Chapter XLIV: Book III: , chap. 5, § 4.) For the position with regard to mines see the (1)

same chapter, § 3.

[1175] In this case Stuart Mill seems to compare rent to a monopoly revenue: “A thing which is limited in quantity, even though its possessors do not act in concert, is still a monopolised article.” (_Ibid._, Book II, chap. 16, § 2.) The expression, though adopted by several other writers, is not quite accurate. In the case of a monopoly the owners fix the quantity which they will produce beforehand with a view to getting a maximum of profit. But this cannot apply to landowners. At any rate, if there is any monopoly it must be an incomplete one.

[1176] Stuart Mill, _Principles_, Book III, chap. 5, § 1.

[1177] Such was the argument employed by J. B. Say in the course of a controversy with Ricardo. “It is perfectly obvious that if the needs of society raise the price of corn to such a level as to permit of the cultivation of inferior lands which yield nothing beyond wages for the workmen and profits on the capital, then that demand on the part of society, coupled with the price which it can afford to pay for the corn, allows of a profit on the most fertile or best situated lands.” (_Traité_, 6th edition, p. 410.) Continuing, he remarks: “David Ricardo in the same chapter clearly shows that the profit from land is not the cause but the effect of the demand for corn, and the reasons which he adduces in support of this view may be turned against him to prove that other items in cost of production, notably the wages of labour, are not the cause but the effect of the current price of goods.” Ricardo himself seemed on the point of being converted to this view. See p. 554, note 2.

[1178] The theory of economic equilibrium enables us to give a still better demonstration of the general nature of this theory of rent. On this point we may refer to Pareto’s _Cours_ and Sensi’s _La Teoria della Rendita_ (Rome, 1912).

[1179] Cf. _supra_, p. 555, note 2.

[1180] Hermann, _Staatswirtschaftliche Untersuchungen_, Part V: _Vom Gewinn_. Even in the preface he declares that the doctrine of the rent of land must be regarded as a particular instance in the exposition of the law governing the returns from fixed capital in general.

[1181] Mangoldt, _Die Lehre vom Unternehmergewinn_ (Leipzig, 1855), pp. 109 _et seq._

[1182] _Die nationalökonomische Theorie der ausschliessenden Absatzverhältnisse_ (Tübingen)—a work in which he attempts a justification of rents in general and of the rent of land in particular. Rent he regards as the reward offered to anyone who knows how to utilise either his personal capacity or his capital or land in a way that is particularly advantageous to society. It supplies an allurement that acts as the source of all progress and of all economic activity, a sort of natural right of ownership which society spontaneously confers upon those individuals who know how to serve society, and which competition causes to disappear at the opportune moment. The rent of land can be justified on this ground wherever legislation has not made an abuse of it. This new claim on behalf of rent is very interesting, and those who regard rent as exclusively unearned increment may ponder over this new characteristic of unearned incomes.

[1183] P. 148.

[1184] “The sum paid for the use of land differs in no material respect from the sum paid for the use of other kinds of capital—a machine, for example. Although the land or the machine has to be returned to its rightful owner in the same condition as it was received, one ought to pay something just because such capitals are economically scarce; in other words, the amount existing at any one time or place is not greater than the demand. What differentiates land from machinery is that savings might easily be employed in turning out new machinery, but cannot very well increase the quantity of land in existence, or at any rate cannot transform existing soils in a manner that is profitable.” (Pareto, _Cours d’Économie politique_, vol. ii, § 759.) Marshall makes use of analogous terms: “If the supply of any factor of production is limited, and incapable of much increase by man’s effort in any given period of time, then the income to be derived from it is to be regarded as of the nature of rent rather than profits in inquiries as to the action of economic causes during that period; although for longer periods it may rightly be regarded as profits which are required to cover part of the expenses of production and which therefore directly enter into those expenses.” (_Principles_, 1st ed., Book VI, chap. 3, § 1.)

[1185] _Ibid._, Book VI, chap. 3, § 7.

[1186] Did space permit, this would be the place to refer to the latest glorification of the doctrine of rent, which is to be found in Clark’s _Distribution of Wealth_, published in 1899. In that work, upon the strength of which the author enjoys a well-deserved reputation, revenues of various kinds are successively treated as rents. Imagine a fixed amount of capital applied along with successive doses of labour: each new dose of labour will produce less than the preceding one, while the production of the last dose regulates the remuneration of all the rest. But the product of the preceding doses is greater than that of the last, and a surplus value will be produced which will represent the product of capital and which will be exactly analogous to rent. Or suppose, on the other hand, that the quantity of labour is fixed and applied along with successive doses of capital; the productivity of the latter will in this case go on decreasing, and since the revenue of each dose will be proportionate to its productivity, any surplus left over will be of the nature of rent due to labour. There are other ingenious discussions which cannot be referred to in a note of this kind. But in our opinion the theory of economic equilibrium affords a simpler explanation of distribution, and the kind of optimism to which Clark’s theory gives rise seems hardly justified. His attempt to combine the idea of marginal productivity with the law of diminishing returns is a further proof of the persistent influence exerted by Ricardian ideas upon English-speaking economists.

[1187] Proudhon, _Qu’est-ce que la Propriété_, p. 74.

[1188] Pollock, _The Land Laws_, p. 12.

[1189] _Agrarian Justice opposed to Agrarian Law and Agrarian Monopoly._

[1190] _The Theory of Human Progression and Natural Probability of a Reign of Justice._ For further information concerning Spence, Ogilvie, Dove, Paine, etc., see Escarra’s _Nationalisation du Sol et Socialisme_ (Paris, 1904). We have drawn upon his book for the views here put forward, the works of these writers not being easily accessible.

