The principle, TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS LABOR, interpreted to mean, WHO WORKS MOST SHOULD RECEIVE MOST, is based, therefore, on two palpable errors: one, an error in economy, that in the labor of society tasks must necessarily be unequal; the other, an error in physics, that there is no limit to the amount of producible things.
"But," it will be said, "suppose there are some people who wish to perform only half of their task?"...Is that very embarrassing? Probably they are satisfied with half of their salary.Paid according to the labor that they had performed, of what could they complain? and what injury would they do to others? In this sense, it is fair to apply the maxim,--TO EACHACCORDING TO HIS RESULTS.It is the law of equality itself.
Further, numerous difficulties, relative to the police system and the organization of industry, might be raised here.I will reply to them all with this one sentence,--that they must all be solved by the principle of equality.Thus, some one might observe, "Here is a task which cannot be postponed without detriment to production.Ought society to suffer from the negligence of a few? and will she not venture--out of respect for the right of labor--to assure with her own hands the product which they refuse her? In such a case, to whom will the salary belong?"To society; who will be allowed to perform the labor, either herself, or through her representatives, but always in such a way that the general equality shall never be violated, and that only the idler shall be punished for his idleness.Further, if society may not use excessive severity towards her lazy members, she has a right, in self-defence, to guard against abuses.
But every industry needs--they will add--leaders, instructors, superintendents, &c.Will these be engaged in the general task?
No; since their task is to lead, instruct, and superintend.But they must be chosen from the laborers by the laborers themselves, and must fulfil the conditions of eligibility.It is the same with all public functions, whether of administration or instruction.
Then, article first of the universal constitution will be:--"The limited quantity of available material proves the necessity of dividing the labor among the whole number of laborers.The capacity, given to all, of accomplishing a social task,--that is, an equal task,--and the impossibility of paying one laborer save in the products of another, justify the equality of wages."% 7.--That Inequality of Powers is the Necessary Condition of Equality of Fortunes.
It is objected,--and this objection constitutes the second part of the St.Simonian, and the third part of the Fourierstic, maxims,--"That all kinds of labor cannot be executed with equal ease.
Some require great superiority of skill and intelligence; and on this superiority is based the price.The artist, the savant, the poet, the statesman, are esteemed only because of their excellence; and this excellence destroys all similitude between them and other men: in the presence of these heights of science and genius the law of equality disappears.Now, if equality is not absolute, there is no equality.From the poet we descend to the novelist; from the sculptor to the stonecutter; from the architect to the mason; from the chemist to the cook, &c.
Capacities are classified and subdivided into orders, genera, and species.The extremes of talent are connected by intermediate talents.Humanity is a vast hierarchy, in which the individual estimates himself by comparison, and fixes his price by the value placed upon his product by the public."This objection always has seemed a formidable one.It is the stumbling-block of the economists, as well as of the defenders of equality.It has led the former into egregious blunders, and has caused the latter to utter incredible platitudes.Gracchus Babeuf wished all superiority to be STRINGENTLY REPRESSED, and even PERSECUTED AS A SOCIAL CALAMITY.To establish his communistic edifice, he lowered all citizens to the stature of the smallest.Ignorant eclectics have been known to object to the inequality of knowledge, and I should not be surprised if some one should yet rebel against the inequality of virtue.
Aristotle was banished, Socrates drank the hemlock, Epaminondas was called to account, for having proved superior in intelligence and virtue to some dissolute and foolish demagogues.Such follies will be re-enacted, so long as the inequality of fortunes justifies a populace, blinded and oppressed by the wealthy, in fearing the elevation of new tyrants to power.
Nothing seems more unnatural than that which we examine too closely, and often nothing seems less like the truth than the truth itself.On the other hand, according to J.J.Rousseau, "it takes a great deal of philosophy to enable us to observe once what we see every day;" and, according to d'Alembert, "the ordinary truths of life make but little impression on men, unless their attention is especially called to them." The father of the school of economists (Say), from whom I borrow these two quotations, might have profited by them; but he who laughs at the blind should wear spectacles, and he who notices him is near-sighted.
Strange! that which has frightened so many minds is not, after all, an objection to equality--it is the very condition on which equality exists!...
Natural inequality the condition of equality of fortunes!...
What a paradox!...I repeat my assertion, that no one may think I have blundered--inequality of powers is the sine qua non of equality of fortunes.
There are two things to be considered in society--FUNCTIONS and RELATIONS.
I.FUNCTIONS.Every laborer is supposed to be capable of performing the task assigned to him; or, to use a common expression, "every workman must know his trade." The workman equal to his work,--there is an equation between functionary and function.
