The Origins of Universal Grants: An Anthology of Historical Writings on Basic Capital and Basic Income

The Origins of Universal Grants An Anthology of Historical Writings on Basic Capital and Basic Income

Edited by John Cunliffe and Guido Erreygers

The Origins of Universal Grants

Also by Guido Erreygers ECONOMICS AND INTERDISCIPLINARY EXCHANGE (editor) IS INHERITANCE LEGITIMATE? ETHICAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF WEALTH TRANSFERS (co-edited with Toon Vandevelde)

The Origins of Universal Grants An Anthology of Historical Writings on Basic Capital and Basic Income

Edited by

John Cunliffe University of Warwick UK

and

Guido Erreygers University of Antwerp Belgium

Editorial matter and Selection and Chapters 5–7 and 11 © John Cunliffe and Guido Erreygers 2004 Chapters 1 and 15 © Palgrave Macmillan 2004 Chapter 3 © Burt Franklin 1964 Chapter 4 © Scholars Facsimiles and Reprints 1978 Chapter 8 © Spokesman Books 1982 Chapter 10 © University of Missouri Press 1983 Chapter 12 © E. Mabel and Dennis Milner 1918 Chapter 13 © Bertram Pickard 1919 Chapter 14 © C. Marshall Hattersley 1960 Chapter 16 © Time Warner Books 1943 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission. No paragraph of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 4LP. Any person who does any unauthorised act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. The authors have asserted their rights to be identified as the authors of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. First published 2004 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS and 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10010 Companies and representatives throughout the world PALGRAVE MACMILLAN is the global academic imprint of the Palgrave Macmillan division of St. Martin’s Press, LLC and of Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. Macmillan® is a registered trademark in the United States, United Kingdom and other countries. Palgrave is a registered trademark in the European Union and other countries. ISBN 1–4039–1896–1 hardback This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully managed and sustained forest sources. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The origins of universal grants : an anthology of historical writings on basic capital and basic income / edited by John Cunliffe and Guido Erreygers. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 1–4039–1896–1 (cloth) 1. Income. 2. Income distribution. 3. Capital. 4. Basic needs. 5. Economic security. I. Cunliffe, John. II. Erreygers, Guido, 1959– HB523.O75 2005 339.2—dc22 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 Printed and bound in Great Britain by Antony Rowe Ltd, Chippenham and Eastbourne

2004048877

Contents Preface

vii

Acknowledgements

ix

John Cunliffe and Guido Erreygers Introduction

x

Part I Basic Capital Proposals

1

1 Thomas Paine Agrarian Justice (1797)

3

2 Cornelius Blatchly Some Causes of Popular Poverty, Derived from the Enriching Nature of Interests, Rents, Duties, Inheritances, and Church Establishments, Investigated in their Principles and Consequences, and Agreement with the Scriptures (1817)

17

3 Thomas Skidmore The Rights of Man to Property! Being a Proposition to Make it Equal among the Adults of the Present Generation: and to Provide for its Equal Transmission to Every Individual of Each Succeeding Generation, on Arriving at Maturity (1829)

23

4 Orestes Brownson Brownson’s Defence. Defence of the Article on the Laboring Classes. From the Boston Quarterly Review (1840)

32

5 Paul Voituron

48

The Right to Labour and Property (1848)

6 Napoleon De Keyser Natural Law, or Justice as a New Governance for Society according to the Destiny of Man (1854)

56

7 Agathon De Potter Social Economics (1874)

73

Part II Basic Income Proposals

79

8 Thomas Spence The Rights of Infants (1797)

81

9 Allen Davenport (Including Richard Carlile’s Reaction in Footnotes) Agrarian Equality – To Mr. R. Carlile, Dorchester Gaol (1824)

92

v

vi

Contents

10 Charles Fourier

Letter to the High Judge (1803)

99

11 Joseph Charlier, Solution of the Social Problem or Humanitarian Constitution, Based upon Natural Law, and Preceded by the Exposition of Reasons (1848)

103

12 E. Mabel and Dennis Milner Scheme for a State Bonus (1918)

121

13 Bertram Pickard A Reasonable Revolution. Being a Discussion of the State Bonus Scheme – a Proposal for a National Minimum Income (1919)

134

14 C. Marshall Hattersley The Community’s Credit. A Consideration of the Principles and Proposals of the Social Credit Movement (1922)

141

15 G.D.H. Cole (I) The Next Ten Years in British Social and Economic Policy (1929) (II) Principles of Economic Planning (1935)

149

16 Juliet Rhys-Williams Something to Look Forward To. A Suggestion for a New Social Contract (1943)

161

References

170

Index

172

Preface For about ten years we have been researching various aspects of social liberalism, or liberal socialism, focusing primarily on the historical roots of particular versions of this strand of thought. In the course of our research we more than once stumbled upon embryonic formulations of the modern ideas of ‘basic income’ or ‘basic capital’. Yet, surprisingly, many of these early formulations are hidden in dark corners of our knowledge, or even (almost) completely forgotten. The present anthology assembles a few of these remarkable early contributions, some of which are hard to find and are published here for the first time in English. What we have learned from our research is that it would be pretentious to claim that this is a complete overview – certainly it is not. We are convinced that in the coming years similar contributions will be unearthed from dusty archives and libraries. What we do claim is that our collection shows that the origins of the basic income and basic capital proposals are deep and diverse. Of course this is not a new insight, but we think that our selection makes it clear that the sources of these proposals are more widespread than is usually believed. Over the years we have benefited greatly from the support, encouragement and advice of a large number of colleagues and scholars of basic income and basic capital. We would like to thank Tom Schatteman, Hillel Steiner, Robert van der Veen, Gijs van Donselaar, Philippe Van Parijs (without whom we would probably have never met each other), and Peter Vallentyne. A special word of thanks goes to Matthew Clayton and Andrew Reeve for their comments on the Introduction. We are also very grateful to Klaartje Verbelen and Jo Clijsters, who in the tranquillity of their house La Vigne Rousse in the Provence laboured on the incomprehensible French texts of three obscure nineteenth century Belgian writers and made a first draft of the English translations. Initially the anthology was to be edited by three authors. Unfortunately Walter Van Trier had to abandon as editor because of an overload of work. Nobody has done more to write the history of the basic income idea than Walter. His PhD thesis Every One a King is a goldmine for those interested in the British antecedents of basic income. We hope that one day he will find the time to rewrite it and make it available for a wider audience.

vii

viii Preface

Separately or jointly we have been supported in our research by grants from the Nuffield Foundation, the British Council, and the FWO (the Flemish Fund for Scientific Research). John Cunliffe spent considerable time at the University of Antwerp as invited professor of the Department of Economics. We thank all these institutions for their generous financial support. The Editors

Acknowledgements and General Editing Observations We thank the following persons and institutions for the permission to reprint extracts from previously published material: – Palgrave-Macmillan for Paine’s Agrarian Justice, Cole’s The Next Ten Years in British Social and Economic Policy, and Cole’s Principles of Economic Planning. – Spokeman’s Books for Spence’s The Rights of Infants. – University of Missouri Press for Fourier’s Letter to the High Judge. – John H. Milner for E. Mabel and Dennis Milner’s Scheme for a State Bonus. – Martin Hattersley for C. Marshall Hattersley’s The Community’s Credit. – Time Warner Books for Rhys-Williams’s Something to Look Forward To. A Suggestion for a New Social Contract. Any remaining copyright holders which we might have failed to locate are requested to contact the editors and the publisher. The translations of the texts of Voituron, De Keyser, De Potter and Charlier have been made by John Cunliffe and Guido Erreygers. Any material which has been deleted from the original texts is indicated by the symbol ‘(…)’. All material which has been inserted is in square brackets. This refers in particular to the notes of the editors.

ix

Introduction John Cunliffe and Guido Erreygers

Although some might see basic capital and basic income as fairly new responses to poverty, exclusion and other social problems, these ideas have actually been around for quite some time. In fact, their origins can be traced back to writers of the eighteenth and nineteenth century, if not earlier. This anthology collects some of the early contributions, many of which have fallen into oblivion. The bulk of the collection consists of extracts of books, articles and even manuscripts, in which a wide variety of authors advocate the introduction of some form of basic income or basic capital. Despite the fact that some of the texts we have selected are some two hundred years old and from diverse contexts, they remain accessible for today’s readers. We introduce each extract by a short note on the life and works of its writer, but then we let the text speak for itself. Here we take a somewhat broader perspective. We begin with an overview of the contemporary discussions on basic income and basic capital (Section 1). Then we introduce the historical part (Section 2) and briefly present the history of both the basic capital idea (Section 3) and the basic income idea (Section 4). We end by pointing to the thematic continuities between the past and present debates on these ideas (Section 5).

1. The contemporary debate Proposals for some form of unconditional basic capital or unconditional basic income figure prominently in current social philosophy and policy debates.1 Both types of payment have been justified by principled arguments appealing to rights or entitlements derived from considerations of social justice, as well as by pragmatic arguments about welfare state reform.2 While, of course, the details vary considerably, both of the core ideas are very simple: basic capital would provide all citizens with an unconditional cash lump sum at the start of their adult life, whereas basic income would supply them with an unconditional and regular lifelong income stream from adulthood.3 Although there is no agreement on the desirable or feasible size of either payment, most advocates of the schemes are optimistic that over time a generous level could be realized: x

Introduction

xi

the basic capital payout would become sufficient to reduce significantly inequalities in access to various key markets which profoundly affect life chances (for instance, credit, education and housing), and the sustainable level of basic income might be set at, near, or even above, a prevailing rate of subsistence.4 The merits of unconditional basic capital and basic income have been assessed thoroughly both separately and comparatively, and given that the two are not mutually exclusive, various combinations have been suggested.5 The radical potential of these schemes follows from their concern with reducing the ex ante inequalities in the external assets with which individuals enter several markets, rather than correcting the ex post outcomes of market transactions, in the manner of the traditional welfare state.6 In this respect, basic capital is less ambitious than basic income: the capital payout might reduce some initial inequalities of opportunity on entry to key markets, but an unconditional basic income would provide the possibility of a continuing choice over whether to enter or remain in them. The objective of basic capital might be summarised as capitalism with equal starts; unequal outcomes over a lifetime are considered legitimate insofar as they reflect choices about the use of the payout, but financing the capital payout from sufficiently progressive inheritance and wealth taxation would prevent the cumulative transmission of such unequal outcomes between generations.7 The objective of basic income might be summarised as capitalism with baseline income maintenance. By regulating the terms of entry into the formal labour market throughout a lifetime, individuals would gain the freedom to choose whether to work at all, or to take jobs at various pay rates, without being compelled either by the necessity to secure their subsistence or by the bureaucratic requirements of current social security policies. The higher the level of unconditional basic income, the more any wage contract approaches the ideal of ‘capitalism between consenting adults’ and the less consumption opportunities depend on earning power.8 The distinctive and most controversial feature of the proposals to be considered is precisely their unconditionality in relation to productive contribution, whether past, present or future: the basic capital payout would not be restricted to approved productive uses, and basic income would not be subject to any work requirement, even in a broad sense of that term. The most influential objection to the schemes has been that such unconditional payments license exploitation or parasitism by enabling self-indulgent idlers to live from the labour of their hard-working fellow citizens in a way that violates some fundamental condition of

xii

John Cunliffe and Guido Erreygers

fairness, especially if fairness is thought to require reciprocity.9 That ‘parasitism’ objection has been met by three different responses. The first, pragmatic response, concedes that there might be some degree of parasitism but argues that this would be offset by other advantages of the schemes. The second response capitulates and retreats to conditional variants in which payment would be subject to an appropriate contributive obligation. The third response mounts a counter-attack in which the unconditional nature of the payments is justified on the basis of principled arguments appealing to considerations of social justice, denying the interpretations of ‘fairness’ the parasitism objection usually relies upon.10 Basic capital and/or basic income payments would, of course, have to be funded from the proceeds of taxation, and this requires a justification of the composition and extent of the pool of resources from which payments would be financed, and an argument for the preferred mechanism of distribution.11 Whereas the principled arguments identify the just funding base in terms of a (disputed) set of assets which can be regarded legitimately as social wealth, the pragmatic arguments take the conventional taxation policies of welfare states for granted.12 Typically, the principled arguments identify the relevant pool of assets as including natural resources and inherited produced wealth, which are liable to taxation at the level of 100 per cent subject to efficiency concerns to maximise the yield. Insofar as neither of these is easily identified as the product of the labour of the current generation, the parasitism objection might be defused although only a relatively low level of payment might be feasible. Alternatively, once other assets are included in the pool available for redistribution (for example, inter vivos gifts, and, most controversially, job assets), a more generous payment might be feasible but then the parasitism objection might become more pressing.13 The choice of a preferred method or combination of methods of payment will be determined by different conceptions of personal responsibility and different views of paternalism in relation to resource allocation over lifetimes. Whether payments should be in the form of basic capital, basic income, or some combination of both, and whether other traditional types of public service provision in kind should complement these cash payments, are all contested issues. If ‘real freedom’ is conferred through choice over the use of resources provided to the individual, then basic income is more paternalistic than basic capital, but both forms of cash payment are less paternalistic than the traditional provision in kind.14 The preferred mixture will reflect fundamental controversies over the extent to which individuals should

Introduction

xiii

bear responsibility for the consequences of their choices, or be shielded from them.

2. Histories and pasts Basic capital and basic income proposals have an intellectually rich albeit neglected past under various titles; but they do not have a continuous history. In neither case is there any single tradition with easily identifiable transmissions of intellectual or political influence. The pasts or histories consist rather in apparently isolated and episodic occurrences in quite different contexts over some two hundred years. Time and again, a motley assortment of engineers, philosophers and various social reformers from widely different backgrounds (frequently inspired by religious convictions) have independently formulated the deceptively simple ideas of a universal capital grant or lifetime income, presenting them as remedies or even panaceas for society’s ills. Time and again, the proposals have been ignored or occasionally rejected, as impracticable or unjust, and relegated to the dustbin of history. But, the ideas still keep on reappearing, apparently impossible to get rid of. And now, as the contemporary proposals indicate, they have been (re)invented or (re)discovered not by marginal outsiders, but by at least some mainstream social philosophers and policy makers, supported by expanding formal networks both nationally and internationally.15 The selections in this volume aim to locate the contemporary debates in an historical setting by recovering some of the more philosophically influential or significant texts, examining their arguments, and indicating the strong affinities between past and present cases. Given such a diverse and extensive inheritance, no single attempt could recover all of it; we only hope that our selections do not seem merely arbitrary or eccentric, and that they provide some insight into the historical precursors of modern debates. These selections range from the late eighteenth century to the 1940s, and from early land reform radicals in Europe through early American critics of industrial capitalism and various strands of liberal socialism in Belgium, to State Bonus or Social Dividend schemes in the interwar years in England. Drawing on an inherited fund of historical materials as a resource in modern debates might be construed as fundamentally mistaken and anachronistic by those committed to a rigorously contextualist approach. But there is little agreement on what sort of mistake might be involved.16 And, wilfully to neglect such a rich inherited asset would be to adopt irresponsibly ‘present minded conceits’.17

xiv John Cunliffe and Guido Erreygers

3. Basic capital: a brief history 3.1. Paine The selection of basic capital texts begins with Thomas Paine’s Agrarian Justice (1797). In this, his last major essay, Paine concentrated on the analysis of socio-economic issues rather than the political republicanism which secured his radical reputation on both sides of the Atlantic.18 Although he now adopted a familiar premise of an equal birthright in natural resources, Paine’s interpretation differed from that of other land reform radicals of the time in two key respects: first, that the equal birthright could be translated into the right to an equal share of the original value of unimproved land; and second, that this share could be delivered mainly in the form of an unconditional cash endowment for all young adults. Paine’s scheme introduced a set of features that remained central to subsequent proposals developed independently across different intellectual and political settings. The first of these is the range of external resources legitimately available for (re)distribution: typically this was extended beyond raw natural resources; the second is the strong presumption that basic capital would be used productively despite its being formally unconditional; and the third is that the chosen forms of distribution usually combined basic capital with other forms of provision for certain groups. Paine identified the just funding base as primarily consisting in raw natural resources. In a rather improvised fashion, however, the base was extended to include a proportion of all produced assets. Paine justified this extension by assimilating personal to landed property, on the ground that neither could be regarded as an individual creation. Given that personal property was a product of society, owners had an enforceable obligation to contribute to the costs of the system that had made their accumulation possible. Paine’s financial calculations were accordingly based on both forms of property. These would be subject to a 10 per cent tax representing the estimated original value of unimproved land in relation to the total market value of improved land; for administrative convenience, and to avoid disturbing any present owners, this revenue was to be collected only by inheritance taxation; and, an extra 10 per cent would apply when there were no direct heirs. The funds would be disbursed in three ways: by a capital sum to each person at age 21; by an annual payment to the handicapped under the age of 50; and by an annual payment to all those aged 50 or over. The basic capital grant would offer a generalised opportunity for able-bodied adults to earn an independent livelihood, providing the resources to acquire the

Introduction

xv

relevant instruments of production; income streams to the handicapped were legitimate because they were completely incapable of earning an independent livelihood; and annual pensions for the over fifties were appropriate, as compulsorily deferred income. Whereas the absence of legal restrictions on the use of the basic capital reflected a strong ethos of personal responsibility and assumptions of individual prudence, the pension arrangements by contrast were defended as a case of justified paternalism. Paine argued that these measures were designed to prevent rather than mitigate poverty by ensuring that everyone was ‘an inheritor of something to begin with’.19 3.2. The American tradition The second set of extracts is drawn from three American authors in the early nineteenth century. The first and least developed case was presented by Cornelius Blatchly in 1817; the second and more comprehensive case was presented by Thomas Skidmore in 1829; and the third and perhaps most intriguing case was presented by Orestes Brownson in 1840.20 As heirs to the Jeffersonian tradition, all three authors were concerned that opportunities for propertied independence were diminishing as inequalities deepened. That concern was shared by sections of the early American labour movement with which they were associated. These writers endorsed Jefferson’s view (which in any case was far from unique to him) that established practices of individual inheritance were a creature only of municipal law, and that those practices violated the natural law requirement that the property of the deceased should revert to the common stock. But, unlike him, they did not settle merely for the pragmatic reform of established inheritance practices. Instead, these authors called for the abolition of conventional municipal law entitlements in favour of the realisation of the natural law requirement, which they interpreted as calling not only for reversion to the common stock but also for redistribution through initially equal shares to each maturing adult. Apparently independently of each other and even perhaps of Agrarian Justice, they formulated very similar proposals for equal starting positions for all young adults to be secured by universal cash endowments funded by 100 per cent inheritance taxation. A mechanism of annual dividends would divide the value of the property left by those who died in a given year equally between all those who reached adulthood in that year. For Paine, there was nothing wrong with inheritance provided everyone received something; for these Americans, there was everything wrong with inheritance unless all received an equal share.