[1191] _Justice_, p. 92.

[1192] “The land is the original heritage of the whole human race,” says Mill in his _Dissertations and Discussions_. In the _Principles_, Book II, chap. 2, § 5, he expresses his views thus: “The essential principle of property being to assure to all persons what they have produced by their labour and accumulated by their abstinence, this principle cannot apply to what is not the produce of labour, the raw material of the earth.” Walras, in his _Théorie de la Propriété_, in the _Études d’Économie sociale_, p. 218, says that the land by a kind of natural right is the property of the State. Henry George, in _Progress and Poverty_, Book VII, chap. 1, maintains that “the equal right of all men to the use of the land is as clear as their equal right to breathe the air—it is a right proclaimed by the fact of their existence.”

[1193] _Principles_, Book V, chap. 2, § 5.

[1194] “This continual increase arising from the circumstances of the community and from nothing in which the landholders themselves have any peculiar share, does seem a fund no less peculiarly fitted for appropriation to the purposes of the State than the whole of the rent in a country where land has never been appropriated.” (_Elements of Political Economy_, chap. 4, § 5.)

[1195] _Cf. supra_, chapter on Saint-Simon.

[1196] _Principles_, Book V, chap. 2, § 5. Cf. also chap. 3, §§ 2 and 6. For the programme of the League see _Dissertations and Discussions_, vol. iv.

[1197] Mill thought it impossible to distinguish in individual cases between the surplus value which is due to general circumstances and the surplus that results from the expenditure undertaken by the proprietor. Hence his conclusion that a general tax was the most equitable method of procedure with a view to effecting confiscation.

[1198] _Dissertations and Discussions_, vol. iv, p. 256.

[1199] _Progress and Poverty_ was not his first effort, however. In 1871 _Our Land and Land Policy_ had appeared, and in 1874 _The Land Question_. Later still he published _Protection or Free Trade_ (1886), in which he puts forward a strong case for Free Trade, and in 1891 _An Open Letter to Pope Leo XIII_ on the condition of the workers.

[1200] Clark in his _Distribution of Wealth_ states that the method by which he tries to determine the exact productivity of each factor of production is one that he borrowed from Henry George.

[1201] “Twenty men working together will, where nature is niggardly, produce more than twenty times the wealth that one man can produce where nature is most bountiful.” _Cf._ also the whole of Book II, which is a disproof of the Malthusian theory.

[1202] “Labour and capital are but different forms of the same thing—human exertion. Capital is produced by labour; it is, in fact, but labour impressed upon matter.… The use of capital in production is, therefore, but a mode of labour.… Hence the principle that, under circumstances which permit free competition, operates to bring wages to a common standard and profits to a substantial equality—the principle that men will seek to gratify their desires with the least exertion—operates to establish and maintain this equilibrium between wages and interest.… And this relation fixed, it is evident that interest and wages must rise and fall together, and that interest cannot be increased without increasing wages, nor wages be lowered without depressing interest.” (_Progress and Poverty_, Book III, chap. 5.) It is hardly necessary to point out how very much simplified this doctrine concerning the relation between wages and interest really is.

[1203] A _résumé_ of this theory of distribution, whose very simplicity must make it suspect, may be found in Book V, chap. 2: “In every direction, the direct tendency of advancing civilisation is to increase the power of human labour to satisfy human desires—to extirpate poverty and to banish want and the fear of want.… But labour cannot reap the benefits which advancing civilisation thus brings, because they are intercepted. Land being necessary to labour, and being reduced to private ownership, every increase in the productive power of labour but increases rent—the price that labour must pay for the opportunity to utilise its power; and thus all the advantages gained by the march of progress go to the owners of land, and wages do not increase.” George, however, does not claim that real wages have fallen because technical improvements enable production to be carried on where it was formerly impossible. At most this will only enable capital and labour to preserve their old scale of remuneration; it will not give them any share in the progress that has been made, so that, relatively speaking, it is true to say that wages and interest have both fallen in comparison with rent. “When I say that wages fall as rent rises, I do not mean that the quantity of wealth obtained by labourers as wages is necessarily less, but that the proportion which it bears to the whole produce is necessarily less. The proportion may diminish while the quantity remains the same, or even increases.” (Book VI, chap. 6. Cf. also Book IV, chap. 3.) George, like Ricardo and a good many socialists, confuses two different problems, namely, the price of productive services and the proportional distribution of the product between the different agents of production (Book V). He adds, however, that scientific discovery, by pushing the margin of cultivation back to that point where the law of diminishing returns is more than counterbalanced by increased productive efficiency, may even sometimes reduce the worker’s real wages, and so impair his position not only relatively, but also absolutely. (Book IV, chap. 4.)

[1204] _Ibid._, Book V, chap. 2.

[1205] That portion of their revenue which represented the capital sunk in the land would still be the property of the landowners.

[1206] Mill points out that the answer to this objection is that the right of selling the land at a price which depends upon two contrary conditions (gain or loss) establishes a kind of equilibrium. The State would not lose anything by this, for a fall in value in one place, unless it be accompanied by a general want of prosperity, implies a corresponding increase somewhere else, of which the State will get the benefit. (_Dissertations and Discussions_, vol. iv.)

[1207] M. Einaudi, however, in his excellent _Studi sugli effetti delle imposte_, p. 125 (Turin, 1902), remarks that this principle of indemnifying losses leads directly to a State guarantee of values—the expediency of which is at least problematic. He makes the further observation that the compensation would often be paid to a person other than the one who paid the tax when it was levied—the property in the meantime having changed hands.

