In so far as laborers are associated, they are equal; and it involves a contradiction to say that one should be paid more than another.For, as the product of one laborer can be paid for only in the product of another laborer, if the two products are unequal, the remainder--or the difference between the greater and the smaller--will not be acquired by society; and, therefore, not being exchanged, will not affect the equality of wages.There will result, it is true, in favor of the stronger laborer a natural inequality, but not a social inequality; no one having suffered by his strength and productive energy.In a word, society exchanges only equal products--that is, rewards no labor save that performed for her benefit; consequently, she pays all laborers equally: with what they produce outside of her sphere she has no more to do, than with the difference in their voices and their hair.
I seem to be positing the principle of inequality: the reverse of this is the truth.The total amount of labor which can be performed for society (that is, of labor susceptible of exchange), being, within a given space, as much greater as the laborers are more numerous, and as the task assigned to each is less in magnitude,--it follows that natural inequality neutralizes itself in proportion as association extends, and as the quantity of consumable values produced thereby increases.So that in society the only thing which could bring back the inequality of labor would be the right of occupancy,--the right of property.
Now, suppose that this daily social task consists in the ploughing, hoeing, or reaping of two square decameters, and that the average time required to accomplish it is seven hours: one laborer will finish it in six hours, another will require eight;the majority, however, will work seven.But provided each one furnishes the quantity of labor demanded of him, whatever be the time he employs, they are entitled to equal wages.
Shall the laborer who is capable of finishing his task in six hours have the right, on the ground of superior strength and activity, to usurp the task of the less skilful laborer, and thus rob him of his labor and bread? Who dares maintain such a proposition? He who finishes before the others may rest, if he chooses; he may devote himself to useful exercise and labors for the maintenance of his strength, and the culture of his mind, and the pleasure of his life.This he can do without injury to any one: but let him confine himself to services which affect him solely.Vigor, genius, diligence, and all the personal advantages which result therefrom, are the work of Nature and, to a certain extent, of the individual; society awards them the esteem which they merit: but the wages which it pays them is measured, not by their power, but by their production.Now, the product of each is limited by the right of all.
If the soil were infinite in extent, and the amount of available material were exhaustless, even then we could not accept this maxim,--TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS LABOR.And why? Because society, I repeat, whatever be the number of its subjects, is forced to pay them all the same wages, since she pays them only in their own products.Only, on the hypothesis just made, inasmuch as the strong cannot be prevented from using all their advantages, the inconveniences of natural inequality would reappear in the very bosom of social equality.But the land, considering the productive power of its inhabitants and their ability to multiply, is very limited; further, by the immense variety of products and the extreme division of labor, the social task is made easy of accomplishment.Now, through this limitation of things producible, and through the ease of producing them, the law of absolute equality takes effect.
Yes, life is a struggle.But this struggle is not between man and man--it is between man and Nature; and it is each one's duty to take his share in it.If, in the struggle, the strong come to the aid of the weak, their kindness deserves praise and love; but their aid must be accepted as a free gift,--not imposed by force, nor offered at a price.All have the same career before them, neither too long nor too difficult; whoever finishes it finds his reward at the end: it is not necessary to get there first.
In printing-offices, where the laborers usually work by the job, the compositor receives so much per thousand letters set; the pressman so much per thousand sheets printed.There, as elsewhere, inequalities of talent and skill are to be found.
When there is no prospect of dull times (for printing and typesetting, like all other trades, sometimes come to a stand-still), every one is free to work his hardest, and exert his faculties to the utmost: he who does more gets more; he who does less gets less.When business slackens, compositors and pressmen divide up their labor; all monopolists are detested as no better than robbers or traitors.
There is a philosophy in the action of these printers, to which neither economists nor legists have ever risen.If our legislators had introduced into their codes the principle of distributive justice which governs printing-offices; if they had observed the popular instincts,--not for the sake of servile imitation, but in order to reform and generalize them,--long ere this liberty and equality would have been established on an immovable basis, and we should not now be disputing about the right of property and the necessity of social distinctions.
It has been calculated that if labor were equally shared by the whole number of able-bodied individuals, the average working-day of each individual, in France, would not exceed five hours.This being so, how can we presume to talk of the inequality of laborers? It is the LABOR of Robert Macaire that causes inequality.