xvi John Cunliffe and Guido Erreygers

In his short essay, Blatchly drew not only on the Jeffersonian heritage, but also on his background as a Quaker and his experience as a practising physician among New York’s poor. Starting from the premise that property has a dual origin – both social and individual – he argued that whilst individuals were alive, they had full property rights; as soon as they died, however, their property rights simply disappeared with them. On this issue, Blatchly adopted similar objections to those of Jefferson over the convention of testamentary transmission: that convention was based on the absurd legal fiction of individual wills, and moreover, these were frequently oppressive and unjust. Blatchly proposed that in every year the property of the deceased had to be divided equally among the men and women reaching adulthood: ‘Every child in a nation has perhaps a natural right to an equal proportion of all the property of every deceasing member of the national family’.21 In a later essay, Blatchly abandoned this approach in favour of an uncompromising communitarian solution, becoming a staunch advocate of Owenite-style communities. In 1829 Blatchly stood as a candidate for the Working Men’s Party in the New York State Assembly elections. By that time the leader of the Working Men’s Party, Thomas Skidmore, had developed his own ‘Agrarian’ programme along similar lines, although apparently independently from Blatchly. Like Blatchly, Skidmore rejected conventional inheritance practices on the grounds that individual wills were nothing other than a legal fiction, that they contravened the rights of individuals of succeeding generations to an equal share of property, and that contrary to the usual claim, they did not provide an incentive to the conservation of property through time. Skidmore called for a system of dividends in which the value of the property left by those who died in any given year would be divided equally between all those who reached adulthood in that year. But, the distinctive and highly controversial feature of Skidmore’s programme was that the introduction of this annual redistributive mechanism had to be preceded by a sweeping tabula rasa in which all existing property would be reallocated on an equal individual basis. The essence of Skidmore’s revolutionary programme was laid down in an ambitious plan which consisted, on the one hand, of a proposed ‘General Division of Property’, aimed at the equalisation of property amongst all living adults, and on the other, of a scheme for an ‘Annual Dividend’, meant to preserve equality over time.22 Although the dividends were formally unconditional, the strong presumption was that they would be used productively to secure self-employment, or pooled in producer co-operatives. Of course, Skidmore acknowledged, a

Introduction xvii

few individuals might spend their dividends in a brief period of dissolute consumption. Even so, since the dividend ‘belonged’ to them unconditionally, they were entitled to make that choice. The dividends would be part of a comprehensive package of state welfare provision based on the general principle of pooling risk, including a system of maintenance allowances and publicly funded education for all children. Skidmore’s programme met with vigorous opposition in the New York Working Men’s Party, and at the instigation of Robert Dale Owen he was expelled from it. In many circles he was condemned as an excessively radical Agrarian, who damaged the credibility of the labour movement. Almost the same fate befell Orestes Brownson, whose early views on property and inheritance were seen by some as instrumental in the defeat of the Democratic Party candidate in the 1840 Presidential Elections. In that year, Brownson, a prolific writer notorious for his religious versatility, published two articles on the labouring classes in his own journal, the Boston Quarterly Review. Although his views on property were admittedly influenced by the Saint-Simonians, he distrusted their technocratic vision of society. He agreed that individual inheritance was illegitimate, but firmly rejected their idea of a centrally planned distribution of the means of production according to individual capacities. In the first article the proposal to abolish hereditary property was presented only at the very end, as a logical consequence of the destruction of all forms of privilege. At that stage, no further arguments in favour of the abolition proposal were developed by Brownson, apart from his statement that property should revert to the state on the death of the owner, and then be redistributed on some equitable basis to the next generation. Brownson stressed that his proposal was intended for discussion and not immediate adoption and the initially unfavourable reaction led him to publish a long defence of his views in a second article. There, Brownson emphasised a new argument in support of the proposal to equalise inheritance. This was the ambition to provide sufficient capital for all wage labourers to become independent proprietors running their own farm or workshop. In that event, a European style proletariat could be avoided and the total emancipation of labour secured. Such a policy would be widely supported, Brownson believed, since Americans preferred equality to privilege, at least in principle. In particular the idea that all should have equal chances in society would have unanimous support. But, Brownson observed, ‘as all Americans profess to believe’ in equal rights, the system of hereditary property had to be changed radically in favour of equal initial shares.23

xviii

John Cunliffe and Guido Erreygers

3.3. The Belgian tradition The next set of selections comes from the very different setting of ‘liberal-socialist’ thought that flourished in Belgium in the period between 1848 and 1875. Remarkably, this tradition led to a variety of independently formulated proposals, some advocating basic capital, and others, as we shall see, basic income. The initial text is from an unpublished manuscript of Paul Voituron, a lawyer active in Ghent, where he was the secretary of the Huet Society. This Society consisted of a group of by no means uncritical followers of the French philosopher François Huet. Huet held a professorship at the University of Ghent until he was forced to resign in 1850. After returning to Paris, he published Le Règne Social du Christianisme (1853), which reflected to some extent the discussions in the Huet Society.24 In Le Règne he advocated a scheme for inheritance taxation of natural resources and produced assets that would subject goods to a zero tax rate on the first intergenerational transfer but a 100 per cent tax on the second. The proceeds would be disbursed through an equal basic capital grant (‘dotation’) to every maturing adult. The combination of an endowment and universal education would realise the right of all persons to become independent workers capable of attending to their own needs. Beyond that, any further claims to state assistance (as opposed to charity) would be restricted to cases of involuntary misfortune. The degree of assistance should be sufficient to bring individuals up to the average level of well-being of other citizens, based on the extent of their involuntary misfortune. In marked contrast, the consequences of imprudence or negligence, along with exposure to foreseeable everyday risks, would have to be borne by the individual, either directly or through private insurance. As secretary of the Huet Society, Voituron meticulously recorded its transactions. Moreover, he wrote several lengthy manuscripts in which he developed his own distinctive position on many of the issues considered in the Society. In a manuscript dated March 1848, he presented a proposal which was probably instrumental in Huet’s later adoption of a dotation plan. Voituron endorsed a private property regime but only to the extent that it could be adapted to avoid the intergenerational inequalities generated by conventional inheritance practices. The planned reforms would be implemented in stages, beginning with revised systems of inheritance taxation which would fund free education and maintenance for the children of poor families. On reaching the legal age of majority, they would receive a basic capital endowment. This would place them in a position to live by their own labour. Over

Introduction

xix

the longer term, further changes in taxation policies would provide equal endowments for all maturing adults. Voituron admitted only one exception to strictly equal payouts: insofar as different occupations required different amounts of capital to produce the same net result, unequal allocations would be justified. In the course of what seems to have been a heated debate later in the year 1848, the members of the Huet Society failed to agree on the principle of basic capital. Even its supporters disputed amongst other things whether payouts should be equal, or inversely proportional to capital received from other sources, and whether they should be restricted to males. At about the same time, in a rural area not far from Ghent, the surveyor and farmer Napoleon De Keyser had been working on a curious book on a just society organised according to the principles of natural law. The book was written in the local dialect of the Dutch language – the language of the people – which might explain its subsequent obscurity.25 Nothing much is known about the author or how he came to write the book.26 De Keyser protested indignantly against the abuses of what he called the ‘oppressing power’, consisting of landowners backed by religious institutions. He vehemently denounced all the failings and injustices characteristic of ‘counter-natural societies’. The core injustice lay in the principle of private property in land, to which the solution was communal ownership. Nature had put at the disposal of all living creatures, including man, everything necessary to his existence. In the counter-natural societies, however, the concentration of landownership in the hands of a small minority allowed it to dominate the great mass of the disinherited. In a ‘natural society’, based upon justice and natural rights, this dominance would be abolished. De Keyser’s complicated and detailed prescription combined aspects of basic capital and income with a form of public service dividend. From late adolescence, education would be linked with compulsory public service, which included an extremely wide variety of possible roles. On completion of this public service, young adults would receive a cash endowment; at the age of 25, they would be given the opportunity to acquire by lottery a life-time lease of an area of land; and, after state expenses had been paid from the socialisation of rent, the net revenues of the land would be distributed equally to all on a quarterly cash basis. The final text is from Agathon De Potter, the key figure in popularising the economic and social aspects of the all-embracing ‘rational socialist’ doctrine created by another Belgian, Hippolyte Colins. Colins himself presented that doctrine in a large number of repetitive and turgid volumes published mainly in the 1850s.27 De Potter’s work in

xx John Cunliffe and Guido Erreygers

sharp contrast contains a brief and lucid exposition of the key points of the doctrine including the integral role of basic capital within it. The general theoretical ambition of the rational socialists was to develop an intermediate position between the extremes of full capitalism and full communism. The respective domains of private and collective property were demarcated by considerations of social justice within and between generations. Private property rights over self-created assets were legitimate insofar as they were generated from equal starting points provided by free education and a basic capital advance or social dowry. These would be provided from the taxation of wealth transfers, whether inter-vivos or through bequest or inheritance, together with a rent-tax on natural resource use. In principle, the transfers could be taxed at 100 per cent but a lesser rate might maximise the tax yield by retaining an incentive to property accumulation. The basic capital endowment would provide a choice between self-employment or wage labour, and pay rates would probably increase as a result. Those who had the misfortune to lose their social dowry would be entitled to another payment but this time in the form of social credit subject to strict repayment conditions; and all those incapable of working would be provided for directly by the state.

4. Basic income: a brief history 4.1. The Agrarian radicals In The Rights of Infants, the English land reform radical Thomas Spence asserted the superiority of his own reform scheme over the compromise and expediency of Paine’s welfare proposals. By 1797, Spence had already been publicising his scheme for over twenty years and saw no reason to change its core features in the light of this newcomer in the reform camp. Spence proposed that all land should be owned by parishes in the form of a joint-stock company composed of every local resident regardless of gender or age. The parish would allocate holdings to individuals or families through an auction with rents being payable to it. The proceeds would cover the very limited expenses of national and local government; any surplus would be distributed equally between all inhabitants of the parish at quarterly intervals, and Spence thought that the level of payment would be sufficient to secure a reasonable standard of living. Whereas the entitlement to participate in the bidding for leases on the land reflected Spence’s commitment to the right of all to the means of subsistence, these unconditional payments indicated his concern for the right to subsistence itself and anticipated some later basic income schemes.

Introduction

xxi

In the 1820s, the notorious freethinker and republican, Richard Carlile, challenged the whole basis of Spence’s scheme as it was presented by one of his closest followers, Allen Davenport. The challenge was presented in a series of sardonic comments published in the radical newspaper, The Republican. It involved four related charges that presage current objections to basic income: the first was that the payments would obviously have to be funded somehow from taxation which would therefore be higher than otherwise; the second was that ultimately taxation would fall on labour because land produced little without it; the third was that the payments would constitute a disincentive to labour, transforming the whole nation into parasitic and idle ‘little royal families’; and the last was that this disincentive, in combination with Malthusian pressures, would result in very low levels of payment anyway. Given these objections, Carlile’s preferred alternative was a single progressive land tax to finance all government activity; this would act as an incentive for owners of large estates to ensure that their land was productively cultivated rather than being left as wastes or parklands. In turn, this incentive to productive cultivation would increase employment and demand for goods, which would no longer be taxed, and therefore cheaper.28 4.2. The Fourierist tradition The idea of a ‘social minimum’ appears throughout Fourier’s writings, whether early or late, published or unpublished. The short extract reprinted here, from a letter written in 1803, contains probably the first allusion of Fourier to the social minimum. But, as is often the case with him, in later works he used the idea in a bewildering variety of ways. Despite that variety, three features appear fundamental: the minimum is delivered in kind, it is restricted to the poor, and it is advanced without any work requirement on the part of those who receive it. Fourier’s social minimum was transformed into a comprehensive and detailed basic income scheme by a sympathetic but far from uncritical supporter, the elusive Belgian writer, Joseph Charlier.29 This scheme was presented initially in his Solution du Problème Social ou Constitution Humanitaire, Basée sur la Loi Naturelle, et Précédée de l’Exposé de Motifs (1848). In later writings stretching over some fifty years, Charlier continued to defend and refine his initial basic income proposal. Charlier maintained that natural resources were intended by God to provide a guarantee for the ‘vital needs’ of all persons. Produced assets by contrast were destined to meet the ‘acquired needs’ of each person. Only the

xxii John Cunliffe and Guido Erreygers

‘vital needs’ generated a fundamental right: because every human being had the right to live, each person had a right to a share of the fruits of the earth sufficient to provide subsistence. The essential role of the state consisted in guaranteeing the individual right to the produce of the common patrimony by ensuring that all were included and none excluded. The basic income scheme was a monetised expression of this fundamental right. In contrast, ‘acquired needs’ did not generate a right but merely a discretionary power. Whether and to what extent these relative needs were fulfilled was a matter for individual choice expressed through labour. For Charlier, therefore, entitlements to property should be assigned on two principles applying to different domains: common property in natural resources, with guaranteed individual shares in their bounty, but full private property rights in produced assets. Charlier’s basic income or ‘guaranteed minimum’ would be paid to all – man and woman, young and old – from the day they were born until the day they died, in monthly or three-monthly instalments. The state would derive the financial resources for this scheme from the socialisation of rent and related measures, with compensation arrangements for existing landowners. Alongside the minimum, Charlier proposed other welfare measures reflecting particular obligations to vulnerable groups, with children being entitled to education and maintenance, and the old and infirm to special care. He claimed that his ‘humanitarian constitution’ provided a ‘mathematical solution’ to the problem of restoring a collective right to land without violating the legal titles of present owners.30 In a thorough assessment of his guaranteed minimum or ‘territorial dividend’ scheme, Charlier considered both its potential advantages and disadvantages. The wide range of advantages included the elimination of poverty, economic security and personal dignity, a degree of economic independence that would put an end to ‘the domination of capital over labour’, and increased production as individuals concentrated on satisfying the expanding domain of their acquired needs. The possible disadvantages included some which intriguingly remain contested even in present-day debates. The first was that the level of payment funded only by land taxation might be insufficient to meet basic needs. Charlier conceded that possibility especially at the outset of the scheme with the interim compensation arrangements for existing landowners. Even so, Charlier increased the legitimate funding base considerably by extending it beyond the original value of unimproved land to a wider ‘real estate’ tax. This included not only the improved value of land resulting from human labour but also buildings and other fixtures. Moreover, he argued that if the dividend were calculated globally rather

Introduction

xxiii

than nationally, its level would be more than enough to meet basic needs. The second potential disadvantage considered was that an unconditional payment would be an incentive to idleness creating a new class of rentiers. Charlier acknowledged that there might indeed be a minority of individuals content to survive exclusively on the dividend, but that was their right. Others might squander it on drink and entertainment, but, if they were left destitute until the next payment, that was their problem. That a minority might abuse the payment was no excuse for depriving them or others of their entitlement. 4.3. The British tradition The final set of texts is drawn from various basic income plans presented in Britain mainly in the period between 1918 and 1939.31 These begin with the State Bonus Scheme developed by a group of young Quakers (Dennis Milner, E. Mabel Milner and Bertram Pickard) in the immediate aftermath of the First World War. The pragmatic objective of the scheme was to provide an administratively simple but comprehensive solution to the Social Problem characterised by the destitution of the working class and persistent industrial unrest. At a deeper level, however, the scheme was based on the principle that every human being had an equal right to ‘the primal necessities of life’.32 Instead of an existing system of relief founded on invidious distinctions between deserving and undeserving poor, the proposed solution directly implemented that principle by calling for a subsistence level weekly allowance from birth for every permanently resident British subject. This basic income would replace all existing monetised benefits but other public services would still be provided in kind. The scheme would be financed by the deduction at source of a fixed percentage of all income, earned and unearned, and it was estimated at the time that this fixed percentage should be set at 20 per cent. The concern that the proposed basic income scheme might promote ‘slacking’ was a recurrent theme in the State Bonus writings. In their responses, the advocates of the scheme maintained that a subsistence level basic income would actually have a positive rather than a negative effect on labour supply. Insofar as material incentives influenced both the capacity and willingness to work, the guaranteed income would confer increased bargaining power and lead to higher wages, generating more efficient production. To the extent that non-material benefits such as job satisfaction or self-realisation were significant inducements, these too would be enhanced under a system in which the main reason to engage in paid labour was not simply fear of destitution. Failing this,

xxiv John Cunliffe and Guido Erreygers

‘slackers’ would be subject to social pressures and moral regulation to educate them into a preference for work. Although individuals might have the right to live solely on their basic income, those who did so acted selfishly because by so doing they threatened the sustainability of the scheme. In the last resort, however, slackers should not be forced to work by the threat of starvation, since ‘Even the slave-owner gives his slaves food and shelter before applying the whip’: after all, the State Bonus was nothing more than the monetised equivalent of the right of universal access to land and those of its products which could be grown ‘with very little effort’.33 The next selection, from the Major Douglas follower C. Marshall Hattersley (1922), introduces the argument that each citizen has a right to an unconditional basic income not as an expression of his or her share of the natural resources of a territory, but rather as a share in the very widely defined ‘Common Cultural Inheritance of the Community’.34 Given such a wide definition, a large proportion of the current social product would be available for distribution in the form of Communal or National Dividends. Apart from and in addition to any income from wages, every member of the community was entitled as a co-heir to an equal share of this common inheritance ‘irrespective of whether the recipient is employed or not, or of his or her financial status’.35 This mechanism was justifiable in principle as well as pragmatically, being an administratively simpler and more comprehensive way of responding to unemployment and other misfortunes than the existing patchwork social security system. In the next extract, G.D.H. Cole (1929) assesses ‘State Bonus’ or ‘Dividends for All’ as typifying a move away from a distribution according to labour, towards a distribution according to need. But, he cautions against the social utopians who enthusiastically anticipate the complete dominance of a distribution according to need across all spheres. In his view, ‘the ordinary man’, who ‘forms a court from which there is no appeal’, might welcome an extensive social security system based on the recognition of a social minimum ‘below which no human being must on any account be allowed to fall’.36 But, that welcome would be conditional on social security being a complement to rather than a complete replacement of a wage system based on the principle of reward according to work. Otherwise, as Cole reports his opinion of the sentiments of the ordinary man, without a financial inducement, why work hard? Cole returned to these issues in discussing the Principles of Economic Planning (1935). The two main sources of income would be rewards for work in the form of wages or salaries, and ‘social dividends’. These equal

Introduction

xxv

dividends would be paid directly by the state as ‘a civic right’ in ‘recognition of each citizen’s claim as a consumer to share in the common heritage of productive power’.37 The tendency in a planned economy would be steadily to reduce the proportion of total income distributed through wages and steadily to enlarge the amount of the social dividend. The objective would be to ensure that the level of the dividend was sufficient to cover minimum needs. For most people, this dividend income would exceed their earnings as a salary or wage, which would now become a means to enjoying a surplus above the minimum. Although these earnings would become more in the nature of ‘pocket-money’, the incentive to work would remain through the desire to secure the ‘little luxuries’ of life.38 Inequality in earnings would remain, but its degree could be reduced markedly because the need for very high monetary incentives was a product of class inequality, and not of human nature. In the final text, Juliet Rhys-Williams (1943) directly resorts to a version of welfare contractualism in response to the problem of totally relieving all want without encouraging idleness and destroying incentives to work. In her view, the ‘simple solution’ to this problem was to abandon the dominant convention that the State owed assistance only to those unfortunate citizens who became destitute, unemployed or sick. That dominant convention should be replaced with ‘the democratic principle’ that the State owed precisely the same advantages to every citizen.39 The new principle would be expressed through a voluntary contract between each adult and the State. The terms of the contract would acknowledge the duty of the State to maintain the individual at all times and in return the individual would acknowledge a duty to work. The State would fulfil its duty by providing a weekly payment at a level sufficient for subsistence, but that payment would be conditional on proof that the individual was gainfully employed or willing to accept employment. The ‘Social Contract allowances’ would replace all other monetised benefits but they would be complemented by the provision of a wide range of benefits in kind. Those unwilling to enter into the contract would be denied its benefits and would have to rely on private means or charity.