[1208] For the distinction between the legality of movable and immovable property see Mill, _Principles_, Book II, chap. 2, § 1, and Henry George, _Progress and Poverty_, Book VII, chap. 1. “The institution of private property,” says Mill in the above passage, “when limited to its essential elements, consists in the recognition, in each person, of a right to the exclusive disposal of what he or she have produced by their own efforts, or received either by gift or by fair agreement without force or fraud from those who produced it.” Such a definition at least implies that landed property is illegal. A house is distinguished from the land upon which it is built; whereas the former is legally held the latter is not.

[1209] Mill, _Dissertations and Discussions_, vol. iv, p. 298.

[1210] Especially in England, where various schemes have been propounded and investigated by Royal Commissions in the course of the last ten years. Such schemes are discussed in a very thorough fashion in Einaudi’s book already mentioned, and in an article entitled _Recent Schemes for Rating Urban Land Values_ contributed by Edgeworth to the _Economic Journal_ in 1906.

[1211] Article 30 of the Act of September 16, 1807, runs as follows: “If as the result of the improvements already mentioned in this Act—through the making of new roads or the laying out of new squares, through the construction of quays or other public works—any private property acquires a notable increase in value, such property shall be made to pay an indemnity which may be equal to half the value of the advantage which has thus accrued to it.” The principle was rarely applied, however. M. Berthélemy (_Traité élémentaire de Droit administratif_, 1908, p. 624) states that he can only find twenty occasions on which the law was brought into operation in the whole course of the nineteenth century.

[1212] Professor Seligman (_Essays in Taxation_, 5th ed., p. 341) quotes an English law of 1672 relating to the widening of certain streets in Westminster in which the principle is neatly stated. But when it was proposed to apply it to certain public works undertaken in London in 1890 it was energetically opposed. It was admitted afresh in the Tower Bridge Act of 1895. A similar system is frequently adopted in America under the name of “special assessment” or “betterment.”

[1213] No notice whatever was taken of it then, and even in the second edition of the great _Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften_, published in 1900, no mention is made of Gossen’s name, although the third edition of that work has made ample reparation. The book was reprinted in 1889. On the relation between the ideas of Gossen and those of Jevons and Walras see Walras’s interesting article, _Un Économiste inconnu, Hermann Henri Gossen_, published in the _Journal des Économistes_ in 1885 and reproduced in his _Études d’Économie sociale_, pp. 351 _et seq._

[1214] _Entwickelung der Gesetze_, p. 250.

[1215] Gossen sees other advantages that would follow such reform. He enumerates them thus: (1) The confiscation of rent would reduce the possibility of living without working, and this would increase the industrial activity of the class under consideration. (2) The legal transference of property would be greatly simplified. (3) Producers would be exempted from buying land and from keeping capital for this purpose. (4) Rent would take the place of taxation to a very considerable extent, and would free the collection of it from every trace of vexation or injustice. (_Ibid._, p. 273.)

[1216] Cf. the fragment entitled _Méthode de Conciliation ou de Synthèse_, in the _Études d’Économie sociale_. Henry George in his preface to _Progress and Poverty_ writes thus: “What I have done in this book … is to unite the truth perceived by the school of Smith and Ricardo to the truth perceived by the school of Proudhon and Lassalle; to show that _laissez-faire_ (in its full, true meaning) opens the way to a realisation of the noble dream of socialism.”

[1217] _Études d’Économie sociale_, p. 239.

[1218] See the charming sixth lesson of the _Théorie générale de la Société_ in the _Études d’Économie sociale_.

[1219] “In order to justify a measure involving a slight diminution in the rent of landed proprietors, it is hardly necessary to invoke the fact that rents have a faculty of growing continuously without the co-operation of the proprietor. We need scarcely point out that this increase in rent over a certain period cannot enter into the price of land simply because it cannot be calculated. Consequently, when a buyer buys under the system of guarantee afforded by the State he has at the same time undoubtedly bought a claim to all the variations of rent which may ensue.… Even if the landed proprietor is indemnified by being paid a perpetual rent equal to the rent of his land at the time of confiscation, as is done to-day in the case of compulsory purchase, the injustice will not be as great as it otherwise would be, but it will not be removed altogether.” (Gossen, _Entwickelung der Gesetze_, pp. 257-258.)

[1220] Gossen gives reasons for thinking that the State, owing to its superior position as compared with individuals, might offer better terms to the proprietors than ordinary buyers could—among others, that the State can borrow cheaply and could consequently offer a better price.

[1221] A similar idea underlies Gide’s proposal in an article contributed to the _Journal des Économistes_ for July 1883. “The State would offer to buy the land and pay for it on the basis of ninety-nine years’ purchase. There is reason to think that hardly a buyer would be found who would refuse such an offer coupled with a slight compensation, for ninety-nine years is the equivalent of perpetuity as far as the individual is concerned. There would be nothing mean about such a price; really it would be more of a gift to the proprietor.”

[1222] Walras, _Études d’Économie sociale_, p. 368. A mathematical discussion of the theory is contained in the _Théorie mathématique du Prix des Terres_. The same argument expressed in ordinary language may be found in the article entitled _Un Économiste inconnu_ (_Études d’Économie sociale_, pp. 365 _et seq._), and it is still more simply summed up in the _Problème fiscal_, pp. 446-449.

