mutual　relations　of　men；　whether　they　produce　or　exchange　or　consume；　to　be　relations　of　commutative　justice；in　a　word；　social　relations；　suppose；　I　say；　that；　perceiving　this；　you　wish　to　give　this　natural　society　a　legal　existence；　and　to　establish　the　fact　by　law；

I　say　that　then　you　need　a　clear；　positive；　and　exact　expression　of　your　whole　idea；that　is；　an　expression　which　states　at　once　the　principle；　the　means；　and　the　end；　and　I　add　that　that　expression　is　ASSOCIATION。

And　since　the　association　of　the　human　race　dates；　at　least　rightfully；　from　the　beginning　of　the　world；　and　has　gradually　established　and　perfected　itself　by　successively　divesting　itself　of　its　negative　elements；　slavery；　nobility；　despotism；　aristocracy；　and　feudalism；I　say　that；　to　eliminate　the　last　negation　of　society；　to　formulate　the　last　revolutionary　idea；　you　must　change　your　old　rallying…cries；　NO　MORE　ABSOLUTISM；　NO　MORE　NOBILITY；　NO　MORE　SLAVES！　into　that　of　NO　MORE　PROPERTY！　。　。　。

But　I　know　what　astonishes　you；　poor　souls；　blasted　by　the　wind　of　poverty；　and　crushed　by　your　patrons'　pride：　it　is　EQUALITY；　whose　consequences　frighten　you。　　How；　you　have　said　in　your　journal；how　can　we　〃dream　of　a　level　which；　being　unnatural；　is　therefore　unjust？　　How　shall　we　pay　the　day's　labor　of　a　Cormenin　or　a　Lamennais？〃

Plebeians；　listen！　　When；　after　the　battle　of　Salamis；　the　Athenians　assembled　to　award　the　prizes　for　courage；　after　the　ballots　had　been　collected；　it　was　found　that　each　combatant　had　one　vote　for　the　first　prize；　and　Themistocles　all　the　votes　for　the　second。　　The　people　of　Minerva　were　crowned　by　their　own　hands。　　Truly　heroic　souls！　all　were　worthy　of　the　olive…branch；　since　all　had　ventured　to　claim　it　for　themselves。　　Antiquity　praised　this　sublime　spirit。　　Learn；　proletaires；　to　esteem　yourselves；　and　to　respect　your　dignity。　　You　wish　to　be　free；　and　you　know　not　how　to　be　citizens。　　Now；　whoever　says　〃citizens〃　necessarily　says　equals。

If　I　should　call　myself　Lamennais　or　Cormenin；　and　some　journal；　speaking　of　me；　should　burst　forth　with　these　hyperboles；　INCOMPARABLE　GENIUS；　SUPERIOR　MIND；　CONSUMMATE　VIRTUE；　NOBLE　CHARACTER；　I　should　not　like　it；　and　should　complain；first；　because　such　eulogies　are　never　deserved；　and；　second；　because　they