5. The thematic continuities The selections discussed in this introduction should be sufficient to demonstrate that there are striking similarities within and between these recurrent proposals for basic capital and basic income, whether in the diagnosis of the problems to be addressed, the prescriptions offered, or the difficulties which have been thought to beset the proposals.

xxvi John Cunliffe and Guido Erreygers

Both sets of proposals identified the crucial problem to be addressed as wage labour’s inability continuously to provide an income sufficient to avoid poverty, although ‘forced’ on workers by their lack of any viable alternative. Both prescriptions sought to realise such a viable alternative by providing all individuals with enough resources to secure at least some degree of economic independence. In an analysis made familiar by Marx, workers were ‘forced’ to sell their labour power because they were separated from the means of production and therefore from the means of subsistence.40 The various basic capital advocates directly addressed the first of these separations. Their ambition was to provide generalised opportunities for economic independence by making selfemployment on independently owned productive assets a realistic option. Given that option, the hope was that pay rates for wage labour might also increase, offering a genuine choice between wage labour and self-employment. The various basic income schemes directly addressed the second of the separations, seeking to guarantee subsistence within a capitalist or ‘mixed economy’. Wage labour would now be an opportunity and therefore undertaken more voluntarily. The basic capital prescription was recognised by its advocates as being vulnerable to a central objection. It conceded that the changed terms of access to the means of production did not provide any guarantee that the advantage obtained would be sufficient to meet even basic needs. The opportunities provided by the basic capital payout might be wasted for all sorts of reasons; and self-employment or wage labour might still not provide a continuously adequate income sufficient to alleviate poverty. Given those recognised possibilities, the various basic capital schemes presented different responses to the key issues of whether and to what extent there should be any state provision of baseline income maintenance. Those responses reflected not only different views of the legitimacy of paternalistic intervention, but also a fundamental tension between the ambitions of securing an unconditional right of reasonable access to the means of production, and of realising an unconditional right to subsistence itself.41 The basic income prescription was acknowledged by its proponents as being open to a major concern: the ambition of securing unconditional baseline maintenance within a capitalist or ‘mixed economy’ might be threatened by problems of labour supply. Typically, supporters of those schemes admitted the possibility that basic income might act as a disincentive to paid employment, but then went on to argue that this possibility would not be realised on a large scale because of other countervailing effects. Even if ‘idling’ or ‘slacking’ were legally permissible, the hope was that

Introduction xxvii

its scale would be minimised by establishing basic income at barely subsistence level, and by cultural constraints together with civic education, designed to persuade individuals that although they might have a right to live exclusively on basic income it was not the acceptable thing to do. Modern day proposals for basic capital or basic income might justifiably be regarded as inheriting similar ambitions to these earlier cases even if presented largely in ignorance of them. Now, as then, the general ambition might be characterised as capitalism without ‘the proletarian condition’. That condition is typified by the cumulative effect of three interconnected features: poverty, dependence and inequalities in education and/or starting-gate wealth, especially as a result of inheritance practices.42 Now, as then, basic capital schemes seek to realise capitalism with equal starts; by reducing those initial inequalities, the payout provides more equal opportunities for success, including the opportunity to avoid poverty and the vulnerable condition of dependent wage labour. But, ‘if you mess up, you live with the consequences’, including, of course, poverty and the necessity of wage labour.43 Now, as then, basic income schemes endorse capitalism only if a baseline income is maintained, thereby supplying a cushion against failure and poverty by reducing dependence, especially dependence on the labour market. From the very outset, all these unconditional schemes have had to contest either the ‘validity’ or the ‘decisiveness’ of the parasite objection.44 Now, as then, instead of a stark contrast between these alternatives, at least some schemes combine elements of both in various intermediate positions, balancing the opportunities for success provided by basic capital with the cushion for failure supplied by basic income.45 All these schemes have one central focus – under what conditions would capitalism have a legitimacy which unreformed capitalism is said to lack? For this reason, they will be criticised by those who find them insufficiently radical (for example, because they do not challenge individual private property), or too radical (for example, because of the tax regimes they would require). But for those who share the ambition of harnessing capitalism’s productive potential while moderating inequality and alleviating poverty, they have provided – and continue to provide – a set of thought provoking and possibly inspiring arguments.

Notes 1. White (2003) presents a comprehensive and rigorous analysis of these types of proposal amongst others. Ackerman and Alstott (1999) and Van Parijs (1995) present sustained justifications of basic capital and basic income respectively.

xxviii John Cunliffe and Guido Erreygers 2. The now standard distinction between pragmatic and principled arguments for basic income was introduced originally in Barry (1996). 3. The set of issues over the local or global scope of payments in terms of citizenship, nationality or residence is discussed in the context of basic income by Steiner (2003) and Van Parijs (2003). 4. On basic income levels, see, for example, Van Parijs (1995: 35–41), and for basic capital, Wright (2000: 148). 5. Miller (2003), van der Veen (2003), and Wright (2000) offer outstanding examples. 6. See, for example, Dowding, De Wispelaere and White (2003: 3). 7. Miller (2003: 107–8). 8. See Wright (2000: 150) and Miller (2003: 109); van der Veen (2003: 150) neatly captures the contrast in arguing that: ‘Basic capital envisages a “culture of property ownership”. Basic income hopes to engender a “culture of disposable time”.’ 9. See, for instance, van Donselaar (1997). 10. These responses are presented in Barry (1996). 11. On basic income, see especially Reeve (2003: 3–10), and on basic capital, White (2003: 196–9) 12. Although principled arguments are, of course, also likely to be concerned with considerations of efficiency and yield. See van der Veen (1998) for a detailed analysis in relation to basic income. 13. The debate between White (1997) and Van Parijs (1997) illustrates some of the issues. 14. See, for example, Van Parijs (1995: 41–8). 15. The notable example is the Basic Income European Network (Bien); its American counterpart is the U.S. Basic Income Guarantee (USBIG) organization; and the comparable body in the United Knigdom is the Citizen’s Income Trust. The respective websites are: www.basicincome.org; www.usbig.net; and www. citizensincome.org. 16. This view on the nature of political thought is drawn from Waldron (1988: 132–6) where it is rigorously defended. 17. The phrase and the underlying perspective are taken from Ball (2000: 62–3). 18. Claeys (1989: 196–208) offers a detailed historical account. 19. Infra, p. 12. 20. For a more sustained analysis, see Cunliffe and Erreygers (2004) and the references therein. 21. Infra, p. 20. Blatchly realised that this mechanism secured equal shares within rather than between successive generations and suggested some averaging procedure to address the issue. 22. Infra, pp. 24–7. 23. Infra, p. 39. 24. Some of the central sections are available in translation in Vallentyne and Steiner (2000). For an analysis of Huet’s intellectual position, see Cunliffe (1997), and on its provenance, Cunliffe and Erreygers (1999). 25. Nevertheless G.D.H. Cole was aware of it, via Malon, who in turn derived his information from De Paepe. Cf. Cole (1953–1960, Vol. II: 67–9), and Bertrand (1906–1907, Vol. II: 101–14), who summarised De Keyser’s arguments and translated a few paragraphs into French.

Introduction

xxix

24. The available facts have been collected by Paul De Keyser (1948); he also ‘translated’ a number of extracts into modern Dutch. 27. A comprehensive analysis of Rational Socialism is presented in Rens (1968, 1970) and Rens and Ossipow (1979). A more recent appraisal of the Colinsian school has been made by Angenot (1999). 28. Chase (1988: 121–45) gives a detailed view. 29. See Cunliffe and Erreygers (2001) and the references therein for a detailed account of Charlier’s scheme and its Fourierist pedigree. 30. Infra, p. 104. 31. Van Trier (1995) offers a comprehensive analysis of this tradition. 32. Infra, p. 128. 33. Infra, p. 131. 34. Infra, p. 143. Useful background information on the Social Credit movement headed by Major Douglas can be found in Finlay (1972) and Van Trier (1995). 35. Infra, p. 144. 36. Infra, p. 151. 37. Infra, p. 159. 38. Infra, p. 159. 39. Infra, p. 166. 40. Wright (2000: 149–50) assesses basic capital and basic income schemes in the light of this dual separation. 41. White (2003: 138) emphasises the contrast between ‘a right to be given some resource, x, unconditionally’ and ‘an unconditional right of reasonable access to a given resource’. 42. White (2003: 86–91) presents an extended analysis of the various features of what he calls ‘the proletarian condition’. 43. Ackerman and Alstott (1999: 215). 44. White (2003: 169) draws the distinction in this context. 45. As van der Veen (2003) emphasises, despite their preference for basic capital over basic income, Ackerman and Alstott present a more subtle scheme, which combines elements of both; see also Van Parijs (2001: 12–13) for a more limited concession to basic capital.

This page intentionally left blank

Part I Basic Capital Proposals

This page intentionally left blank

1 Thomas Paine Agrarian Justice (1797)

Reprint, with permission, of Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice (1797), in: Hillel Steiner and Peter Vallentyne (eds), The Origins of Left-Libertarianism. An Anthology of Historical Writings (Basingstoke, Palgrave, 2000), pp. 83–97. Tom Paine was born in Thetford, Norfolk on 29 January 1737. After following various occupations, Paine emigrated to America in 1774 where he became a journalist in Philadelphia. In the following war with England, Paine actively promoted the American cause and visited France to seek financial support for it. Paine returned to Europe in 1787 spending most of his time in France. There, he became a citizen and was elected to the National Convention but imprisoned during the Terror. Outlawed in England, Paine returned to America in 1802 where he remained until his death in New York City on 8 June 1809. In his last major pamphlet, Agrarian Justice (1797), Paine presented a series of radical welfare proposals and a sustained philosophical justification of them. These proposals included for the first time the provision of an equal cash endowment to all young adults. Everyone therefore would have an initial inheritance to start adult life with. The endowments and other benefits would be funded by a ground-rent from landowners which recognised that all persons were entitled to an equal share of the value of raw natural resources. But, the ground-rent would be collected through inheritance taxation which would also reflect the role of society in making personal accumulations of property possible.

To preserve the benefits of what is called civilized life, and to remedy at the same time the evil which it has produced, ought to be considered as one of the first objects of reformed legislation. Whether that state that is proudly, perhaps erroneously, called civilization, has most promoted or most injured the general happiness of man, is a question that may be strongly contested. On one side, the spectator is dazzled by splendid appearances; on the other, he is shocked by extremes of wretchedness; both of which it has erected. The most 3

4

Thomas Paine

affluent and the most miserable of the human race are to be found in the countries that are called civilized. To understand what the state of society ought to be, it is necessary to have some idea of the natural and primitive state of man; such as it is at this day among the Indians of North America. There is not, in that state, any of those spectacles of human misery which poverty and want present to our eyes in all the towns and streets in Europe. Poverty, therefore, is a thing created by that which is called civilized life. It exists not in the natural state. On the other hand, the natural state is without those advantages which flow from agriculture, arts, science and manufactures. The life of an Indian is a continual holiday, compared with the poor of Europe; and, on the other hand it appears to be abject when compared to the rich. Civilization, therefore, or that which is so called, has operated two ways: to make one part of society more affluent, and the other more wretched, than would have been the lot of either in a natural state. It is always possible to go from the natural to the civilized state, but it is never possible to go from the civilized to the natural state. The reason is that man in a natural state, subsisting by hunting, requires ten times the quantity of land to range over to procure himself sustenance, than would support him in a civilized state, where the earth is cultivated. When, therefore, a country becomes populous by the additional aids of cultivation, art and science, there is a necessity of preserving things in that state; because without it there cannot be sustenance for more, perhaps, than a tenth part of its inhabitants. The thing, therefore, now to be done is to remedy the evils and preserve the benefits that have arisen to society by passing from the natural to that which is called the civilized state. In taking the matter upon this ground, the first principle of civilization ought to have been, and ought still to be, that the condition of every person born into the world, after a state of civilization commences, ought not to be worse than if he had been born before that period. But the fact is that the condition of millions, in every country in Europe, is far worse than if they had been born before civilization began, or had been born among the Indians of North America at the present day. I will show how this fact has happened. It is a position not to be controverted that the earth, in its natural, uncultivated state was, and ever would have continued to be, the common

Agrarian Justice 5

property of the human race. In that state every man would have been born to property. He would have been a joint life proprietor with the rest in the property of the soil, and in all its natural productions, vegetable and animal. But the earth in its natural state, as before said, is capable of supporting but a small number of inhabitants compared with what it is capable of doing in a cultivated state. And as it is impossible to separate the improvement made by cultivation from the earth itself, upon which that improvement is made, the idea of landed property arose from that inseparable connection; but it is nevertheless true, that it is the value of the improvement, only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor, therefore, of cultivated lands, owes to the community a ground-rent (for I know of no better term to express the idea) for the land which he holds; and it is from this ground-rent that the fund proposed in this plan is to issue. It is deducible, as well from the nature of the things as from all the histories transmitted to us, that the idea of landed property commenced with cultivation, and that there was no such thing as landed property before that time. It could not exist in the first state of man, that of hunters. It did not exist in the second state, that of shepherds: neither Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, nor Job, so far as the history of the Bible may be credited in probable things, were owners of land. Their property consisted, as is always enumerated in flocks and herds, and they traveled with them from place to place. The frequent contentions at that time about the use of a well in the dry country of Arabia, where those people lived, also show that there was no landed property. It was not admitted that land could be claimed as property. There could be no such thing as landed property originally. Man did not make the earth, and, though he had a natural right to occupy it, he had no right to locate as his property in perpetuity any part of it; neither did the Creator of the earth open a land-office, from whence the first title-deeds should issue. Whence then, arose the idea of landed property? I answer as before, that when cultivation began the idea of landed property began with it, from the impossibility of separating the improvement made by cultivation from the earth itself, upon which that improvement was made. The value of the improvement so far exceeded the value of the natural earth, at that time, as to absorb it; till, in the end, the common right of all became confounded into the cultivated right of the individual. But there are, nevertheless, distinct species of rights, and will continue to be, so long as the earth endures.

6

Thomas Paine

It is only by tracing things to their origin that we can gain rightful ideas of them, and it is by gaining such ideas that we discover the boundary that divides right from wrong, and teaches every man to know his own. I have entitled this tract ‘Agrarian Justice’ to distinguish it from ‘Agrarian Law’. Nothing could be more unjust than agrarian law in a country improved by cultivation; for though every man, as an inhabitant of the earth, is a joint proprietor of it in its natural state, it does not follow that he is a joint proprietor of cultivated earth. The additional value made by cultivation, after the system was admitted, became the property of those who did it, or who inherited it from them, or who purchased it. It had originally no owner. While, therefore, I advocate the right, and interest myself in the hard case of all those who have been thrown out of their natural inheritance by the introduction of the system of landed property, I equally defend the right of the possessor to the part which is his. Cultivation is at least one of the greatest natural improvements ever made by human invention. It has given to created earth a tenfold value. But the landed monopoly that began with it has produced the greatest evil. It has dispossessed more than half the inhabitants of every nation of their natural inheritance, without providing for them, as ought to have been done, an indemnification for that loss, and has thereby created a species of poverty and wretchedness that did not exist before. In advocating the case of the persons thus dispossessed, it is a right, and not a charity, that I am pleading for. But it is that kind of right which, being neglected at first, could not be brought forward afterwards till heaven had opened the way by a revolution in the system of government. Let us then do honour to revolutions by justice, and give currency to their principles by blessings. Having thus in a few words, opened the merits of the case, I shall now proceed to the plan I have to propose, which is, To create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property: And also, the sum of ten pounds per annum, during life, to every person now living, of the age of fifty years, and to all others as they shall arrive at that age.

Means by which the fund is to be created I have already established the principle, namely, that the earth, in its natural uncultivated state was, and ever would have continued to be,

Agrarian Justice 7

the common property of the human race; that in that state, every person would have been born to property; and that the system of landed property, by its inseparable connection with cultivation, and with what is called civilized life, has absorbed the property of all those whom it dispossessed, without providing, as ought to have been done, an indemnification for that loss. The fault, however, is not in the present possessors. No complaint is intended, or ought to be alleged against them, unless they adopt the crime by opposing justice. The fault is in the system, and it has stolen imperceptibly upon the world, aided afterwards by the agrarian law of the sword. But the fault can be made to reform itself by successive generations; and without diminishing or deranging the property of any of the present possessors, the operation of the fund can yet commence, and be in full activity, the first year of its establishment, or soon after, as I shall show. It is proposed that the payments, as already stated, be made to every person, rich or poor. It is best to make it so, to prevent invidious distinctions. It is also right it should be so, because it is in lieu of the natural inheritance, which, as a right, belongs to every man, over and above the property he may have created, or inherited from those who did. Such persons as do not choose to receive it can throw it into the common fund. Taking it then for granted that no person ought to be in a worse condition when born under what is called a state of civilization, than he would have been had he been born in a state of nature, and that civilization ought to have made, and ought still to make, provision for that purpose, it can only be done by subtracting from property a portion equal in value to the natural inheritance it has absorbed. Various methods may be proposed for this purpose, but that which appears to be the best (not only because it will operate without deranging any present possessors, or without interfering with the collection of taxes or emprunts necessary for the purposes of government and the Revolution, but because it will be the least troublesome and the most effectual, and also because the subtraction will be made at a time that best admits it) is at the moment that property is passing by the death of one person to the possession of another. In this case, the bequeather gives nothing: the receiver pays nothing. The only matter to him is that the monopoly of natural inheritance, to which there never was a right, begins to cease in his person. A generous man would not wish it to continue, and a just man will rejoice to see it abolished. My state of health prevents my making sufficient inquiries with respect to the doctrine of probabilities, whereon to found calculations

8

Thomas Paine

with such degrees of certainty as they are capable of. What, therefore, I offer on this head is more the result of observation and reflection than of received information; but I believe it will be found to agree sufficiently with fact. In the first place, taking twenty-one years as the epoch of maturity, all the property of a nation, real and personal, is always in the possession of persons above that age. It is then necessary to know, as a datum of calculation, the average of years which persons above that age will live. I take this average to be about thirty years, for though many persons will live forty, fifty, or sixty years, after the age of twenty-one years, others will die much sooner, and some in every year of that time. Taking, then, thirty years as the average of time, it will give, without any material variation one way or other, the average of time in which the whole property or capital of a nation, or a sum equal thereto, will have passed through one entire revolution in descent, that is, will have gone by deaths to new possessors; for though, in many instances, some parts of this capital will remain forty, fifty, or sixty years in the possession of one person, other parts will have revolved two or three times before those thirty years expire, which will bring it to that average; for were one-half the capital of a nation to revolve twice in thirty years, it would produce the same fund as if the whole revolved once. Taking, then, thirty years as the average of time in which the whole capital of a nation, or a sum equal thereto, will revolve once, the thirtieth part thereof will be the sum that will revolve every year, that is, will go by deaths to new possessors; and this last sum being thus known, and the ratio per cent to be subtracted from it determined, it will give the annual amount or income of the proposed fund, to be applied as already mentioned. In looking over the discourse of the English Minister, Pitt, in his opening of what is called in England the budget (the scheme of finance for the year 1796), I find an estimate of the national capital of that country. As this estimate of a national capital is prepared ready to my hand, I take it as a datum to act upon. When a calculation is made upon the known capital of any nation, combined with its population, it will serve as a scale for any other nation, in proportion as its capital and population be more or less. I am the more disposed to take this estimate of Mr Pitt, for the purpose of showing to that minister, upon his own calculation, how much better money may be employed than in wasting it, as he has done, on the wild project of setting up Bourbon kings. What, in the name of heaven, are Bourbon kings to the people of England? It is better that the people have bread.