[1223] “The same considerations would apply in the case of mines, railways, monopolies of every kind, natural and otherwise, where the principle of free competition is in operation or where any surplus value exists.” (_Études d’Économie sociale_, p. 347, note. Cf. also pp. 237 _et seq._)

[1224] Cf. Escarra, _loc. cit._, p. 224. See also Laveleye, _Le Socialisme contemporain_, 8th ed., Appendix I.

[1225] Métin, _Le Socialisme en Angleterre_, p. 179 (1897).

[1226] “The possession of a piece of land frees the workman from dependence upon the masters, which is one cause of poverty. The worker who possesses land is free. He has always something he can turn his hand to when out of work.” Elsewhere: “If a certain quantity of land is given to the workers their wages will surely rise, for no one will work for another unless he can get more than he gets when working for himself.” (Quoted by Escarra, p. 224, note.) The same idea occurs in Henry George, but not as a part of the general argument.

[1227] If we had not decided against the inclusion of the Italian economists, this would have been the place to devote a few words to the writings of Achille Loria. No one excels him as a writer on political economy. An elaborate superstructure of great economic, political, social, and even religious significance has been built upon the foundation of free land, which at least denotes a powerful imagination. A _résumé_ of this thesis is contained in _La Terra ed il Sistema sociale_, translated for the _Revue d’Économie politique_ in 1892. We cannot examine Loria’s system here. Suffice it to say that in his _Costituzione economica odierna_ (1900) he demands that the law should recognise each man’s right to the land: either to a unit of land (_i.e._ a quantity of land such as would enable a man to live and set up as an independent producer) or, failing that, to a fraction of such a unit.

Such is the theoretical solution, but the practical suggestion is somewhat milder, a kind of territorial wage being suggested. Every master would be obliged to give to his workmen, in addition to a minimum wage, a certain amount of land at the end of a given number of years. If during that period the workman has been employed by several masters, each master should contribute in proportion to the length of time he has been in his service.

At the end of a certain period every worker would thus become a proprietor. These would thus be in the same position as their primitive ancestors were as far as natural economy is concerned, and would be able to join with the older proprietors in a kind of association of capital and labour on a footing of absolute equality, which Signor Loria thought would be a most fruitful type of organisation. During the intervening years a certain amount of pressure would have to be put upon the proprietors.

[1228] The Social Democratic Federation was founded by Hyndman in 1881. See Métin, _Le Socialisme en Angleterre_, chap. 6 (1897).

[1229] Bernard Shaw, _The Fabian Society, what it has done and how it has done it_ (1892; Fabian Tract, No. 41).

[1230] _Report on Fabian Policy_ (Fabian Tract, No. 70).

[1231] “For it was at this period that we contracted the invaluable habit of freely laughing at ourselves which has always distinguished us, and which has saved us from becoming hampered by the gushing enthusiasts who mistake their own emotions for public movements.” (Bernard Shaw, _loc. cit._)

[1232] _Report on Fabian Policy._

[1233] Socialism, as understood by the Fabian Society, means the organisation and conduct of the necessary industries of the country, and the appropriation of all forms of economic rent of land and capital by the nation as a whole, through the most suitable public authorities, municipal, provincial, or central. The socialism advocated by the Fabian Society is State socialism exclusively (the term is used to distinguish it from anarchist socialism). On the other hand, it “steadfastly discountenances all schemes for securing to any person, or any group of persons, the entire product of their labour. It recognises that wealth is social in its origin and must be social in its distribution, since the evolution of industry has made it impossible to distinguish the particular contribution that each person makes to the common product, or to ascertain its value.” (_Report on Fabian Policy._)

[1234] _Ibid._

[1235] In addition to the _Fabian Essays_, the principal publications containing an exposition of Fabian ideas are the Fabian Tracts, a collection containing a great number of pamphlets on various subjects; _The History of Trade Unionism_, by Mr. and Mrs. Webb; _Industrial Democracy_, particularly chaps. 1 and 2 of the third part, by the same authors; and, finally, _Problems of Modern Industry_ (1898), a collection of lectures and articles, also by Mr. and Mrs. Webb.

[1236] Mr. and Mrs. Webb in their _History of Trade Unionism_ reject “that confident sciolism and prejudice which has led generations of socialists to borrow from Adam Smith and the ‘classic’ economists the erroneous theory that labour is by itself the creator of value without going on to master that impregnable and more difficult law of economic rent which is the very corner-stone of collectivist economy.”

[1237] “The interest with which we are concerned must clearly be a definable quantity of produce.” (_The National Dividend and its Distribution_, in _Problems of Modern Industry_, p. 227. We are indebted to this article for the exposition which we have given of the Fabian doctrine.)

[1238] An exposition of the same theory is given in Tract No. 15, _English Progress towards Social Democracy_: “The individuals or classes who possess social power have at all times, consciously or unconsciously, made use of that power in such a way as to leave to the great majority of their fellows practically nothing beyond the means of subsistence according to the current local standard. The additional product, determined by the relative differences in productive efficiency of the different sites, soils, capitals, and forms of skill above the margin of cultivation, has gone to those exercising control over these valuable but scarce productive factors. This struggle to secure the surplus or ‘economic rent’ is the key to the confused history of European progress, and an underlying, unconscious motive of all revolutions.” Cf. also _The Difficulties of Individualism_, in _Problems of Modern Industry_, pp. 237-239.

[1239] Bernard Shaw in his _Economic Basis of Socialism_, published in the _Fabian Essays_, makes a very neat distinction between interest properly so called and economic rent.

[1240] _Fabian Essays_, p. 35.

[1241] _Socialism True and False_ (Tract No. 51).

[1242] _What Socialism is_ (Tract No. 13).

[1243] In his preface to Kurella’s German book, _Sozialismus in England_ (1898), he mentions the fact that the English working class is divided into a number of corporations who are either jealous of or misunderstand one another, but have not what we may properly call a class consciousness (p. 10).

[1244] _Report on Fabian Policy_, p. 7.

[1245] _Fabian Essays_, pp. 47-49.

[1246] _Ibid._, p. 31.

[1247] Sidney Webb, _The Difficulties of Individualism_, in _Problems of Modern Industry_, p. 231. Also in the _Fabian Essays_, p. 35, he declares: “Socialists as well as individualists realise that important organic changes can only be (1) democratic …; (2) gradual …; (3) not regarded as immoral by the mass of the people; and (4) in this country, at any rate, constitutional and peaceful.”

[1248] B. Potter (Mrs. Sidney Webb), _The Co-operative Movement_, p. 16.

[1249] Etymologically “solidarity” is a corruption of _solidum_, which was employed by the Roman jurists to signify the obligation incurred by debtors who were each held responsible for the whole amount of a debt. One would naturally expect the French derivative to be _solidité_, which was the term used by the jurists under the old _régime_, especially by Pothier. _Solidarité_ was substituted for it by the editors of the Civil Code.

[1250] We should never come to an end if we began to quote passages in which the merits of solidarity are set forth. We must content ourselves with the following, chosen at random:

M. Millerand, at the time Minister of Commerce, in a speech delivered at the opening of the Exposition Universelle in 1900, said: “Science teaches men the true secret of material greatness and of social morality; and all its teaching, in a word, points to solidarity.”

M. Deherme, the founder of the People’s University movement, says: “The folly of solidarity should be the source of our inspiration, just as the martyrs of old were inspired by the folly of the Cross. The thing that wants doing is to organise democracy.” (_La Co-operation des Idées_, June 16, 1900.)

[1251] “For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office; so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.” (Romans xii, 4 and 5.)

“As in physical organisms the unity is made up of separate limbs, so among reasoning things the reason is distributed among individuals constituted for unity of co-operation.” (Marcus Aurelius, vii, 13; Rendall’s translation.)

[1252] _Discours sur l’Esprit positif._ In the _Cours de Philosophie_ he frankly pays it this well-deserved compliment: “It is a truly capital idea, and thoroughly modern too.”

[1253] Social biology dates from the publication of Professor Schäffle’s great work _Bau und Leben des sozialen Körpers_ (1875-78); possibly from the publication of Rodbertus’s work—at any rate, Rodbertus accuses Schäffle of plagiarism. See also Spencer’s _Principles of Sociology_. Aristotle had already ventured to say that “an animal is just like a well-ordered city,” a proposition that might well be inverted.

[1254] There are still a few adherents left. See M. Worms’s book, _Organisme et Société_, and Lilienfeld’s _Pathologie sociale_.

Herbert Spencer, who was the pioneer of the analogy, had abandoned it; and Auguste Comte, the godfather of sociology, took good care to put sociologists on their guard against the method, which he considered irrational.

[1255] “The enormous development of steam communication and the spread of the telegraph over the whole globe have caused modern industry to develop from a gigantic starfish, any of whose members might be destroyed without affecting the rest, into a μέγα ζῶον which is convulsed in agony by a slight injury in one part.” (Nicholson, _Effects of Machinery on Wages_, p. 117.)

[1256] It was in 1889, if we mistake not, that the term “solidarity” was proposed as the title of a new economic school in a lecture entitled _L’École nouvelle_. This lecture was published, along with others, in a small volume entitled _Quatre Écoles d’Économie sociale_ (1890, Geneva) (_L’École libérale_, by Frédéric Passy; _L’École catholique_, by Claudio Jannet; _L’École socialiste_ by M. Stiegler; and _L’École nouvelle_, by M. Gide). The characteristics of the various schools are summed up as follows: The one is the school of liberty, the other of authority, while the third is the school of equality. Gide then proceeds: “Were I asked to define what I understand by the New School in a single word, I should call it the Solidarity School. Unlike liberty, equality, and fraternity, solidarity is not a very high-sounding word, nor is it a mere ideal. It is just a fact, one of the best-established facts of history and experience, and the most important discovery of our time, and this fact of solidarity is becoming better established every day.”

It would have been better, perhaps, to have spoken of a new movement rather than of a new school, seeing the variety of schools, some of them actually opposed to one another, such as the school of Biological Naturalism and the Christian school, the Anarchist school and the State Socialist school, that have adopted solidarity as a part of their creed.

[1257] M. Léon Bourgeois’s _La Solidarité_ appeared originally as a series of articles contributed to the _Nouvelle Revue_ in 1896. These were published in book form in the following year. The different aspects of the question have been dealt with in a series of lectures delivered by various authors at the École des Hautes Études sociales under the presidency of M. Bourgeois himself, and published in a volume entitled _Essai d’une Philosophie de la Solidarité_ (1902). An association for the propagation of the new ideas was founded in 1895 under the name of La Société d’Éducation sociale. An International Congress was called together on the occasion of the 1900 Exposition, but since then the signs of activity have been few.

French books and articles dealing with the subject are plentiful enough. We can only mention _La Solidarité sociale et ses Nouvelles Formules_, by M. d’Eichthal (1903); the annual report of L’Académie des Sciences morales et politiques for 1903; M. Bouglé’s book _Le Solidarisme_ (1907); and Fleurant’s _La Solidarité_ (1907). There is hardly a manual for teachers published which does not contain a chapter devoted to this question.