Agrarian Justice 9

Mr Pitt states the national capital of England, real and personal, to be one thousand three hundred millions sterling, which is about onefourth part of the national capital of France, including Belgia. The event of the last harvest in each country proves that the soil of France is more productive than that of England, and that it can better support twentyfour or twenty-five millions of inhabitants than that of England can seven or seven and a half millions. The thirtieth part of this capital of £1,300,000,000 is £43,333,333 which is the part that will revolve every year by deaths in that country to new possessors; and the sum that will annually revolve in France in the proportion of four to one, will be about one hundred and seventythree millions sterling. From this sum of £43,333,333 annually revolving, is to be subtracted the value of the natural inheritance absorbed in it, which, perhaps, in fair justice, cannot be taken at less, and ought not to be taken for more, than a tenth part. It will always happen that of the property thus revolving by deaths every year a part will descend in a direct line to sons and daughters, and the other part collaterally, and the proportion will be found to be about three to one; that is, about thirty millions of the above sum will descend to direct heirs, and the remaining sum of £13,333,333 to more distant relations, and in part to strangers. Considering, then, that man is always related to society, that relationship will become comparatively greater in proportion as the next of kin is more distant; it is therefore consistent with civilization to say that where there are no direct heirs society shall be heir to a part over and above the tenth part due to society. If this additional part be from five to ten or twelve per cent, in proportion as the next of kin be nearer or more remote, so as to average with the escheats that may fall, which ought always to go to society and not to the government (an addition of ten per cent more), the produce from the annual sum of £43,333,333 will be: From £30,000,000 at ten per cent From £13,333,333 at ten per cent with the addition of ten per cent more £43,333,333

£3,000,000




2,666,666 £,5,666,666

Having thus arrived at the annual amount of the proposed fund, I come, in the next place, to speak of the population proportioned to this fund and to compare it with the uses to which the fund is to be applied.

10 Thomas Paine

The population (I mean that of England) does not exceed seven millions and a half, and the number of persons above the age of fifty will in that case be about four hundred thousand. There would not, however, be more than that number that would accept the proposed ten pounds sterling per annum, though they would be entitled to it. I have no idea it would be accepted by many persons who had a yearly income of two or three hundred pounds sterling. But as we often see instances of rich people falling into sudden poverty, even at the age of sixty, they would always have the right of drawing all the arrears due to them. Four millions, therefore, of the above annual sum of £5,666,666 will be required for four hundred thousand aged persons, at ten pounds sterling each. I come now to speak of the persons annually arriving at twenty-one years of age. If all the persons who died were above the age of twentyone years, the number of persons annually arriving at that age must be equal to the annual number of deaths, to keep the population stationary. But the greater part die under the age of twenty-one, and therefore the number of persons annually arriving at twenty-one will be less than half the number of deaths. The whole number of deaths upon a population of seven millions and an half will be about 220,000 annually. The number arriving at twentyone years of age will be about 100,000. The whole number of these will not receive the proposed fifteen pounds, for the reasons already mentioned, though, as in the former case, they would be entitled to it. Admitting then that a tenth part declined receiving it, the amount would stand thus: Fund annually

£5,666,666

To 400,000 aged persons at £10 each £4,000,000 To 90,000 persons at 21 years, £15 ster. each 1,350,000 5,350,000 Remains

£316,666

There are, in every country, a number of blind and lame persons totally incapable of earning a livelihood. But as it will always happen that the greater number of blind persons will be among those who are above the age of fifty years, they will be provided for in that class. That remaining sum of £316,666 will provide for the lame and blind under that age, at the same rate of £10 annually for each person. Having now gone through all the necessary calculations, and stated the particulars of the plan, I shall conclude with some observations.

Agrarian Justice 11

It is not charity but a right, not bounty but justice, that I am pleading for. The present state of civilization is as odious as it is unjust. It is absolutely the opposite of what it should be, and it is necessary that a revolution should be made in it. The contrast of affluence and wretchedness continually meeting and offending the eye, is like dead and living bodies chained together. Though I care as little about riches as any man, I am a friend to riches because they are capable of good. I care not how affluent some may be, provided that none be miserable in consequence of it. But it is impossible to enjoy affluence with the felicity it is capable of being enjoyed, while so much misery is mingled in the scene. The sight of the misery, and the unpleasant sensations it suggests, which, though they may be suffocated cannot be extinguished, are a greater drawback upon the felicity of affluence than the proposed ten per cent upon property is worth. He that would not give the one to get rid of the other has no charity, even for himself. There are, in every country, some magnificent charities established by individuals. It is, however, but little that any individual can do, when the whole extent of the misery to be relieved is considered. He may satisfy his conscience, but not his heart. He may give all that he has, and that all will relieve but little. It is only by organizing civilization upon such principles as to act like a system of pulleys, that the whole weight of misery can be removed. The plan here proposed will reach the whole. It will immediately relieve and take out of view three classes of wretchedness – the blind, the lame, and the aged poor; and it will furnish the rising generation with means to prevent their becoming poor; and it will do this without deranging or interfering with any national measures. To show that this will be the case, it is sufficient to observe that the operation and effect of the plan will, in all cases, be the same as if every individual were voluntarily to make his will and dispose of his property in the manner here proposed. But it is justice, and not charity, that is the principle of the plan. In all great cases it is necessary to have a principle more universally active than charity; and, with respect to justice, it ought not to be left to the choice of detached individuals whether they will do justice or not. Considering, then, the plan on the ground of justice, it ought to be the act of the whole growing spontaneously out of the principles of the revolution, and the reputation of it ought to be national and not individual. A plan upon this principle would benefit the revolution by the energy that springs from the consciousness of justice. It would multiply also the

12 Thomas Paine

national resources; for property, like vegetation, increases by offsets. When a young couple begin the world, the difference is exceedingly great whether they begin with nothing or with fifteen pounds apiece. With this aid they could buy a cow, and implements to cultivate a few acres of land; and instead of becoming burdens upon society, which is always the case where children are produced faster than they can be fed, would be put in the way of becoming useful and profitable citizens. The national domains also would sell the better if pecuniary aids were provided to cultivate them in small lots. It is the practice of what has unjustly obtained the name of civilization (and the practice merits not to be called either charity or policy) to make some provision for persons becoming poor and wretched only at the time they become so. Would it not, even as a matter of economy, be far better to adopt means to prevent their becoming poor? This can best be done by making every person when arrived at the age of twenty-one years an inheritor of something to begin with. The rugged face of society, chequered with the extremes of affluence and want, proves that some extraordinary violence has been committed upon it, and calls on justice for redress. The great mass of the poor in all countries are become an hereditary race, and it is next to impossible for them to get out of that state of themselves. It ought also to be observed that this mass increases in all countries that are called civilized. More person fall annually into it than get out of it. Though in a plan of which justice and humanity are the foundation principles, interest ought not to be admitted into the calculation, yet it is always of advantage to the establishment of any plan to show that it is beneficial as a matter of interest. The success of any proposed plan submitted to public consideration must finally depend on the numbers interested in supporting it, united with the justice of its principles. The plan here proposed will benefit all, without injuring any. It will consolidate the interest of the republic with that of the individual. To the numerous class dispossessed of their natural inheritance by the system of landed property it will be an act of national justice. To persons dying possessed of moderate fortunes it will operate as a tontine to their children, more beneficial than the sum of money paid into the fund: and it will give to the accumulation of riches a degree of security that none of the old governments of Europe, now tottering on their foundations, can give. I do not suppose that more than one family in ten, in any of the countries of Europe, has, when the head of the family dies, a clear property left of five hundred pounds sterling. To all such the plan is advantageous. That property would pay fifty pounds into the fund, and if there

Agrarian Justice 13

were only two children under age they would receive fifteen pounds each (thirty pounds), on coming of age, and be entitled to ten pounds a year after fifty. It is from the overgrown acquisition of property that the fund will support itself; and I know that the possessors of such property in England, though they would eventually be benefited by the protection of nine-tenths of it, will exclaim against the plan. But without entering into any inquiry how they came by that property, let them recollect that they have been the advocates of this war, and that Mr Pitt has already laid on more new taxes to be raised annually upon the people of England, and that for supporting the despotism of Austria and the Bourbons against the liberties of France, than would pay annually all the sums proposed in this plan. I have made the calculations stated in this plan, upon what is called personal, as well as upon landed property. The reason for making it upon land is already explained; and the reason for taking personal property into the calculation is equally well founded though on a different principle. Land, as before said, is the free gift of the Creator in common to the human race. Personal property is the effect of society; and it is as impossible for an individual to acquire personal property without the aid of society, as it is for him to make land originally. Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man’s own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came. This is putting the matter on a general principle, and perhaps it is best to do so; for if we examine the case minutely it will be found that the accumulation of personal property is, in many instances, the effect of paying too little for the labour that produced it; the consequence of which is that the working hand perishes in old age, and the employer abounds in affluence. It is, perhaps, impossible to proportion exactly the price of labour to the profits it produces; and it will also be said, as an apology for the injustice, that were a workman to receive an increase of wages daily he would not save it against old age, nor be much better for it in the interim. Make, then, society the treasurer to guard it for him in a

14 Thomas Paine

common fund; for it is no reason that, because he might not make a good use of it for himself, another should take it. The state of civilization that has prevailed throughout Europe, is as unjust in its principle, as it is horrid in its effects; and it is the consciousness of this, and the apprehension that such a state cannot continue when once investigation begins in any country, that makes the possessors of property dread every idea of a revolution. It is the hazard and not the principle of revolutions that retards their progress. This being the case, it is necessary as well for the protection of property as for the sake of justice and humanity, to form a system that, while it preserves one part of society from wretchedness, shall secure the other from depredation. The superstitious awe, the enslaving reverence, that formerly surrounded affluence, is passing away in all countries, and leaving the possessor of property to the convulsion of accidents. When wealth and splendour, instead of fascinating the multitude, excite emotions of disgust; when, instead of drawing forth admiration, it is beheld as an insult upon wretchedness; when the ostentatious appearance it makes serves to call the right of it in question, the case of property becomes critical, and it is only in a system of justice that the possessor can contemplate security. To remove the danger, it is necessary to remove the antipathies, and this can only be done by making property productive of a national blessing, extending to every individual. When the riches of one man above another shall increase the national fund in the same proportion; when it shall be seen that the prosperity of that fund depends on the prosperity of individuals; when the more riches a man acquires, the better it shall be for the general mass; it is then that antipathies will cease, and property be placed on the permanent basis of national interest and protection. I have no property in France to become subject to the plan I propose. What I have, which is not much, is in the United States of America. But I will pay one hundred pounds sterling towards this fund in France, the instant it shall be established; and I will pay the same sum in England, whenever a similar establishment shall take place in that country. A revolution in the state of civilization is the necessary companion of revolutions in the system of government. If a revolution in any country be from bad to good, or from good to bad, the state of what is called civilization in that country, must be made conformable thereto, to give that revolution effect. Despotic government supports itself by abject civilization, in which debasement of the human mind, and wretchedness in the mass of the

Agrarian Justice 15

people, are the chief criterions. Such governments consider man merely as an animal; that the exercise of intellectual faculty is not his privilege; that he has nothing to do with the laws but to obey them;1 and they politically depend more upon breaking the spirit of the people by poverty, than they fear enraging it by desperation. It is a revolution in the state of civilization that will give perfection to the Revolution of France. Already the conviction that government by representation is the true system of government is spreading itself fast in the world. The reasonableness of it can be seen by all. The justness of it makes itself felt even by its opposers. But when a system of civilization, growing out of that system of government, shall be so organized that not a man or woman born in the Republic but shall inherit some means of beginning the world, and see before them the certainty of escaping the miseries that under other governments accompany old age, the Revolution of France will have an advocate and an ally in the heart of all nations. An army of principles will penetrate where an army of soldiers cannot; it will succeed where diplomatic management would fail: it is neither the Rhine, the Channel, nor the ocean that can arrest its progress: it will march on the horizon of the world, and it will conquer.

Means for carrying the proposed plan into execution, and to render it at the same time conducive to the public interest I. Each canton shall elect in its primary assemblies, three persons, as commissioners for that canton, who shall take cognizance, and keep a register of all matters happening in that canton, conformable to the charter that shall be established by law for carrying this plan into execution. II. The law shall fix the manner in which the property of deceased persons shall be ascertained. III. When the amount of the property of any deceased persons shall be ascertained, the principal heir to that property, or the eldest of the co-heirs, if of lawful age, or if under age, the person authorized by the will of the deceased to represent him or them, shall give bond to the commissioners of the canton to pay the said tenth part thereof in four equal quarterly payments, within the space of one year or sooner, at the choice of the payers. One-half of the whole property shall remain as a security until the bond be paid off. IV. The bond shall be registered in the office of the commissioners of the canton, and the original bonds shall be deposited in the national

16 Thomas Paine

bank at Paris. The bank shall publish every quarter of a year the amount of the bonds in its possession, and also the bonds that shall have been paid off, or what parts thereof, since the last quarterly publication. V. The national bank shall issue bank notes upon the security of the bonds in its possession. The notes so issued, shall be applied to pay the pensions of aged persons, and the compensations to persons arriving at twenty-one years of age. It is both reasonable and generous to suppose, that persons not under immediate necessity, will suspend their right of drawing on the fund, until it acquire, as it will do, a greater degree of ability. In this case, it is proposed, that an honorary register be kept, in each canton, of the names of the persons thus suspending that right, at least during the present war. VI. As the inheritors of property must always take up their bonds in four quarterly payments, or sooner if they choose, there will always be numéraire [cash] arriving at the bank after the expiration of the first quarter, to exchange for the bank notes that shall be brought in. VII. The bank notes being thus put in circulation, upon the best of all possible security, that of actual property, to more than four times the amount of the bonds upon which the notes are issued, and with numéraire continually arriving at the bank to exchange or pay them off whenever they shall be presented for that purpose, they will acquire a permanent value in all parts of the Republic. They can therefore be received in payments of taxes, or emprunts equal to numéraire, because the Government can always receive numéraire for them at the bank. VIII. It will be necessary that the payments of the ten per cent be made in numéraire for the first year from the establishment of the plan. But after the expiration of the first year, the inheritors of property may pay ten per cent either in bank notes issued upon the fund, or in numéraire. If the payments be in numéraire, it will lie as a deposit at the bank, to be exchanged for a quantity of notes equal to that amount; and if in notes issued upon the fund, it will cause a demand upon the fund equal thereto; and thus the operation of the plan will create means to carry itself into execution.

Note 1. An expression used by Bishop Horsley in the Parliament of England – Paine.

2 Cornelius Blatchly Some Causes of Popular Poverty, Derived from the Enriching Nature of Interests, Rents, Duties, Inheritances, and Church Establishments, Investigated in their Principles and Consequences, and Agreement with the Scriptures (1817)

Excerpts from Cornelius Blatchly, Some Causes of Popular Poverty, Derived from the Enriching Nature of Interests, Rents, Duties, Inheritances, and Church Establishments, Investigated in their Principles and Consequences, and Agreement with the Scriptures (1817), in: Thomas Branagan, The Pleasures of Contemplation (Philadelphia, Eastwick & Stacy, 1817), pp. 195–220. The three extracts reproduced here are from pp. 195–6, 204–7 and 210. Cornelius Camden Blatchly was born on 1 January 1773 in Mendham, New Jersey. As a physician, he practised among New York’s poor. His first important publication was the essay Some Causes of Popular Poverty which appeared in 1817 as an appendix to Thomas Branagan’s Pleasures of Contemplation (the author’s name is given as C.C. Blatchley). Around 1820 Blatchly founded the New York Society for Promoting Communities, which two years later published his An Essay on Common Wealths, containing a large number of excerpts from Robert Owen’s A New View of Society. Later in the 1820s he supported the working men’s political movement in New York City. Blatchly died on 5 December, 1831. In Some Causes of Popular Poverty Blatchly identified several causes of poverty and oppression. These included the absurd legal fiction of inheritance which should be replaced by a mechanism devised to ensure equal initial shares for each individual. Blatchly’s proposed mechanism was remarkably simple: in every year the property of the deceased had to be divided equally among the men and women reaching adulthood. In An Essay on Common Wealths Blatchly abandoned that proposal in favour of a communitarian solution in which inclusive rights to all property would replace any exclusive rights.

17

18 Cornelius Blatchly

[Blatchly’s pamphlet appeared as an appendix to Thomas Branagan’s The Pleasures of Contemplation. Branagan (1774–1843) was a repentant slaver of Irish descent. In his introduction (p. 194) to Blatchly’s essay, Branagan explained its inclusion in the following terms: With respect to Dr. Blatchley’s ingenious and benevolent remarks, I must say that they need no apology, neither as to matter or composition – especially when it is remembered that he is not in the habits of writing for the press. Did my readers know the character of this ‘Friend’ as well as I do, they would no doubt feel interested while perusing his benevolent observations on the causes of ‘Popular Poverty’. I really know no man in America who is more liberal and philanthropic in his intercourse with men, whether as a physician, a minister of the gospel, or a private citizen, than Dr. Blatchley. His writing the following strictures at my simple request, shows the urbanity of his disposition. The cause of my request was as follows: the Dr. wrote me a friendly letter about ten months ago, wherein he lamented, in the most pathetic manner, the distresses of the poor, and pointed out some causes that naturally produce these fatal effects, which I read with much interest, and in a moment recognized their utility as well as originality, and forthwith requested him to write me an enlarged dissertation on the same subject which I proposed to introduce in my next publication. He freely granted my request, and I as freely and pleasurably comply with my proposition, and forthwith introduce the subsequent interesting document as an appendice to the ‘Pleasures of Contemplation’. – The Editors]

Introduction Though the oppressions of the poor and sighings of the needy, arise from a multiplicity of circumstances, yet the following, among other causes, demand particular attention; because they have attracted too little attention. They are these: 1st, Interests. 2d, Rents. 3d, Duties. 4th, Inheritances. 5th, Churches established by laws of men. I have here viewed them theoretically, practically, and scripturally. Every evil disposition of the heart, and every erroneous principle of the mind, when brought into action, habit, and custom, oppresses and more or less destroys, civil and religious light, liberty, happiness, and prosperity. Where is there a single perverse propensity, or erroneous principle of action, that has not led its votaries to the commission of every kind of sin against the Creator, and every kind of iniquity against

Some Causes of Popular Poverty 19

the creature, which has groaned in bondage from the fall of man to the present day? The history of them would fill volumes, and each of them deserves one to teach by examples and facts, how greatly error and vice ought to be feared and avoided. What oppressions, persecutions, and destruction of the human species have been produced by ambition, by pride, by vanity, by resentment and anger, by false honour and glory, by coveteousness, by luxury, by sexual lust, by drunkenness, by gaming, horse-racing, cock-fighting, bull-beating, boxing, and other undue pleasures and pursuits, by fear of man, by erroneous hopes, by erroneous fears, by false principles in domestic, political, and religious matters. Pagans have oppressed the Jews and Christians; Christians, so called, have persecuted and slain Pagan, Jew, and Turk; Mahometans have trod in the same path; and the world has, for thousands of years, been an aceldama1, a Golgotha, a scene of slavery and tyranny, and a house of miserable lamentation and heart-rending afflictions. I have not time, abilities, nor opportunities to go into the detail of these things; and must leave them to the reader’s reflections, while he notices, with me, similar evils in the subjects I have already proposed to consider, and which are not reprobated, but generally esteemed salutary regulations. The slave trade was lately esteemed to be judicious and beneficial, because its principle, practice, and consequences, had not been duly investigated. Duelling and war are now under public consideration, and are likely to become more abhorrent than the trade in flesh and souls of human beings. I hope commerce in luxuries will, in due time, be considered as a desolating evil. Great Britain is said to import annually 20 millions of pounds sterling in articles she ought to disuse such as tea, tobacco, ardent spirits, &c. Commerce should be restricted to things necessary, useful, and convenient; its excess is a vice that produces the most serious and destructive consequences in individuals and states.