[1258] “The fact that such a thing as natural solidarity exists should not be taken to imply that it must necessarily be just. Justice can never be realised unless the laws of solidarity are first observed; but once these have been established, their effects must be modified to make them conform to the requirements of justice. The actual and the ideal should never be confused; they are the direct contraries of one another. But it is absolutely necessary that the first should be established before we can realise the moral necessity for the other.” (Bourgeois, _Philosophie de la Solidarité_, pp. 13, 17.)

[1259] “There are some debts which are hardly noticed at all, but which ought to be paid all the same.” (Bourgeois, _Philosophie de la Solidarité_, p. 60.) “There is a real claim where we thought there was only a moral obligation, and a debt where we thought there was only a sacrifice.” As the Gospel says: “Unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required.” (Luke xii, 48.) “So that ye come behind in no gift.” (1 Corinthians i, 7.)

[1260] “No man is free as long as he is in debt. He becomes free the moment he pays off that debt. The doctrine of solidarity is just the corrective of the theories of private property and individual liberty.” (Bourgeois, _op. cit._, p. 45.)

[1261] M. Bourgeois also points out that just as our ancestors were indebted to us, so are we indebted to those that shall come after us. But that is a different thing, and the theory does not seem very sound on this point. It is strange to think that creditors long since dead should transfer the debt which was owing to them to the credit of generations yet unborn!

[1262] Bourgeois, _op. cit._, p. 94.

[1263] Even the texts of the Civil Code seem to point to some such theory. Article 1370, in addition to the cases of quasi-contract and quasi-misdemeanour of which it speaks, also mentions “law” as a general cause of obligation.

[1264] “Wherever it is impossible to fix definitely the value of the personal effort put forth by a single individual, as in the case of a quasi-contract—that is, whenever it is impossible to determine the value of the debt on the one hand or the credit on the other—_the best plan is to pool those risks and advantages_. This would mean that none would know who is really bearing the risk or who is reaping the advantages, the risks being shared by everybody and the advantages being thrown open to everyone.” (_Ibid._, p. 81.)

The end of the quotation apparently contradicts the statement we have italicised, in which he speaks of pooling risks and advantages. With regard to the latter, it is enough, apparently, to secure equal opportunity. It is not very obvious why the principle should be so rigidly enforced in the one case and so reluctantly in the other. If the principle of solidarity holds me responsible for the degradation of the drunkard in the one case, is there any reason why I should not be allowed to share in the good fortune of the lucky speculator in another? Is it because the logical application of this principle would directly lead to communism?

[1265] One should add that the word “quasi-contract” is not so frequently used by M. Bourgeois as it is by his disciples. As in many another instance, the disciples have outdone the master. In his _Philosophie de la Solidarité_ he scarcely uses the term at all, but seems to prefer to speak of mutualisation.

[1266] Such seems to be the ideal of Guyau, the philosopher, in his charming volume, _Esquisse d’une Morale sans Obligation ni Sanction_.

[1267] “The only thing that justice demands is the payment of debt; beyond that we have no right to impose any obligation whatsoever.” (Bourgeois, _op. cit._, pp. 45 and 56.)

[1268] “Thanks to this fact, rivals need not seek to eliminate one another, but may well be content to exist side by side. Specialisation is undertaken, our author thinks, not with the idea of producing more, as the economists seem to teach, but merely with a view to enabling us to exist under the new conditions of life which await us.” (_Division du Travail._)

[1269] “Every brook that flows, every lamp that burns, every word spoken, every gesture made, betokens a movement in the direction of the greater uniformity of the universe.” (Lalande, _La Dissolution_.)

[1270] This is the sense in which solidarity has been understood by the Lausanne philosopher Charles Secrétan, in his book _La Civilisation et la Croyance_, and the same point of view has been adopted by M. Alfred Fouillée. “Solidarity,” writes Fouillée, “has all the practical value of an ideal force. The recognition of the profound identity which pervades humanity and the adoption of an ideal of perfect unity as the supreme object of rational desire must assume the form of a duty in the eyes of every human being. We should anticipate the unity of the human race, which is as yet far from being realised, and which will never be perfect perhaps, by acting as if we were already one.” (_Revue des Deux Mondes_, July 15, 1901.)

[1271] Auguste Comte, in his usual authoritative manner, declared that solidarity rests upon the fact that men can represent one another, and consequently may be held responsible for one another.

[1272] See a collection of addresses by various authors published under the title of _Les Applications sociales de la Solidarité_ (1904).

[1273] These laws of public assistance are among the most remarkable practical manifestations of the solidarist movement. They are quite a new feature in French public life, and until their appearance relief, whether given by the State, the department, or the commune, was purely optional (except in a few isolated cases, such as in that of waifs and strays). To mention only the principal ones in France, the law of July 15, 1893, made relief in the form of medical attendance for all destitute invalids obligatory upon the communes. The law of July 14, 1905, extended a similar benefit to all invalids and to all persons over seventy years of age in the form of pensions varying in amount from 60 to 240 francs per annum (360 in Paris). Finally, the law of April 5, 1910, secures a pension to all workmen at the age of sixty, the charge being divided between the State, the employers, and the workmen themselves. It is a kind of payment made by the members of the present generation to the survivors of a past one. This relief is clearly of the nature of a social debt, and justifies us in treating it as the outcome of a quasi-contract, for on the one hand it constitutes an obligation fixed by law on the part of the commune, the department, or the State, as the case may be—an obligation which they cannot escape—and on the other hand a right on the part of the beneficiary, as in the case of a creditor in an action for the recovery of debt.

[1274] A very curious application of this national solidarity has come to light quite recently. Formerly the French Government would only sanction foreign loans if the borrowing country promised to apply some part of its funds to French industry. That meant linking the _rentier_ and the French manufacturers by a forced kind of solidarity, the first being unwilling to lend money unless that money in some way returned to the second person for goods purchased. This is just where the claim of the workers, who justly demand a minimum wage, comes in.

[1275] The doctrine of quasi-contract might lead to the one conclusion as well as to the other. M. Bourgeois himself seems to incline rather in the direction of associationism. “The Radical party has a social doctrine, a doctrine that might be summed up in one word—association.” (Preface to M. Buisson’s _La Politique radicale_.)

[1276] “The Apotheosis of Solidarity,” printed in large type, recently appeared as a headline in one of the French morning papers. The reference was to a banquet of 30,000 mutualists.

[1277] Mutualists are so taken up with the idea of solidarity that they indignantly protest if any of their number happens to make use of the term “beneficence” or “charity.” “Everyone has a right to demand his own,” they say: that is clearly Bourgeois’s thesis. On the other hand, their journal, _L’Avenir de la Mutualité_, for February 1909 claims that societies for mutual help have a right to organise tombolas and lotteries, and they base their care upon the law of May 21, 1836, which reserves the right of lottery to “efforts of an entirely charitable character.” In order to defend its claim, _L’Avenir de la Mutualité_ does not hesitate to affirm that the societies for mutual help “recognise the existence of an element of benevolence which is not exactly mutual and which is rightly connected with the superior modern principle of social solidarity, but which none the less justifies the application of the law of 1836.”

[1278] “Solidarity is just an empty word if it is not supported by special organisms which can render it effective. This is why workmen’s associations have deemed it necessary to establish what they call ‘guarantism.’…

“The most unmistakable manifestation of solidarity consists in the employment of a part of the wealth produced by labour in order to repair the poverty caused by the deficient organisation of labour, which leaves the worker and his family liable to the acutest suffering whenever illness, old age, or misfortune crosses their paths.” (Programme on the cover of a journal known as _L’Association ouvrière_, the organ of the producers’ associations.)

[1279] This co-operatist programme is generally known in France as that of the École de Nîmes. Really it is a development of the suggestions thrown out by the Rochdale Pioneers in 1844. M. Bourgeois, who gives it a place in his _Systèmes socialistes_, considers that it is a little indefinite. It seems to us, on the other hand, to be about as precise as any of the other socialist systems that attempt to envisage the future; and it has this advantage, that its prophecies are already in process of realisation in a fashion that is most unmistakable. See a brief _résumé_ of the programme in a lecture by Gide on the occasion of the centenary of the French Revolution, published in the volume entitled _Co-opération (Des Transformations que la Co-opération est appelée à réaliser dans l’Ordre économique)_.

The task of reorganising society belongs, not to the producers, but to the consumers, for while the former are inspired by the co-operative spirit, the latter are imbued with enthusiasm for the general well-being. Consumers have only to unite and all their wants are satisfied just in the way they desire, for they can either buy directly from the producers all that they need, or they can, when they have become sufficiently rich and powerful, produce for themselves in their own factories and on their own lands. This would mean the abolition of all profits, those of middlemen and manufacturers alike. The societies would retain only as much as would be necessary for the further extension of the movement, returning all the rest to the consumers in proportion to the amount of their purchases. We have already had occasion to note how this idea of the abolition of profits had haunted John Stuart Mill, and how it seemed linked with an entirely new phase of social evolution, to which he gave the name of the “stationary State.” We have also witnessed the Hedonists’ arrival at exactly the same conclusion, though along a directly opposite path, namely, that of absolutely free competition.

We must not lose sight of the fact that this revolution is accomplished without affecting the foundations of the social order—property, inheritance, interest, etc.—and without having recourse to any measure of expropriation save such as naturally results from the free play of present economic laws. Co-operators have no desire to interfere with accumulated capital, their aim being merely to form new capital which shall render the old useless. If existing capital is merely accumulated profits made out of labour, why should not labour itself make a profit, and this time keep it for its own use?

Complaints have been made that a system of this kind, even if it were realised, would not result in the abolition of the wage-earner, seeing that the workers would still be employed, the only difference being that their employer would be a society instead of an individual. The reply is that a person who works for a society of which he himself is a member is very near to being his own master.

Moreover, has anyone a right to raise this objection? The upholder of the present economic order certainly has not when we remember that he considers the wage contract to be the definite type of pure contract. Neither are the collectivists entitled to make it, for under their system everybody would be a civil servant. Hence the only persons who are really justified in making this criticism are those who believe that the future will see an increase in the number of independent proprietors. The reply that we would make to them is this: The only hope of seeing this realised—which is also the ideal of some co-operators—is to set up producers’ associations under the control and protection of consumers’ societies. In fact, a _régime_ of federated co-operative societies is not incompatible with the maintenance of a certain amount of autonomous production, thanks to various considerations which need not be detailed here.

[1280] In France this rule of solidarity has as yet only been adopted by a Catholic group of credit societies known as the Union Durand. It may be practised by a few other societies there, but it is quite obviously the exception, whereas in some German societies and in Italian and Swiss associations the rule is always followed—another proof that although the idea is French in origin we must look elsewhere for practical applications.