Section 1 (…) Inheritances Though New-York, New-Jersey, and other states divide intestates[’] property equally, yet Inheritances have usually been more confined to men than women; and to the first son in preference to all the others. They have also been more partial to the opulent, than to needy or worthy people. Justice seems to require a different law and custom, than this feudal one.

20 Cornelius Blatchly

If property is considered in respect to its origin, it is social and individual: being the result and fruits of social protection, policy, and assistance, or of individual care, wisdom and industry. The civil united interest of society is one of the great sources of civilisation, and of wealth and property. What could an unprotected individual do to acquire, preserve, or retain property, where no social government, civilisation, and protection existed? The answer is not difficult on comparing the wandering savage of the wilderness with a civilised and well regulated nation; and by such a view we may perceive that society is the principal origin, and that to social union and wisdom we owe almost every thing; even every thing that distinguishes the civilised from the most destitute, solitary, degraded and ignorant savages of any country. If we owe so much to social union, and if our individual all, is from it, is not our individual all in a measure due to it? does it not belong to it? – and consequently to its disposal, as soon as death severs any individual of us from social rights and privileges? That society thus considers this matter, is evident from its regulating the properties of departed souls defunct; and how and by whom they may be willed and inherited. The laws of inheritances are very different in different nations; as justice, ambition, whim, and selfishness dictated. In China, women inherit nothing. In England, the eldest son inherits the landed estate, in preference to all the other children. But the United States of North America, has disposed of inheritances more justly, by a more equal and general partition of the departed soul[’]s estate among his nearest relations; so that wills here are not so requisite as in many other nations. How can a man who is dead, be said to will? All his mental and corporal powers, have ceased as to this world. He has no property; he has no power; he can have no will; for he has no existence in this world; and consequently, he has in this world no property. Whose, therefore, is the property that was in his occupation while he existed? To whom can it more naturally and rationally revert than to its most immediate source, to the society, the community, the nation whence his property was derived? It is the commonwealth’s. But the community has parted with her right; and has ordered, that what the man willed in his lifetime, however partial and unjust, shall regulate the disposal of the property after his decease. But as the property does, of right, belong to the whole community, and to every man and woman an equal portion, is she clear of the iniquity of unjust and oppressive wills? She is not. Every child in a nation has perhaps a natural right to an equal proportion of all the property of every deceasing member of the national family: and if so, they ought, consequently, to have the legal and municipal right

Some Causes of Popular Poverty 21

and privilege. Though children have a right only to so much of their parents[’] property, as their services have exceeded the expenses of their education and bringing up, they have also a right to their averaged share, which is due from the society. Suppose we were a nation of seven millions of inhabitants, and that each person (if the whole property in the union was equally divided) would be entitled to a dividend worth 3000 dollars; and suppose (of the men and women who are adult, and hold property,) one seventieth of the whole population, or 100,000, die annually, these would leave a property of three hundred million of dollars and more. As about 100,000 young people might annually arrive to the legal state of inheriting, each of these, would2 be justly entitled (according to this statement) to about three thousand dollars, as their just inheritance. This portion is due to each, as a member of the whole family, of whom God should be the head, as he is the author and donor of every good thing we enjoy. If the principle of justice [is] of this nature, the practice of every people ought to be in conformity to it. Nor is it impossible to do our duties; or man would be excusable, blameless, and guiltless before his maker. Towns might, in a corporate capacity, regulate the families within it: counties, superintend the concerns of towns; states oversee counties, and congress examine the reports, and see to the order, equity, and happiness of the whole national family. That the average wealth among families, is about 3000 dollars as stated, appears by the estimate of Wm. Pitt. When England and Wales3 contained 9,343,578 inhabitants, or about 1,896,723 families, the property of the country appeared to have been valued at 1,200,000,000l. sterling, which is about 632l. sterling, or 3000 dollars to a family. If, therefore, some families by force, fraud, interest, duties and rents, and inheritances, acquire one or two hundred times this sum, consequently one or two hundred families must be without a pound sterling. No wonder, therefore, that Martin, who conducted an inquiry into the state of mendacity in London, reported to the secretary of the realm, 15,288 beggars in that city, beside those in alms-houses, &c. As but one-sixth of the families of Great Britain are found to be farmers, or 407,647 families, and 73 millions of acres are said to be in the island improved or waste, the average of these acres among the farmers would be about 180 acres to each family. If some one has six times this amount, others must hold six times less than this average. Deduct more than a third for uncultivated and waste land, and each family will have less than 120 acres. They are supposed, by William Spence’s calculation,

22 Cornelius Blatchly

to produce 120,000,000l. sterling annually; that is about 294l. for the support, comfort, and prosperity of each family. If, therefore, any family is worth 3 or 4000 dollars, let him be satisfied as having his average of social property. For he that has more, may have more than his due, to the injury of another. (…) These are a few of the evils, afflictions, and deaths attributable to interests, rents, duties, and unequal inheritances. The miseries are more than I am able to depicture. How many poor men know not what they shall eat, drink, or do the next day, or how soon their wives and children may be obliged to suffer from the husband’s sickness, want of employ, or other calamity? His children’s education, prosperity, and happiness, are as dear to him as the children of the opulent are to the rich man. And why, says he, must a poor, honest, and industrious man and his family suffer every way and in every thing, while the opulent overreaching4 drone, is blest from every quarter? Has God or man ordained this? If God, what kind of a God is he? I have no hope on earth; and what, from such a God, can I hope for hereafter? Thus the opulent, not only harden their own hearts by their iniquitous conduct, but the hearts of the poor whom they oppress, afflict, and murder by disease, hardships, and poverty; and by war, pestilence, and famine. They, who afflict and murder others are afflicted and murdered themselves, by luxurious idleness, luxury, and excess in eating, drinking, clothing, sleeping, and indulgences. Their morals, as well as their healths, are injured by vices flowing from contrary sources, which frequently terminate in the same things, and bear the same fruits. Luxury kills as well as poverty. ‘Gula occidit quam gladius, sen fames.’5

Notes 1. [Spelled ‘acceldama’ by Blatchly. This a reference to the ‘field of blood’ (Acts, 1:19), the name given to the land purchased by Judas Iscariot with the money he received for the betrayal of Jesus. – The Editors] 2. [Misprinted ‘mould’. – The Editors] 3. [Misprinted ‘Wale’s’. – The Editors] 4. [Misprinted ‘overeaching’. – The Editors] 5. [This Latin sentence does not make sense. We suspect that Blatchly wanted to quote a verse of uncertain origin: Gula plures occidit quam gladius, estque fomes omnium malorum (Gluttony kills more than the sword, and is the kindler of all evils). – The Editors]

3 Thomas Skidmore The Rights of Man to Property! Being a Proposition to Make it Equal among the Adults of the Present Generation: and to Provide for its Equal Transmission to Every Individual of Each Succeeding Generation, on Arriving at Maturity (1829)

Excerpts from Thomas Skidmore, The Rights of Man to Property! Being a Proposition to Make it Equal among the Adults of the Present Generation: and to Provide for its Equal Transmission to Every Individual of Each Succeeding Generation, on Arriving at Maturity (original edition: New York, private print, 1829; facsimile reprint: New York, Burt Franklin, 1964). The extracts reproduced here are from Chapter IV ‘The Proposition’ (pp. 137–44), and from Chapter VI ‘Reasons’ (pp. 256–60). Thomas Skidmore was born on 13 August 1790 in Newtown, Connecticut. At the age of 13 he became a teacher, being employed at different schools in Connecticut, New Jersey, Virginia and North Carolina. In June 1819 Skidmore settled in New York City where he played a prominent role in its turbulent labour politics. He continued to live there until his early death on 7 August 1832 as a victim of the cholera epidemic. Thomas Skidmore’s only major book, The Rights of Man to Property!, was published at the end of 1829. Its long and significant subtitle aptly summarised his ideas: Being a Proposition to Make it Equal among the Adults of the Present Generation: and to Provide for its Equal Transmission to Every Individual of Each Succeeding Generation, on Arriving at the Age of Maturity. The first part of this proposition was a draconian plan to immediately restore the original equality of property rights. The second part was designed to maintain equality by the abolition of the system of individual inheritance and its replacement by an equal share mechanism.

23

24 Thomas Skidmore

So much has been said as to what really is not, and should not be, that the reader is, no doubt, prepared to anticipate, in part, what should be; to foresee the modification, which it is necessary our State Government should undergo, before the rights of property, which belong to man in his natural state, can be secured to him, in the artificial state in which society finds him; and before the rights of posterity can be preserved to them, as they should have been to us, for their own exclusive use and benefit. This modification will be accomplished by pursuing the following.

Plan 1. Let a new State-Convention be assembled. Let it prepare a new Constitution, and let that Constitution, after having been adopted by the people, decree an abolition of all debts; both at home and abroad, between citizen and citizen; and between citizen and foreigner. Let it renounce all property belonging to our citizens, without the State. Let it claim all property within the State, both real and personal, of whatever kind it may be, with the exception of that belonging to resident aliens, and with the further exception of so much personal property, as may be in the possession of transient owners, not being citizens. Let it order an equal division of all this property among the citizens, of and over the age of maturity, in manner yet to be directed. Let it order all transfers or removals of property, except so much as may belong to transient owners, to cease, until the division is accomplished. 2. Let a census be taken, of the people; ascertaining and recording in books made for the purpose, the name, time when born, as near as may be, and annexing the age, the place of nativity, parentage, sex, color, occupation, domicil or residence and time of residence since last resident in the State, distinguishing aliens from citizens, and ordering, with the exception of the Agents of Foreign Governments, – such as Ambassadors, &c. that all such aliens shall be considered as citizens, if they have been resident for the five years next previous to the time when the before mentioned division of property, shall have been ordered. 3. Let each citizen, association, corporation, and other persons at the same time when the census is being taken, give an inventory of all personal property, of whatever description it may be, and to whomsoever it may belong, in his, her, or their possession. Let also a similar inventory of all real property, within the State, be taken, whoever may be the owner of it. And from these data, let a General Inventory, be made out of all the real and personal property, within the State, which does not belong to alien residents, or transient owners. To this, let there be added

The Rights of Man to Property 25

all property in the possession of our tribunals of law and equity; and such State property, as can be offered up to sale without detriment to the State. 4. Let there be, next, a dividend made of this amount, among all such citizens, who shall be of and over, the age of eighteen, if this should be fixed, as I am inclined to think it should be, as the age of maturity; and let such dividend be entered in a book for the purpose, to the credit of such persons, male and female. 5. Let public sale be made, as soon after such dividend is made, as may be practicable, to the highest bidder, of all the real and personal property in the State. Care must be taken that the proper authority be required to divide all divisible property, that shall require it, into such allotments or parcels, as will be likely to cause it to bring the greatest amount, at the time of sale. 6. All persons having such credit, on the books before mentioned, are authorised and required, to bid for, an amount of property, falling short not more than ten per cent, of the sum placed to their credit, and not exceeding it more than ten per cent. Delivery may be made of the whole, if it be real property and the receiver may stand charged with the overplus. If it be personal property – delivery to be made, only to the amount of the dividend, unless it be secured. 7. When property, real or personal is offered for sale, which is not in its nature divisible, and in its value such as to be of an amount – greater than would fall to the lot of any one person – then it shall be proper to receive a joint-bid, of two or more persons, and these may purchase in conjunction, giving in their names, however, at the time of sale. 8. As it regards personal property, which may be secreted, or clandestinely put out of the way; order should be given, that from the time when any Inventory, of any person’s property of the kind, is made out, up to the completion of the General Sale, the owner should be answerable for the forth-coming of so much as may be left in his possession, at the peril of imprisonment for fourteen years, as is now the punishment for the crime of grand larceny, unless good cause were shown to the contrary. Similar punishment, also, should be visited upon every one who, knowingly, gave in a false or defective statement of the property he had in his possession, or who, having received his patrimony, goes abroad and receives debts or property which the State has renounced. 9. As the General Sales are closed, their amount should be ascertained, and a new dividend declared. It will then be seen how much this dividend, which may be called a patrimony, differs from the original dividend. By comparing the amount of each person’s purchases with

26 Thomas Skidmore

this patrimony, it will be seen whether he is creditor or debtor to the State, and how much; and he will be entitled to receive the same, or required to pay it to, the State accordingly. 10. There is one exception to the delivering of property to persons, who may bid it off. It is to those, for whom, from excessive intemperance, insanity, or other incapacitating cause, the law may provide, as it should, proper and suitable trustees or guardians. Under proper regulations, it should be entrusted to them. 11. While all this is transacting, persons already arrived at the age of maturity, and before they can be put in possession of their own patrimony, will die. Of these and others throughout the State, a daily register should be kept from this time forward forever; and so also should be kept, another register of the births of those now in minority, and of those that shall hereafter be born. The property intended to be given to those who shall thus have died, and the property of those who shall have received their patrimony in consequence of the General Division, and who shall die before the first day of January ensuing, the completion of the General Sales, shall be divided equally among all those who shall have arrived at the age of maturity, between the time of taking the Census aforesaid, and the first day of January just mentioned. 12. An annual dividend, for ever, shall be made of the property, left, throughout the State, by persons dying between the last day of every year and the first day of the next succeeding, among those who, throughout the State, male and female shall have arrived at the age of maturity, within such period: and it shall be at their option, after the dividend is made, to receive it in cash, or to use the credit of it, in the future purchase of other property, which the State will have constantly on sale, in consequence of the decease of other persons in the ensuing year. 13. Property belonging to persons, not citizens, but transiently resident among us, and dying here, to abide by the laws which govern the State or nation to which such person belonged, in the disposal of property in such a situation; provided such State or Nation allows the property, or the value thereof, of our citizens, dying there, and leaving property, to be sent home, to abide by the operation of our own laws. 14. Other States or Nations adopting a similar internal organization, as it regards the transmission1 of property to posterity, and consenting to bestow patrimonies upon minors born in this State, (and who shall prefer receiving them in any such foreign State) upon their producing documents certifying the fact of their nativity, age, &c. and that they have received no patrimony from their native State: shall have the favor reciprocated, under like circumstances: otherwise, a minor born in

The Rights of Man to Property 27

another State must reside the last ten years of his minority in this, before he can be considered as entitled to the patrimony of a native born citizen, and must moreover be liable to severe punishment, if, either after he has received his patrimony, he accepts aught from his native or other State, by way of legacy or gift; or, before maturity, he receives such legacy, or gift, and then accepts the patrimony in question. 15. All persons of full age, from abroad, Ambassadors &c. excepted, resident one year among us, are citizens, and must give up all property over an amount equal to the patrimony of the State for the year being, unless such persons were citizens of a State, acknowledging the equal rights of all men to property, in manner the same as this State is supposed to do. 16. All native born citizens from the period of their birth, to that of their maturity shall receive from the State, a sum paid by monthly or other more convenient instalments, equal to their full and decent maintenance, according to age and condition; and the parent or parents, if living and not rendered unsuitable by incapacity or vicious habits, to train up their children, shall be the persons, authorized to receive it. Otherwise, guardians must be appointed to take care of such children and receive their maintenance-allowance. They are to be educated also, at the public expense. 17. When the death happens, of either of any two married persons, the survivor, retains one half of the sum of their joint property, their debts being first paid. The other half goes to the State, through the hands of the Public Administrator; this Officer taking charge of the effects of all deceased persons. 18. Punishment by imprisonment, for a term of fourteen years, should be visited upon him, who, during his life time, gives away his property to another. Hospitality is of course not interdicted, but charity is, inasmuch as ample provision will be made by the State for such persons as shall require it. The good citizen has only to inform the applicant for charity where his proper wants will be supplied. 19. All persons after receiving their patrimony,2 will be at full liberty to reside within the State; or to take it, or its avails to any other part of the world which may be preferred, and there to reside, as a citizen or subject of another State. 20. Property being thus continually and equally divided forever, and the receivers of such property embarking in all the various pursuits and occupations of life; these pursuits and occupations must be guaranteed against injury from foreign competition, or, otherwise, indemnity should be made by the State.