[1281] _La Propriété sociale et la Démocratie._

[1282] The result is that masters are nowadays held responsible whenever a workman meets with an accident, or falls ill even. They are also liable to damages whenever they pay off their men. Owners of urban property are no longer allowed to build according to their fancy, and any property set up in contravention of the sanitary regulations is immediately demolished. Further progress along these lines would lead to juridical socialism. See _Les Transformations du Droit civil_, by M. Charmont, and _Le Droit social et le Droit individuel_, by M. Duguit.

[1283] Anton Menger, of Vienna, is the protagonist of this view. See his book, _Das bürgerliche Recht und die besitzlosen Volksklassen_ (1890). Another of his works, _Das Recht auf den vollen Arbeitsertrag_, which has been translated into English and contains a valuable preface by Professor Foxwell Menger, maintains that at the basis of the economic order are three fundamental rights which may be compared with the political demands put forward in the Declaration of the Rights of Man. These rights are: (1) the right to the whole produce of labour, (2) the right to work, (3) the right to exist—all of which claims were put forward by Considérant, Louis Blanc, and Proudhon, the French socialists of 1848.

See also Lassalle’s book, _Das System der erworbenen Rechte_. Mention should also be made of M. Emmanuel Lévy de Lyon, who has published several articles of this kind, especially the pamphlet entitled _Capital et Travail_.

[1284] “The producer is concerned about the well-being of his clients at every moment. His sympathies are wide enough to include the whole of humanity. The merchant and the transport agent are always on the look-out for what will prove most advantageous to those for whom they are working, as well as for new clients—that is, for more persons to whom they can be of service.” These words, which might have been written by Bastiat, are taken from a small yet curious volume published by M. Yves Guyot, and entitled _La Morale de la Concurrence_.

[1285] “Solidarity serves as a pretext for those people who want to enjoy the fruits of the labour of others without taking a part in such labours themselves, and for politicians who want to win adherents to their cause; it is just a new name for an unhealthy kind of egoism.” (Vilfredo Pareto, _Le Péril socialiste_, in the _Journal des Économistes_, May 15, 1900.)

“The solidarist theories would simply greatly increase the number and incapacity of the unemployable.” (Demolins, _La Supériorité des Anglo-Saxons_.)

[1286] “The distinctive feature of evolution seems to be the growing tendency among organisms to attain to a position of independence by acquiring a certain degree of specialised skill.” (De Launay, _L’Histoire de la Terre_.) The crystal’s action, says de Launay, in grouping itself in the form of a polyhedron is an expression of independence as well as a means of defence. The crystal is simply the earliest individual to break away from its environment. The animal form in the ocean depths that carries in its own body the essentials of a new environment marks a second step.

[1287] “The primitive era was an age of solidarity. Crime was no individual thing then, and that the innocent should suffer for the sake of the guilty seemed a part of the order of things. It is only in an age of reflection that such dogmas appear absurd.” (Renan, _Avenir de la Science_, p. 307.)

[1288] Anti-kissing leagues, inspired not by any puritan motives, but arising solely out of fear of bacilli, have been formed in the United States. One must not be surprised if a league against hand-shaking is established next; although this would be rather a curious result of a doctrine of solidarity that is always represented by the device of two hands clasped in one another!

In Paul Bureau’s book _La Crise morale des Temps nouveaux_ there is a lengthy, lively criticism of solidarism from the moral standpoint.

[1289] This is how we find it appraised in _Le Mouvement socialiste_: “The development of solidarism is one of the most disquieting features of the present time. It affords a proof as well as being a cause of a considerable slackening of energy.” (Issue for July 1907; Paul Olivier in a review of Bouglé’s book on solidarism.)

[1290] Association, even when the object in view is purely mercenary, has a moral value superior to exchange:

(1) Inasmuch as it always implies, in addition to money payment, a certain sacrifice of time and trouble, perhaps even of independence. It involves something more than the obligation to attend meetings and to conform to rules.

(2) It implies something more than a mere act of exchange which is completed in an instant and at one stroke. It implies the indefinite collaboration of the parties concerned.

[1291] The solidarist _régime_ must be distinguished from the exchange _régime_ on the one hand and from charity on the other. Exchange implies giving something with a view to obtaining the exact equivalent. Charity, on the other hand, implies giving without expecting any return; hence it involves a sacrifice. Solidarity also implies a sacrifice: every appeal on behalf of solidarity is based upon the consciousness of a certain amount of sacrifice, but a sacrifice that is not entirely disinterested—it is the sacrifice of a part of the individual self in order to gain an equal share in the collective being.

[1292] See his article on Government in the _Dictionnaire_ of Coquelin and Guillaumin.

[1293] _Œuvres_, vol. i, p. 59 (_Fédéralisme, Socialisme, et Antithéologisme_).

[1294] Adler in his article _Anarchismus_ in the _Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften_, and in his _Geschichte des Sozialismus und Kommunismus_ (1899), shows the indebtedness of the anarchist ideal to Greek philosophy.

[1295] The work was republished in 1882 and again in 1893, and translated into French in 1902. There are also a few translations from the writings of Smith and Say from his pen. A very interesting account of his life, to which we must acknowledge our indebtedness for some of the information given here, is to be found in J.H. Mackay’s _Max Stirner, sein Leben und sein Werk_ (Berlin, 1898). Stirner’s real name was Kaspar Schmidt. Born in 1806 at Bayreuth, in Bavaria, he died at Berlin in extreme poverty and wretchedness in 1856. For an account of the “left Hegelian school” and of Stirner himself see the very interesting articles of Saint-René Taillandier published in the _Revue des Deux Mondes_, 1842-50.