28 Thomas Skidmore

I have thus developed the principles of the modification which the Government of this State should undergo, and the means necessary to accomplish it, in order that every citizen may enjoy in a state of society, substantially, the rights which belong to him in a state of nature. I leave the reader therefore for the present to his own reflections; intending in the next chapter to offer such reasons as the subject admits, for enforcing the propriety of adopting such modification, and of the means proposed, of accomplishing it. (…) I said it would not be necessary, ever again, after the proposed first General Division, to have another. The remedy against the necessity for its occurrence a second time, is natural and easy. Let there be no wills. It has already been shown; that they do not exist, of right; that they originated in wrong and usurpation; and that they contravene the rights of the succeeding generation. When we appear on the stage of existence, we are ourselves, the posterity of those who have gone before us. In our turn we shall be the ancestors of those who are to come after us. In the first instance, it is to our interest, that our ancestors should have been just to us. It is but justice in us, that we practice the same rule of right to those who shall succeed us. Let then, each generation manage its own affairs, without being interfered with by those who have gone before it; and without interfering, itself, with those, who are to come after it. This is genuine justice; this is true policy. Let this be resolved on, and all is easy to accomplish. Wills, then, are destroyed, they exist no more to curse the earth with calamities. Let the dead rest in peace; and be suffered no longer to disturb the living. Let a daily register be kept of them, as they depart from among us. Everyday, if you please, let the property of those, throughout the State, who shall die on that day, be assigned to those, also throughout the State, who shall on the same day, arrive at the age of maturity; let it be divided equally among them all, male and female, and given to them as their patrimony forever. Thus will it be easy to cause a perpetual and imperceptible transmission of the property of the State into the hands (and equally too) of the succeeding generation. Every person will take that course of life that suits him best; pursue it undisturbed, till he shall choose to change it for himself, or till he shall have lived out the term of his existence. When he dies, he knows not who his successor or successors are to be; but this is of little consequence to him. If he shall think it accords better with the dictates of nature and reason, or either, that he should feel more

The Rights of Man to Property 29

solicitous for the welfare of his own children, than for those of others, although the Creator has made all equal; it will be sufficient for him, that his children are provided for, by the State, from the effects of deceased persons, forty years, it may be, before the expiration of his own existence; that they have their patrimony in the morning of their lives, without distressing or disturbing him for a dollar of it; and pursue their course rejoicing; that, even his grand-children, will or may have similar provision made for them, also, in the same way, before his race is run. How much more consoling to him must such a system appear; than that which calls upon him, either to see two or three generations waiting for his death, in order that they may have wherewith to provide for their welfare; or to see himself compelled to give up, during his own life-time, for the satisfaction of their wants, what he may feel to be essential to his own. How much more agreeable to his feelings, than the present wretched system, whereby, he may be stripped, through calamity, or villany, of all that he has, and thus have it in his power to give to his children nothing? Whereas, under the system which it is my happiness to propose, nothing of this sort can happen; and consequently, his and all children, on coming to the age of maturity, will have provision made for them, of which nothing can deprive them. It is probable, that these enlightened and humane considerations may fail to have their full weight on the minds of some rich proprietors; but, with how much propriety may not the government address them; ‘you are rich, it is true, to-day; but, you have no assurance that you will be rich to-morrow: we order you, therefore, to submit to the introduction of the system in question; that the future happiness of your children, may not be dependent on any contingency whatever, which may befall3 you. Your offspring have rights, which we will cause you to respect, and which we will not suffer you, either, to violate yourselves, or to place in situations, in which they may be exposed to the danger of violation by others. We will take care that they shall be sure to have an equal and reasonable amount of property, at the commencement of the mature part of their lives, rather than to be made dependant on any one, possibly for a greater sum, at a more unsuitable period of life; with a probability, that they may never receive it at all.’ Reasons like these, are such as a whole people have a right to address to those, who shall oppose that humane and equitable system, which seeks to provide for the happiness of all. And such, too, is the language, which the children of the wealthy, if they understand their own true interests, will wish to see addressed to their parents. Such, in substance, is the plan proposed to be made use of, to supersede all wills, by means of which, property may daily transmit itself to

30 Thomas Skidmore

the approaching generation. Literally, however, to fulfil it, would not agree with that strict and equal justice, which is attainable, by a trifling modification. It appears, from registers kept of deaths in our different cities and elsewhere, that they do not happen so nearly uniform, one day with another, as might at first thought be imagined. I have not now at hand any work of the kind to refer to, other than a printed ‘Statement of deaths, with the diseases and ages, in the City, and Liberties of Philadelphia from the first of Jan. 1828, to first of Jan, 1829’; from which it appears, that the deaths of Adult persons During the Spring months, were “ Summer do. – “ Autumnal do. – “ Winter do. –

449 492 587 487

The average being 504. So that, if we suppose the births of children to be uniformly equal in number, one day with another, throughout the year, the patrimonies would be as the numbers above. That is, children born in the Spring months, on arriving at the age of maturity, would receive, say 449; those born in the Summer months, would receive 492; those born in the Autumnal months would receive 587; and those born in the Winter months 487: the highest being in Autumn, and the lowest in Spring; the former being more than 30 per cent above the latter; a difference quite too great to be admitted to have place, when we can so easily find the means to remedy it. And as to the particular months in those seasons, the foregoing statement adds, that the greatest number of Adults died in September, the smallest number in May. So that the difference would be, for those two months, even yet wider. But, it does not happen, as supposed, that the births are equal, one day with another throughout the year. The variation is considerable. I have no means near me, of ascertaining numbers in this respect; but, ‘Observations made in several countries, concur in determining the months of December and January, to be those in which the greatest number of children are born.’4 This circumstance, therefore, will have its influence, in rendering patrimonies still more unequal than is already shown. I apprehend that they might differ so much, as that one should be double that of another. This would be an unpardonable difference; when, by simply directing all the estates of persons dying within any one year, to be divided among all those who should arrive at age, during the same year, (or during the succeeding year would be the same in principle), the

The Rights of Man to Property 31

whole difficulty would be removed, and that with every practical advantage that could be desired; thus preserving all the beauty of principle, which is visible in the daily division above mentioned. Article 12, of the PLAN page 141, is predicated, on these facts, respecting births and deaths.

Notes 1. 2. 3. 4.

[Misprinted ‘transmismission’. – The Editors] [Misprinted ‘partimony’. – The Editors] [Misprinted ‘befal’. – The Editors] Malte Brun’s Geography, Book 22, p. 196. [Probably a reference to an American edition of Précis de la Géographie Universelle (1810–1829, 8 vols) by the French geographer of Danish descent Conrad Malte-Brun (1775– 1826). – The Editors]

4 Orestes Brownson Brownson’s Defence. Defence of the Article on the Laboring Classes. From the Boston Quarterly Review (1840)

Excerpts from Orestes A. Brownson, Brownson’s Defence. Defence of the Article on the Laboring Classes. From the Boston Quarterly Review (1840), a pamphlet in which Brownson assembled his two articles on the ‘Laboring Classes’ which earlier that year he had published in the Boston Quarterly Review. (Original edition: Boston, Benjamin H. Greene, 1840; facsimile reprint in: Orestes A. Brownson, The Laboring Classes (1840) with Brownson’s Defence of the Article on the Laboring Classes, facsimile reproductions with an introduction by Martin K. Doudna, Delmar (NY), Scholar’s Facsimiles & Reprints, 1978). The extracts produced here are from the ‘Prefatory Note’ (p. i), written by Brownson for the separate republication, and pp. 64–8 and pp. 73–86. Orestes A. Brownson was born on 16 September 1803 in Stockbridge, Vermont. He was a prolific writer, well known in his early life for adopting versatile religious opinions. In 1840 he published two articles in his own journal, the Boston Quarterly Review, which sparked a controversy that may have played a role in the Presidential election of that year. The July issue carried his ‘The Laboring Classes’ and the October issue a much longer article with the same title which later became known as ‘Brownson’s Defence of the Article on the Laboring Classes’. Perhaps because of all the commotion they stirred, the articles have not been included in his collected works, edited in 20 volumes by his son Henry. After his conversion to Catholicism in 1844, Brownson published many works typified by religious and political conservatism. He died in Detroit, Michigan on 17 April 1876. In the first article on the Laboring Classes, Brownson argued that hereditary property was a form of unearned privilege that should be abolished in the 32

Brownson’s Defence

33

American system. It should be replaced by a procedure through which the property of the deceased reverted to the state for equitable allocation to a new generation. In the second article, Brownson argued that the allocation should be in the form of an equal cash endowment. This would confirm the American spirit of equal chances by providing equal starting points especially in opportunities for self-employment in an independent small business.

Prefatory note The following article is republished from the Boston Quarterly Review to meet the pressing demand for it, which a needless excitement about it has produced. The writer of the article makes it his duty to read all that he can find written against either him or his doctrines; but he feels under no obligations to reply. The doctrines of the article in question have been objected to, but he will now enter into no defence of them. He will only say that he has seen no criticism upon them, that indicates that the critic had even the most distant conception of the thought of his author. The majority of those who object to the article, are respectfully commended to the care of the instructors in our primary schools; for if they could read they would find that the article itself refutes most of the objections they urge. In regard to what is said of the hereditary descent of property, it may be well for readers to bear in mind that the article contains but a brief statement of a doctrine without any explanations or details; and also that in proposing the abolition of hereditary property, it merely does it as a prospective measure, as a measure which will ultimately be found necessary to the complete enfranchisement of the proletary. The writer of the article recognises in its fullest extent man’s natural right to property, and he would be the last to suffer the legislature, to interfere with any of the natural rights of man. He advocates no wild scheme of a community of goods; he holds to individual property. Within the limits of the moral law, he would leave every man free to do what he will with his own. But it is an admitted principle, that a man’s natural right to property ceases when he ceases to exist. In other words, man can own property only during his life. It is also an admitted principle, that it is not by virtue of a natural right that the child inherits from the father. Consequently, the right by which a man disposes of his property by a will effective after his death, and by which a child succeeds to the paternal estate, is not a natural right, but a legal right. It exists by virtue of positive law, which society has enacted. Now, the writer of the article in question objects to this law, and contends that another and better law

34 Orestes Brownson

regulating the descent of property from one generation to another, may be devised, and must be before the true elevation and independence of the laboring classes can be effected. This point he will make good hereafter. All that he would say now is that he makes no attack on the right of property, that he proposes to disturb no man in his possessions, nor to plunder any man of ought he has. He simply contends that in the future progress of the race it will be necessary to change the mode by which property descends. The change he contends for is precisely the same in principle with that by which primogeniture and entail were abolished. By contending that property should go to the state at a man’s decease, he by no means intends to convey the idea, that the private property of a man on his decease becomes public property, and may therefore go into the public treasury, or be used for public purposes. It goes to the state in point of fact no more than now. All the writer means is, that the state so far takes the control of the matter, as by a uniform and equitable law, to say how what has ceased to be one man’s property shall be reappropriated, or become the property of another. This would in reality give the state no more control over property than it now in theory claims and is admitted to have. But however this all may be, no one can read the article without perceiving that the writer would by no means propose this as a measure for the immediate action of the community. There is a time for all things. The time for discussion is whenever the public can be interested in the subject discussed. The time for carrying a measure into execution is only when the public very generally demand it, when the public conscience cannot do without it, and when it can be introduced with some prospect of its being permanent and effective. But the writer is pleased that he has alarmed our staunch conservatives. It will do them good, and compel them by and by to set their faces towards the future. Boston, July 23, 1840. O. A. B. (…) The origin of the right to property, whether viewed historically or philosophically, is an interesting branch of inquiry, but we cannot treat it at length now, nor is it necessary for our present purpose. In relation to its origin, three theories have gained considerable currency. The first, that of the jurists, is that property is solely a creature of political or civil institutions; the second, which also finds favor with some jurists, but principally with philosophers, is that of first or original occupancy; the last is called the theory of formation, and founds the right of property on creation, production.

Brownson’s Defence

35

The last theory we admit, to its fullest extent. A man has a natural right to call that his, which he himself, by his own labor, has created. But this is not all the property to which he has a natural right. But to what other property, and how much, he has a natural right, we shall soon proceed to inquire. The first theory we also admit, to a certain extent, indeed to its fullest extent, so far as concerns present proprietors. The property, which the law now appropriates to an individual, he has a right to call his own, use as his own, and keep safe from the reach of the legislature. The legislature is bound to keep good faith with those for whom it legislates; it must faithfully, scrupulously fulfil its contracts. If it has committed mistakes with regard to its appropriations, it must abide by these till it can rectify them, without breaking its faith with the individual in whose favor they were committed. Whatever alterations, then, we would suggest in regard to the constitution of property, we would propose none, which should affect any present proprietor, or any one who should be a proprietor when the alteration passed into a law. But, though we admit that the law gives a title to property good enough for present proprietors, we are very far from regarding the law as ultimate, very far from admitting that property is purely a creature of civil or political institutions, and that, therefore, society may declare what it will to be property, and adopt what rule of distribution or transmission it pleases. Society is under law, and is as much bound to consult the right as is the meanest individual, and it has no right to enact what rests not on a higher law than its will; what, in one word, is not decreed by the law of Nature, or the will of God. The second theory, which, we believe, is the prevailing one, and which has the most respectable authority in its support, that of first or original occupancy, we also admit; but not to the full extent to which it seems to be admitted by the authors who have supported it. The first occupant of a thing or of a spot of land, has unquestionably a right to what he occupies, against every one who would dispossess him, provided that his occupancy be not a prejudice to another, who has equal claims with himself. In other words, the right of the first occupant is limited by a right more ultimate still. To render this plain. Man’s right to the earth, to possess it, cultivate it, and enjoy its fruits, is Divine, and rests on the will of the Creator. The evidences of this are in the Bible, in man’s constitution, in the simple fact, that man is placed here under circumstances, which render his possession of the earth indispensable to his very subsistence. God gave

36 Orestes Brownson

the earth to the children of men. All admit this. But writers on this subject, tell us that he gave it to them as common property. This last we deny. We recognise no such thing as common property. The very essence of property is individual, peculiar, exclusive. The Creator has made man with an original, an innate sense of property. We see man everywhere appropriating something to himself; and calling it his own. The ideas of mine and thine are among the earliest developed in the human mind. Now by creating man with this innate sense of property, and endowing him with faculties for its acquisition, the Creator has plainly declared it his will, that man should possess property. ‘Man,’ says Chancellor Kent, ‘was fitted and intended, by the Author of his being, for society and government, and for the acquisition and enjoyment of property.’ ‘The sense of property is inherent in the human breast.’1 We may, therefore, lay it down as established, or admitted, that man was created not to hold property in common, but to hold individual property, as something which he might call his own, and of which no individual, nor society even, could rightfully dispossess him. Our inference from this is not that the earth was given to mankind, as a common property, but as an inheritance, to be possessed by each as individual property. The question then comes up, in what proportions shall it be possessed? That is, to how much was any one individual entitled, for his share of the general inheritance? To answer this question, it is simply necessary to ascertain what is the relation which men bear towards one another before their Maker, and what relation they ought to bear towards one another before society. Christianity answers the first, and Democracy the second. As we in this country profess to be both Christians and Democrats, the answers of these are sufficiently ultimate for our present purpose. According to Christianity, all men are equal before God. This is the great truth Christianity has placed in the world, and it is the glory of the Church, that even in the times of its grossest corruption, it has always maintained this truth. God has made of one blood all the nations of men. The Church, therefore, in its theory, has admitted no distinction of race, of bond or free, of rich or poor, and has ordered the same discipline to prince and peasant, and read the same solemn service over their ashes. Democracy, the creature of this truth, or indebted to the activity of this truth for its development, declares that all men are equal in their rights, that man measures man the world over. Now, if all men are equal before God, if God be no respecter of persons, then, he must have designed the earth to be possessed by them in equal portions; and if, as Democracy asserts, all men have equal

Brownson’s Defence

37

rights, then it follows, that all have a right to equal portions. That is to say, according to both Christianity and Democracy, every man had a right of property to a portion of the whole, equal to that of every other man. Divide the whole by the number of men, and the quotient will he the amount which each might call his own. This is the abstract right of property to the earth as God gave it to man, and this is the right which limits the right of the first occupant. Original occupancy gives to the first occupant a right of property to this particular thing, or this particular spot, in preference to that, provided the claim thus acquired do not stretch over more than, in an equal division of the whole, would have fallen to the occupant’s share. With this limitation, we admit the right of the first occupant, and that occupancy is not only the original, but a valid title to property. Speaking strictly, and keeping in view the limitations we have made, man has a right of property: (1) To that, of which he is the original occupant; (2) To that which he, by his own labor, has produced, with or without the aid of the funds of production rightfully held; and, (3) To that which society, by law, appropriates to him. This last title may not be good in morals, but is in general good against society itself, so far, at least, as concerns the present proprietor; for society has seldom the right to revoke its grants. The expectations, it has itself formally and deliberately created, it is bound to satisfy. (…) Blackstone2 and others, although they abandon the natural right of children to inherit, defend hereditary property on the ground of convenience. They say it is a wise and effectual, although a political or civil establishment. For our part, we hold society bound to obey the law of nature. She has herself no lawmaking power, and is bound to consult and follow, as nearly as may be, the law enacted by the Creator. If, then, we can show that God, through natural law, has determined whose and in what proportions the property vacated by the death of its former owner really is, we have no occasion to resort to considerations of convenience or expediency. Whose then in reality is the property vacated by the death of the former proprietor? Jefferson says, ‘it reverts to society’;3 Blackstone, that ‘it becomes publici juris once more’. We have seen that it belongs not to its former owner, for he has ceased to be; we have also seen that it does not belong necessarily to the children and relations of the deceased, whose claims are equal and only equal to the claims of others. Whose then is it? Evidently, it belongs to society, in like manner as the earth belonged to

38 Orestes Brownson

the human family, when approached by the first occupants. It then belongs not to society as common property, to be possessed by the whole in common, because we have already established man’s right to individual property, and shown that common property is a solecism. The individuals of whom society is composed possess then the property not as common property, but have a right to it in severalty. We have recognised three titles to property, first, original occupancy; second, production; third, law, or the award of society. As it concerns the property held by the second title, that of production, we have in our present inquiry nothing to do. What a man produces by his own labor is his own, and so long as he uses it within the limits of the moral law, it is sacred, and must not be touched by the legislature, – except its quota of the necessary expenses of the state. That which is held by occupancy, except by occupancy through acknowledged fraud, together with that held by virtue of law, we would not touch in the case of any present proprietor, or in the case of any one who shall be a proprietor, at the time when the change in the constitution of property we contend for may be enacted into a law. Still, all that amount of property held by the first and third titles, we have specified, is constantly becoming vacated by the death of proprietors. Whose is this property, when it thus becomes vacated, and who has the natural right to enter upon it? To help us answer this question, let us distinguish in theory, which, however, we shall not need to do in our practical arrangements, between the property actually produced by the present generation, and that which it has inherited from past generations. Now, these two classes of property are perfectly distinct in principle. We will waive the first class, for the present; because it must become, as it will with the next generation, a portion of the second class, before it can become subject to the new law, we would have enacted with regard to property. The second class includes the land, except so far as the labors of the present generation have increased its value, with all the various funds of production of every name and nature, all the accumulation of utilities under man’s material relations, which this generation has inherited from all the past. Now, suppose that this vast accumulation, this vast amount of utilities, had been all abandoned by the last generation at once; whose, in that case, would it have been? Who could have claimed it as theirs by right? Unquestionably it would have fallen to the new generation, who would have had the right to enter upon it as having, as Blackstone says, become publici juris once more, and to appropriate it to themselves. But in what proportions might it have been entered upon, and appropriated by individuals? We have already answered this question by fixing

Brownson’s Defence

39

the limits to the title of the first occupant. We have proved that the children of the proprietor have no natural right to inherit his estate. They then stand in the same condition with the rest of the generation. We have no question then to ask concerning the proportions in which individuals of the generation, now no more, possessed the property vacated. The children of the rich and the poor, therefore, have equal claims to inheritance. In what proportions, then, may the property, now vacated by the death of the generation which owned it, be entered upon by the individuals of the generation which now is? If all men are equal before God, as both reason and Christianity assert, then all men have equal claims, so far as this property may be considered the gift of God. One man can then rightfully receive no more for his share than falls to the lot of another. If, again, all men should be equal in their rights before society, as Democracy asserts, and as all Americans profess to believe, then also must the claims of all be admitted to be equal. Then, one man can rightfully appropriate to himself no more than, in an equal division of the whole among all the members of the new generation, would be his share. All will at once admit the correctness of this conclusion in the case we have supposed. Is it not equally correct in relation to the case as it actually happens? The distinction which we have made of property into two classes actually exists. The property which we include in the second class is not imaginary, it is now really possessed. But portions of this are daily and hourly becoming vacant, by the death of the proprietor; and the practical question for society is: How shall this portion, which this hour is vacated by the death of the proprietor, be reappropriated? Surely on the same principle that the whole should be reappropriated, were the whole to be vacated at once. This rule is the rule of equality. If there be any force in the considerations we have presented, we have demonstrated that, according to natural law, a man has no right over the property he possesses, any longer than he lives; that his children have no natural right to inherit his estate, and stand in relation to it precisely as the children of a stranger; and furthermore, that the property vacated by the death of its former owner, the individual members of society hold not as common property, but in severalty, and in equal shares. If we have demonstrated thus much, we have demonstrated all we undertook to demonstrate. We have shown that our proposition to abolish hereditary property, and to dispose of it by some equitable law for the use of the new generation, is founded in natural right, and is demanded by the law of natural justice. But we are told this scheme is impracticable. When we have demonstrated that a measure is just, we have little time to spend in proving it

40 Orestes Brownson

practicable. Those, who call justice impracticable, must remember that it is not us whom they arraign, but the Creator. To our mind, the measure we propose is feasible enough, if it only be the will of society to adopt it. But perhaps its feasibility does not strike all minds as forcibly as our own. We shall do well then to glance a moment at what it is that we really propose. We do not suppose the measure can be carried into effect immediately; we do not suppose that society will take any action on it farther than to discuss it, till more than one generation shall pass away; but we will, for the sake of illustration, suppose the measure is to be immediately enacted into a law. No chance is to be made affecting any present proprietor, nor disturbing the natural expectations raised by existing laws. The measure will take effect only on such portions of property as become successively vacated by the death of their owner. These portions are not to become the property of society, nor of the state, to be held by it as public property, and capable of being used for public purposes. They do not go into the fisc. The state does not supplant the heir, and become the inheritor. But these portions, as they become successively vacated, are to be reappropriated to individuals. But they must he reappropriated to individuals of the new generation, and not to the individuals of the old, – to individuals commencing in life, not to individuals already established. In order to get at this, say, establish a system of universal education, at the public expense, in which all the children of the community shall be educated and supported by the community, till they are able to support themselves. Let this education be both general and special, embracing what is commonly understood by education, and also the special qualifications for some pursuit or calling in life. When the education is completed, the trade or profession acquired, and the individual scholar is ready to establish himself in life, then let him receive the portion of the property to be reappropriated, which falls to his share. These individuals will be constantly coming of age, and old proprietors will be constantly passing off. Hence, as property is vacated, new occupants appear, and as new occupants appear, property is vacated. The numbers of those who die, and of those who become of age, may not, indeed, be precisely equal; but statistics will soon settle the difference with sufficient accuracy for all practical purposes. In order to get at the proportion due to each, a general valuation as now of all the property of the commonwealth will need to be made. The general valuation of all the property in the commonwealth once fixed, the simple rule of division will determine how much is the portion of

Brownson’s Defence

41

the new occupant. Then a valuation of that vacated will determine how much of it must be allotted to one individual. This will require about the same trouble in taking a list, and making out the valuation of the property of the commonwealth, which is now required for the purposes of taxation. The young man, starting in life, receives his portion, which serves him for an outfit, as a capital with which to commence operations. With this he goes forth into the world, and has what he can honestly acquire. If one acquires more than another, that is his gain; if less, that is his loss. The property he receives to commence with may be regarded as his share of the general inheritance. In receiving an equal share with his coheirs, God and society have dealt equally by him. In giving, in this way, an equal share to all of what we have shown belongs in equal portions to all, society treats all her members alike. But, after having done this, which depended on her, she leaves them to fare according to their works. Society is not required to keep them equal, or to labor to make them equal. She is simply obliged to treat them as equals, so far as she is concerned. She must, in that which it belongs to her to do, treat them all alike, and give no advantage to one over another. But, if one can honestly, by his own exertions, become richer than another, that is his own affair, with which she has nothing to do. It is no part of our plan, that the idle and profligate should fare alike with the industrious and thrifty. What we ask is, that society shall, in the distribution of that, which none of the generation it concerns have had any hand in producing or accumulating, should treat all alike, for thus far the claims of all are equal. We ask this not because we contend against inequality of property, but because we would have all the inequalities, which do or may obtain, depend not on the unequal reappropriations of what comes down from another generation, but on the personal character and exertions of the individual proprietors. We have never been known in our life to contend for equality of possessions, nor against inequalities of property. We war solely against the unequal division which society makes of that portion of the general wealth of the community, which it is her office to distribute. It is not the inequality introduced by differences of character, of talent, or aptitude for the accumulation of property, that we object to; but that which is created by the laws. We commend this distinction to the attention of our readers generally. It will save them from much useless declamation. All we ask is, that men should, so far as society is concerned, be dealt by as equals, and after that, in all that depends on themselves, be treated according to their works. It is not so now. Society gives to the

42 Orestes Brownson

child of the rich man an estate to begin with, and to the child of the poor man nothing. The property, then, which we find in men’s possession, is not a just measure of their capacity, nor of their works.4 This is a wrong, and a wrong which brings many others in its train. But we are told, that our plan would bear exceedingly hard upon the widow and the orphan. As soon as a man dies, the state stakes his property, and the widow and the orphan must be sent to the almshouse. This objection, we confess, we had not anticipated. It is formidable, and appeals to our sensibilities; nevertheless, they who urge it have paid but a sorry compliment to their own inventive powers. The children, if minors, it will be seen, are provided for in the school, where they fare the same they would were the father living. If they are majors, they receive their portion, and are at work for themselves, on their own estates. As for the widow, we will hope that, if young, as soon as decency permits her to lay aside her mourning weeds, she will marry again; if old, why, she must take refuge in her jointure. But seriously, we would propose that, in the reappropriation, the distinction of sex should not play the important part it does now. In all that concerns property, woman should share equally with man, and like him be an independent proprietor, a relation which marriage should not necessarily affect. We know of no reason why the property of the wife should become that of the husband, any more than that the husband’s should become the property of the wife. The sexes are equal, though diverse, and fitted for different spheres; but the idea of dependence should never necessarily attach to the one more than to the other. Marriage, again, should never be regarded as a marriage of estates, but of persons, and hearts. Each should have the means of living independent of that relation. Then, in marriage, man and woman could come together as equals, and because they loved each other, and not because one or the other wanted an estate. Marriage would then be, what it now is not always, a sacred institution, and the relation it creates would be pure and holy, and kept by both sacred and inviolable, as it should be. But be this as it may, the objection is answered by making woman an independent proprietor, in like manner as man, and by establishing, as we propose, a system of education, which will ensure the instruction and maintenance of all the children of the community, till they are capable of maintaining themselves. We are told, again, that our proposed reform would bear exceedingly severe upon the poor workingmen, who have, from their hard earnings, saved a little, in the hopes of leaving it to their children. But along now comes a pretended friend of these workingmen, and tells them, ‘No, you

Brownson’s Defence

43

shall not leave your scanty savings to your children, you love so well. It must go to the state, and your children be left –’; pray go on, and tell us how the children are to be left? Never, for the sake of truth, convert your pathos into bathos. In the first place, we reply to this objection, that we propose our plan to aid the children of these poor workingmen, not to injure them. We say to these workingmen, your children have a natural and indefeasible right not to the little you can save out of your necessities to leave them, but to an equal portion with the children of the rich, of the whole property which descends from one generation to another. How much above the general average to each individual, will rise the modicum you can leave your children? Will it not, in fact, fall below the general average? How much, then, will your children lose by the proposed change in the transmission and reappropriation of property? The children of the rich will inherit less than they now do; but the children of the hard-working poor will inherit more. We are told, again, that the proposed change will amount to nothing, ‘because a man can give away all his property just before his death, and that gift society must respect. In this way, property may descend as now.’ To this we answer, first, that a man rarely knows the precise hour when he shall die, and, therefore, death may surprise him before he has made his gift, and the necessary transfer of his property. Consequently, there would always be a large number of cases, that could not be affected by this objection. A gift, must be more than a gift in mente; it must be an actual delivery of the property into the possession of the donee. Now there are many men, though they believe they shall die soon, who do by no means like to part with all their property to their children, and thus render themselves wholly dependent in their old age. There are too many Regans and Gonerils, and too few Cordelias5 in private life, to render this always prudent, or safe. From this cause a large addition may always be looked for to the number of cases, not liable to be affected by the objection we are considering. In the second place, we may distinguish between gifts inter vivos, and gifts causa mortis. The first class of gifts must undoubtedly be respected; but the second class, when made with the evident design of controlling the transmission of one’s estate, or of directing, in some sense, its disposal after one’s death, should be held void, and revocable at the will of society. We have proved that a man has no right to direct the disposal of his property for one moment after his death; if, then, he transfers his property to another before his death, for the purpose of determining its descent, he is seeking to evade the law, and, therefore, cannot call upon society to respect the transfer. He is doing indirectly, what it is admitted

44 Orestes Brownson

that he has no right to do directly, and consequently, his acts are fraudulent. This distinction between gifts made between the living, from charitable or benevolent purposes, and those made with a view to a man’s death, and for the purpose of exercising indirectly a sort of dominion after his death, is broad and obvious, and is recognised, in principle, very nearly as we have stated it, by existing laws. But, it is said, waiving this objection, and assuming the practicability of the proposed change, that its effects will be bad, for it will check the spirit of enterprise, lessen the desire for the accumulation of property, consequently enervate industry, and lead to universal indolence and pauperism. Men are fruitful in objections, but they have not always regard to consistency in the objections they urge. We have seemed to ourselves to hear no little declamation from the pulpit, and elsewhere, against the general propensity of our countrymen to get money. This propensity, we have been told, is quite too strong, and the fruitful source of the greater part of the evils with which our society is afflicted. Grant, then, that our scheme will check this propensity, this, instead of being an objection, should be regarded as a recommendation. In fact, one of the strongest reasons we have for urging it is, that it will check, in some degree, the action of the propensity to accumulate. Looking at society as it is, we cannot fail to perceive, that the passion for wealth is quite too absorbing. A large portion of our generation pursue it to the destruction of their health, and the peril of their soul’s salvation, and the peace of the world. And why is it so? Mainly, because the propensity to accumulate is, to our present order of civilization, reinforced by the love of independence and of distinction, and sanctified by the love of offspring. Wealth, in the actual state of the world, gives independence and distinction. Poverty in itself could be endured, did it not, in general, entail neglect, dependence, and, as it were, throw a man out of the pale of civilized society. Hence it is, men, who have somewhat of a manly nature, are impatient of it, and will be guilty of almost any crime, rather than remain poor. But, in a society, where fortunes are nearly equal, wealth confers no distinction, and especially if all the children are brought up in the same way, and at the same schools, and have the same general manners, cultivation, and refinement. Distinction in such a society cannot be acquired by one’s possessions, but by what one is in oneself. Consequently, in the order of things we propose to bring about, wealth will not be sought for the distinction it confers. This will unquestionably check the action of the propensity to accumulate, to a considerable extent. At present it is also necessary to acquire wealth, for the sake of our children. We could get along very well, and find much time for mental

Brownson’s Defence

45

and moral culture, were it not, that we must accumulate something to give our children a start in the world. Under the proposed arrangement, anxiety for children will be somewhat diminished. We are sure, let happen what will, our children will fare as well as others, will be as well educated, and always be able, by moderate labor, to sustain themselves. This, again, will unquestionably diminish the desire to accumulate wealth. The desire to accumulate wealth, diminished by the removal of these two sources, from which it is now constantly recruiting its strength, will, nevertheless, by no means be destroyed. The portion, which will fall to the lot of the individual on commencing life, will by no means suffice for his maintenance, without his personal exertions. It constitutes merely a fund, with which to commence operations. The man must still work, or soon starve. Then, again, wealth has its positive advantages. It enables a man to gather around him objects of taste, of science, and of comfort. It is, in a moderate degree, always desirable, and will always be sought with more or less avidity. But, under the arrangement we propose, it will be sought merely for its direct, and not its incidental advantages. Moreover, man is an active being, and loves action infinitely more than repose. Men have an aversion to labor, because now labor is not rendered attractive, and because it is associated with ideas of servitude, dependence, and vulgarity. It is too often performed in solitude, without the encouragement of warm-hearted, and enlightened companionship. The laziest man among us will angle or hunt all day. Gentlemen, fond of field sports, often exert themselves more than the common day laborer. Boys, wholly averse to hard work, will yet delight in still harder play. Strip labor of the degrading ideas now associated with it, render it as honorable, as much in keeping with the character of the gentleman, as fox-hunting is in England, and as attractive as the active plays of boys, and nobody would shun it; almost, everybody would delight in it for its own sake. When labor once comes to be performed by the enlightened and cultivated, and by men, who own the capital on which they labor, it will be honorable in the estimation of all, and soon be sought as an agreeable pastime. The first two considerations we have mentioned will reduce the propensity to accumulate within reasonable bounds; and the last two will tend to keep it there. As to the universal pauperism so much dreaded, we have no fears. The actual increase of wealth would be much greater, under the new system, than the old; because, on the one hand, there would be less waste, and on the other, more and more skilfully directed labor; for all would labor, and all laborers would be thoroughly educated, not only generally, but specially. This part of our subject, we shall have another occasion to discuss, when, in our next number, we examine a recent work by

46 Orestes Brownson

Mr Brisbane, on Association.6 And we shall be able to discuss it more at large then, than we can now. One more objection we must notice, and then pass to the conclusion of this quite too protracted discussion. We are told, that our proposed reforms will break up the family relation. The necessity of such a result we do not see. It touches no family instincts, and in no case interferes with the affection of parents for their children, nor of children for their parents. It does not tend to separate or estrange them. Properties will be divided, as they are now. All the children of the same parents will not always reside on the homestead, and they do not now. What can be more scattered than are the different members of our families, under our present system? We find ourselves in a State, of which we are not a native, and the State, in which we were educated, was not the one in which we received our birth. We have a mother in one State, a grandmother in another, a brother in another, and another brother in a different State still. Our children grow up here in New England, but where they will finally settle, God only knows. They will be scattered abroad, some to the east, some to the south, some to the west, and some to the north. It would seem hardly possible to devise a system, which should more effectually separate families, than the present. What bad effect, then, will our proposition have on the family relation? The family feeling, pride of family, we have a great respect for; and we take pleasure in tracing our own lineage back to some brave ‘cut-throat’ of the dark ages; to some border chieftain of Scottish minstrelsy; but we have been taught by our religion, and by our philosophy, that the family is subordinate to Humanity, and that, though it is the centre of our affections, and the sphere in which lie our special duties, still it is in our love and action always to give place to mankind at large, and to universal justice. According to Christianity, the cause of Humanity is paramount to the claims of our relations, and we are to regard as members of our family, those who do the will of our Father in Heaven. That the arrangement we propose would do somewhat to break up the clannish feeling, which prevails, to some extent, even in this country, we believe, and for that reason we would effect it as well as for others.

Notes 1. 2 Kent’s Com. Vol. II. p. 256. [James Kent (1763–1847) was a leading commentator on American law. The four volumes of his Commentaries on American Law were originally published in 1826–1830. – The Editors]

Brownson’s Defence

47

2. [William Blackstone (1723–1780) was a leading commentator on English law. The four volumes of his Commentaries on the Law of England were originally published in 1765–1769. – The Editors] 3. [Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826) was the third President of the United States. Brownson might be referring to Jefferson’s letter to James Madison (6 September 1789) in which he argued: ‘I set out on this ground which I suppose to be self evident, “that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living;” that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by an individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the society.’ (Thomas Jefferson (1999), Political Writings [Edited by Joyce Appleby and Terence Ball. Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought], Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p. 593). – The Editors] 4. [A clear echo of Brownson’s Saint-Simonian inspiration. – The Editors] 5. [The three sisters in William Shakespeare’s King Lear. – The Editors] 6. [The American Fourierist Albert Brisbane (1809–1890) published his Social Destiny of Man, or, Association and Reorganization of Industry in 1840. – The Editors]

5 Paul Voituron The Right to Labour and Property (1848)

Translation of excerpts from Paul Voituron, Le Droit au Travail et la Propriété (1848). This unpublished manuscript, written in French and dated March 1848, is conserved in the Central Library of the University of Ghent (Cat. No. Hs. 1795). It is bound with other handwritten manuscripts written by Voituron in 1848 and 1849 in a book entitled Mélanges Philosophiques, Politiques et Littéraires; the essay is on pp. 19–70 of the book. The extracts reproduced here are from pp. 25–39 and 55–9. Translation copyright © 2004 by John Cunliffe and Guido Erreygers. Paul Eugène Voituron was born in Ghent (Belgium) on 14 February 1824. He studied mathematics and philosophy at the University of Ghent, but eventually graduated as a lawyer. In the period 1846–51 he was the secretary of the ‘Société Huet’, a group of students and colleagues of the French philosopher François Huet who gathered at regular intervals to discuss social issues. In the 1860s he became involved in local politics, and was elected for the liberal party in the city council of Ghent where he served twice as alderman. Throughout his life he published on various philosophical, political and literary issues. He died in Ghent on 12 February 1891. In March 1848 Voituron wrote Le Droit au Travail et la Propriété. He might have conceived it as an article, but as far as we can see he never published it. In all probability he wrote it to clarify his views on property and inheritance, which were at that time controversial issues in the Société Huet. An ongoing debate opposed partisans of full private property rights to those who were in favour of various ‘communist’ solutions. Gradually a kind of compromise was reached around a mixed property regime, with the idea of a dotation appearing in the notebooks of the Société Huet for the first time in November 1848. In Le Règne Social du Christianisme, the book which Huet published in 1853 after his resignation from the University of Ghent and his return to Paris, the dotation idea occupied a prominent position. Although we do not claim that Huet took the idea from Voituron, it is clear that Voituron’s paper is the first document coming from the Huet circle which mentions it.

48

The Right to Labour and Property 49

We are endowed with reason and feeling, we are essentially intelligent and free, yet we are born weak and imperfect, destined for evil and error. While incessantly carried away by our passions and our sensory illusions, we nevertheless feel that our genuine greatness, our real life lies in our reason and in its domination of our body and our environment. Man is thus put on earth to shape his intellectual, moral and material perfection, to let wisdom and virtue excel in himself and in society, and to put the inferior forces of nature to the service of the superior power of his reason. To attain this goal he has a right to claim his rightful share of the instruments of development which God has given to all. This is the general principle which leads to the right to work and to the conditions to exercise this right. The most indisputable human right is the right to live. Each viably born human being derives from God and from the mere fact of his birth the right to continue to live. But on its own this right would be of no use to man, because he needs the material means to exercise it. Since man has not been given these means by nature, he has to acquire them for himself. He can only do so through his own industry, his own activity. Consequently he has the right to fulfil the condition which is absolutely indispensable to his existence. This condition is work. From the right to live, which is equal to all, follows the right to work, which is its condition. But in order to work one needs instruments. Therefore every man has an equal right to the natural instruments of labour. We have seen that three indissolubly linked rights derive from the fact of man’s existence on earth. These three rights are: the right to live, the right to work and the right to instruments of labour. They form each other’s condition. The first cannot be exercised legitimately without the other two. That is why they form one single right that we shall call: the right to live by one’s labour. The right to property is intimately linked with this right. As usufructuaries of the natural instruments of labour which God has given to humanity as a whole, we are the exclusive owners of the fruits of our labour. The products of our industry are as it were the extension of ourselves. It is as though through our activity we have imprinted on them the seal of our personality. That is why we have such power over them. We are accountable only to God for the use we make of them. Before man, we have an exclusive right to them within certain limits. As long as his individual rights and his rights to solidarity are not infringed, no man can impose a limit on our will in the exercise of our right of ownership over the fruits of our labour. The foundation of this right, then,

50 Paul Voituron

is both the dominating power we have been given over external nature to make it serve our needs, and the fact of our labour, which is the practice of that power, and as it were the mark of our sovereignty on earth. How can these human rights to the earth and to one’s own products be realized in society? The answer to that question must give us the elements of social organization with respect to material interests. We say that every man has a right to a part of the natural instruments of labour. He has the right to live by his industry. This right is the basis of property rights in what has been produced. Therefore, if men capable of exercising their natural rights chose to form a society, anywhere on earth, they would have to start, in order to abide by the immutable laws of justice, by sharing the available natural instruments of labour that are present, allocating them to each, and consecrating the private property in the products of labour. If this is what distributive justice is all about with respect to the formation of societies, the same solution should be applicable in every society with emancipated members, that is members enlightened enough to exercise their rights. In a rational society founded on natural human rights, then, every citizen should find the instruments of labour to which he has a right for his livelihood, and be able to freely reap the fruits of his labour. But will the social order, once it has been established, permit the re-allocations required by an increase or decrease of the population? On pain of injustice it absolutely must do. The opposite would be really confusing. How can this be accomplished? By inheritance? No, since the number of children in each family is different. One would end up with inequality, with privilege, in a situation where equal rights demand equality. And besides, the right of inheritance is not a natural right. Every man has the right and above all the duty to work for his living; no one is entitled to live a life of leisure in society on the mere grounds of his birth. At the death of each citizen his property belongs to society as a whole, and his children may profit from it only according to their social portion. The property left by a deceased person falls into the public domain, it becomes part of social wealth, hence of the instruments of labour. All have an equal right to it. Jurisconsults and a large number of authors who nevertheless try to justify the entire present regime, acknowledge the fact that the right of inheritance is not a natural right, that it has only been established by the conventional laws of society, and as a consequence that the State is free to introduce restrictions without violating man’s liberty and his natural rights. This authorizes the taxation on successions in our societies.

The Right to Labour and Property 51

By induction, and before any proof based on human nature, one can say that inheritance is not one of the elements of a social organization based on reason. In a society organized by the principles of justice, no one ought to experience difficulties in living by his industry. Nor should there be idlers, except those who sentence themselves to death or those who have gained the right to live on the fruits of their earlier labour. After everyone has obtained his share of the natural instruments of labour, we remain free to work or not, and our activity must never meet with any external restriction. In other words, every one should remunerate himself through his industry. But even though man, after being enabled to exercise his right in this respect, is free to produce or not, he can never be free to destroy the original capital which has been allocated to him for being part of society. Justice requires him to return to society what he received from it. But no one can demand that he returns more, that for instance through his work he gives a surplus value to the instruments of labour. It follows that he cannot alienate his original capital; he can, however, renounce its enjoyment, under the condition that he is the only one to suffer from it. This is the only power he has over his original capital, since it has to be returned to society on his death. This does not hold for the products he has obtained through his industry: he can relinquish them, exchange them, give them away, in one word act fully as a proprietor, but only as long as he remains their proprietor, in other words during his life. Every arrangement with any intention to pass on one’s property to a third party after one’s death, and to the detriment of society, should be prohibited. Only arrangements between the living can be accepted. That is what justice demands as far as the enjoyment of material goods is concerned. Does this social organization fulfil the great principles of liberty, equality, fraternity and self-sovereignty, principles which must lie at the basis of any rational society? These principles are, so to speak, the touchstone of every social system. Let us now put ours to the test. By being born every man holds an undivided right to the possession of the existing worldly goods. The equal right of all men to share the earth and all other natural instruments of labour, calls for the division of these instruments. But if with regard to these goods all men remained in the primitive state of undivided ownership, everyone would be confronted with the right of his fellowmen to the objects he would like to use, which would prevent him from using them freely. Therefore, to enjoy this liberty all are compelled to form a society, to get along with each other, and to carry through the division. Through this man

52 Paul Voituron

becomes master of that share of the instruments of labour that has been allocated to him. Equality is another fundamental principle in this organization. Indeed, every man has the same rights, so they have to be acknowledged equally for all members of society. Each citizen must have the sacred right to live by his labour. But even though this right is the same, equal for all, do the conditions to exercise it have to be the same? All men do not have equal needs, do they nevertheless have to do equal work? Do they have the right to demand an equal quantity of capital? On the contrary, would it not be fairer if the allocation of the instruments of labour were proportional instead of equal? An allocation in proportion to individual needs would indeed be what absolute justice demands. But in society such precision is, if not impossible within certain limits, at least very difficult to obtain because of the imperfect means men possess. In the present state of humanity the diversity of needs would not be a sufficient reason to distribute the instruments of labour unequally between citizens. Besides, from that point of view, an equal division would not conflict with justice because by doing so one does not compel every one to work equally. Work is essentially free for men whose reason entitles them to self-sovereignty; after an equal allocation everyone could arrange his work according to his needs. Man’s forces are proportionate to his needs, at least under normal conditions. As a consequence he could produce more or less with the same quantity of instruments of labour. Nevertheless we refuse an equal allocation of capital in society, albeit on another ground. In a society in which, in accordance with the principle of the division of labour, work is distributed to all so as to augment production and to considerably increase productive forces, the equal right to live would be harmed by an equal allocation of capital. Indeed, some types of work require more capital than others in order to obtain the same real value of production, so an equal allocation would make it impossible for some to make a living from their work, and it would give the others a surplus they have no right to. An unequal allocation of instruments, not in proportion to the workers’ needs but in keeping with the work that has to be done in society by all according to their faculties, is the only means to arrive at securing the equal right to live by one’s labour, a right that every citizen owns naturally. Given that society is only the realization of human solidarity and fraternity, the right to possess instruments of labour and the right to property resulting from labour, have to be at one with these principles. A population increase must necessarily entail a reduction in the share of the means of labour allocated to each. All have to contribute to the

The Right to Labour and Property 53

creation of the share of the newcomer. And this is not only a moral duty, it is an enforceable obligation, because every man has an actual, positive right to some type of starting capital. Hence, using an expression from the terminology of mathematics, we could say that in a social state property is a function of population, in other words: its limit for each man varies with the number of men on earth. As a social and free being, capable of merit and fault, man is in charge of his own destiny, of his spiritual and material development; he is self-sovereign. He must be able to work freely at his perfection without anyone intervening arbitrarily in his destiny. But, applied to property this compels us to acknowledge that every man, after having been enabled to acquire wealth, without injuring the equal right of his fellowmen, must be free to work as he pleases. So equality of right, proportionate equality of the means to exercise this right, diversity of the results of individual industry according to everyone’s different needs and abilities, but also consistent with his reasonable judgment resulting from his self-sovereignty: such is the reign of justice on earth. Everyone rewards himself naturally with his own activity and power without undermining the rights of his fellowmen. If originally every man has a right to an equal share of every type of the instruments of labour, if one way or another it is true to say that man is born a natural farmer, artisan, manufacturer, artist and tradesman, and that if he were perfect he could claim on the ground of equality whatever it takes to execute these labours, one has to acknowledge that in society, in the imperfect state he finds himself, man must dedicate himself to one kind of labour, and obtain by exchange the other goods he needs for living. By ensuring increased production, the division of labour strengthens the bonds of solidarity which unite men. So in society every citizen can claim his share of the instruments necessary for the labour which his taste, his natural or artificial abilities, and his special education prompt him to execute. It is obvious that this allocation of the instruments of labour and this realization of the right to property, both indicated by reason, are only possible when men are made capable of working efficiently at their own development. This results in the right to education for all. Every child has a right to education; every man has a right to the instruments of labour. Both rights are inseparable from each other. Exercising one of them cannot take place without the recognition of the other. The economists and the publicists who defend their doctrine sanctify private property without any limitations, but they do not acknowledge that every man has an equal right to the instruments of labour which

54 Paul Voituron

are necessary for his subsistence. The communists, on the contrary, as well as those socialists who more or less share their views, acknowledge everyone’s right to the instruments of labour, but they destroy private property. On both sides there are errors, hence injustice. The first establish in society the original privilege of the initial occupant and the transmission of goods by inheritance, in other words the privilege of birth. The second permit, through the equal allocation of products, the exploitation of active workers by those who are less active or even idle. Both injustices disappear when one proclaims that each man has a right to the instruments of labour and that the products of each man’s industry are his private property. (…) As defenders of private property, provided it is legitimate, we cannot bear to have it destroyed, or even undermined. The world may rather perish if the price to pay for its salvation is an injustice. What we want is the successive destruction of abuses embedded in humanity. Among these we include the conventional rules of succession, through which monstrous inequalities of fortune are perpetuated and which prevent the establishment of distributive justice between men. That is what should be destroyed immediately, or at least completely reformed. Human rights should not be denied for the sole profit of family rights. Successions must supply the means for giving education to children and instruments of labour to man, since individuals do not only succeed to individuals, but generations to generations, and since morally as well as materially a law of solidarity unites all members of the great family of mankind. Let us therefore abolish collateral successions, and impose taxes on successions in direct lineage. Let us increase this tax at previously fixed dates, until we have re-established the equality of the capital advances distributed to each, as soon as the intellectual, moral and industrial state of society will permit. Within a few years, by this means one will be able to provide the necessary resources to establish primary schools, where the children of the poor will receive free education, professional instruction and temporary support. On leaving school they could even receive a grant enabling them to live by their labour. Little by little society will change, and soon the reign of reason and virtue will replace that of brutality and egoism. Will these means of civilization cause any kind of disruption? Will they cause any alteration whatsoever in family relations? Will a spirit of dissipation take the place of the habits of order and thrift? To all those questions which meticulous minds will ask soon enough, and to which

The Right to Labour and Property 55

all partisan supporters of abuses will answer affirmatively, while portraying the most sombre picture of calamities and disturbance in society that their imagination could offer, we do not hesitate to give a negative answer. Without even considering the morality which education would spread soon enough amongst citizens, there need not be any fear for dissipation. The uncertainty of the time of death, the natural desire of man to obtain the means to enjoy rest and comfort in his old age through his labour, will make him sufficiently inclined to thrift. Moreover, who does not know that it is the transmission of goods which troubles the heart of families most often and most violently. How much hatred, jealousy and distrust is awakened in the hearts of relatives by the division of an inheritance? How many lawsuits and enmity between persons with close blood ties have not been caused by an inheritance or a will? How much cunning and trickery to deceive a brother? All these evils will disappear with the acknowledgement of the right to work and of the right to property based on equality. Today, legal restrictions on the right to inherit within the family could already eliminate much evil. The sacredness of family, now sullied by the vilest passions, would come to life again little by little. And why would a father who has gained his fortune by the sweat of his brow, complain when he will be assured that his son could do the same with the same activity? Will he complain for not being able to make him a lay-about, a spendthrift? On the contrary, it is his duty to turn his child into a free and active human being, a being worthy of his title of man and not an idler, roaming the earth, leading a life useless to himself and to his fellowmen. The inviolability of private property, legitimately acquired through labour, not through the barbarous privilege of birth: that is the only solution to protect society against all violent upheavals.

6 Napoleon De Keyser Natural Law, or Justice as a New Governance for Society according to the Destiny of Man (1854)

Translation of excerpts from Napoleon De Keyser, Het Natuer-Regt of de Regtveirdigheyd tot Nieuw Bestuer als Order der Saemenleving volgens de Bestemming van den Mensch (Brussel, Ter Drukkery van J.H. Dehou, 1854). The book, written in a dialect of the Dutch language, was never translated into English. The extracts reproduced here are presented under four headings: I. Motivation and outline of the book (from pp. 1–17); II. Details of the plan (from pp. 274–82); III. The state pension system (from pp. 320–5); and IV. A summary (from pp. 494–8). Translation copyright © 2004 by John Cunliffe and Guido Erreygers. Napoleon Joseph Louis De Keyser was born on 6 February 1806 in Deinze, near Ghent (Belgium). Nothing much is known about his life. In the 1830s he lived and worked as a land surveyor in Sleidinge, also in the neighbourhood of Ghent. Around 1850 he seems to have left Sleidinge and moved to Brussels, possibly to prepare the publication of the book which he published in 1854. Almost certainly he was acquainted with Jacob Kats (1804–1886), a pioneer of the Flemish socialist movement in Brussels. Whether he knew César De Paepe (1841–1890) or any of the Colinsian socialists is uncertain. He died at an unknown location and at an unknown date, but most probably before 1860. De Keyser’s Natural Law, the only book he seems to have published, was not a great success. Although it was written in Dutch, its composition, style and language hardly made it accessible for the labouring men and women for which it was written. The intellectual elite, on the other hand, used French, and so the book did not have much influence, except on a few intellectuals of Flemish descent. Nevertheless, it was clearly the fruit of long years of reflection, and it contained some original ideas. Although De Keyser did not mention any other authors in his book, he was obviously influenced by various early French socialists. 56

Natural Law 57

[I. Motivation and outline of the book] 1. Through the prudent, benevolent and just laws of Creation, all men are destined for happiness, and to this aim have been given equal means. In these means lies the happiness of the one, without the need to obstruct the full well-being of the other. All that exists has, from nature, the means to fulfil its destiny; because by giving existence without the means to preserve it, Creation would be unnecessary and contradictory to reason. The birds in the sky, the fish in the water, the animals on the land: while none of these seize anything more than they might need, they all live in abundance and pleasure, however infinite in number they may be; all, therefore, live according to the wonderful order, which we can see on display in the laws and activities of nature, in the universe! Although men, on whose behalf one sees everything in Creation outlined, are gifted with senses and with reason and judgment to appreciate this order and to expand their lives in it, they live in disorder and therefore in the impossibility for each of them to reach the superior end for which they have been created! It is among men that a small minority, against the will of nature, seizes everything which nature has provided for the existence of all. This minority ousts the majority of their fellow human beings from the general inheritance of the earth, by means of which every human being, either by cultivating his legal portion of land himself, or by enjoying the rent of it, in case he cannot cultivate it himself, can find an easy existence, however infinite mankind may multiply itself! It is among men that a small number acts as a party which oppresses the masses and appropriates all benefits of Creation exclusively for themselves, thereby considering themselves as the whole of humanity for which the other human beings are born to be kept as their beasts of burden. The property rights of the landed goods, which among men are unjustly held by a small number to the detriment of the great mass of people, are the cause of the disorder of society in which all kinds of misery and distress press upon mankind. By their power alone, the small number of large owners cannot overwhelm the numerous disinherited popular classes. So, among men, the Teachers and Spiritual leaders conquer and mislead the mind and the reason of the people, so as to subject it, against the will of Supreme

58 Napoleon De Keyser

Providence, to the robbery of its just and necessary rights to the landed goods of the earth. 2. While man, amazed about his existence and about everything which surrounds him in Creation, contemplates with respect and gratitude the first and great cause of everything which exists, it is the Teachers and Spiritual leaders who, on behalf of the Supreme Being, put all the erroneous thoughts in the minds of the people and turn the innate feelings of man into the most powerful means by which he himself brings about and imposes his miserable fate. It is for this reason that in all countries of the world the oppressing party of humanity imposes religions which make believe that the cryingly unjust property rights in land have been established by God, that the disinherited masses must submit to these rights, and that poverty and all the misery that follows from it are a pleasure for God! Among humans, in all countries of the world, the oppressing power, which is one and the same, exists of two parties: the large landowners,1 and the high priests or spiritual rulers. The large landowners need the priests and their so-called religions, who they support at all times, to blind and deceive the people, and so doing to retain the unjust possession of their landed goods. And the priests, who by means of their so-called religions mislead the people on their rights to the landed goods of the earth, are allowed by the rich, in return for their violence in favour of them, to make their arrogance, dominance and greed weigh upon the ignorance of the people and the ruins of the order conceived by Supreme Providence for the general benefit of mankind! These two parties exist for and by one another, and moreover have taken over the power from the disinherited people, which they mislead. They make and tolerate Governments of any kind whatsoever, so as to let the laws of nature degenerate, according to their aims, into laws which in all possible ways burden the people – already deprived of its just portion of the earth – with all taxes levied upon indispensable necessities and with all laws frustrating its liberty. It is among humans, therefore, that against the will of Supreme Providence, many have died and many are dying each day from hunger, deficiency and poverty, and from despair, unrest and anxieties over the necessities of life. And it is also among humans that one sees the great number live in a condition of misery, ignorance and decay, which is certainly neither the will nor the aim of Creation.

Natural Law 59

3. By experiencing physical distress, the masses gain knowledge of only the smallest part of the injustice and deficiencies which are inflicted upon them! These many outcasts, who mainly as a result of poverty, labour and ignorance, have fallen so deeply that they do not appear any longer to be part of humanity, do not know that in Creation every one of them occupies the rank of the most elevated, the most dignified human being! Neither do they know that every one of them, being gifted with the power of reason and with the capacity to exercise and extend this power, is explicitly and specifically invited by supreme wisdom to discover the wonders of its secrets by means of erudition, knowledge and sciences! Let us reflect on the following. In order to retain its dominance and its unjust possession of the landed goods, the oppressing party is obliged to bring the masses to ignorance and to keep all their spiritual powers at a low level, so as to extinguish their innate feelings about their natural rights, which give to every human being an equal portion of the earth! To this end, the oppressing party has at its disposal some teachings derived from its so-called religions that incite the poor outcasts of the popular class to ignorance: Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.2 It is among the men that have conscience and the free will to act, that impudence is so presumptuous that it does not shrink from attributing all evil and all injustice to the one from whom all good comes. By the destruction of all these mental powers, they demolish the greatest, the most noble, and the most purposeful of his works! 4. No! Justice and truth do not exist to remain banned any longer from humanity! No! To reach its goal with regard to humanity, Creation does not require that men violate its prudent and just law and replace it by a concoction of lies and deception in the guise of laws and so-called religions! Let every man enjoy the rights given to him by nature! Let nature’s law rule without impediment and it will put humanity on the road to its salutary destiny! Man has been created with the needs of mouth and belly. Nature has given him the earth so that by cultivating it he can satisfy these wants. Therefore it is a natural right that for this purpose every human being

60 Napoleon De Keyser

is entitled to his portion of land, and that the one who does not cultivate it himself, is entitled to its rent. This just law is as a result simple, clear and comprehensible for every one. Hence: (1) Every human being on reaching the age of 25 years will be capable of using for his subsistence an area of land of up to one hectare and 25 are.3 (2) The remaining lands and those that belong to minors and to others who do not use the portion they are entitled to, are rented out by public auction. After deduction of the expenses of the state, which acts as a substitute for nature, the rental revenues of both categories of lands, which for tax purposes are classified in ten classes4 according to their productivity, will be divided equally among all the inhabitants of the state. Expressed in a few words, this is the will of nature: to provide equal means for existence to all those she calls into life. To every one who cultivates the portion of land he is entitled to, the earth will deliver enough fruits not only to satisfy abundantly all the needs of the body, but also to exchange them against objects which make life agreeable. And the one who cannot cultivate his land himself, will enjoy the just rental revenues as a substitute of nature for his first necessities, and with what he can earn in addition to that by other work he will be able to satisfy his other needs. To satisfy this first condition and burden of bodily life, only a moderate amount of labour during a small period of time will be required. A quiet and necessary state of mind will prevail to keep every one mentally busy with the extension and improvement of the powers of reason. By allocating to every one his precious portion of the inheritance of all, everybody can therefore get his share of the moral or immaterial treasures: erudition, wisdom and sciences. To this end institutions of education will be founded, so that every human being can without costs reach the highest degree of knowledge, this knowledge being the great and unfinished mission in life. When natural rights, the generosities of Creation, are enjoyed like that, they will raise every single individual to his human dignity, and they will for all people together bring about a society at the level of man’s elevation and of the insights in Creation!

Natural Law 61

Man on this earth, this is the entitlement that every one on behalf of nature has to assert! 5. Let us now scrutinize the rights by virtue of which the small number, that has until now taken hold of power, excluded the great number of people from these natural rights. To begin with, they say that ‘the property rights of land have been established by God’. Above we have seen who are the Teachers that have created these rights in the name of God, for a share of the spoils! In earlier times the Barbaric criminal laws – which in a few countries had to disappear in spite of the oppressing party – made short work of those who dared to question these holy rights. They were promptly eliminated as heretics and infidels. The attacks against property rights in land were mainly attacks against religion, which was principally set up to make people believe in these laws. Hence, when somebody had caught a hare or another bit of game on the lands of the lord, in virtue of these so-called Divine rights just as little fuss was made about taking the life of a labourer as about squatting a fly! And nowadays this request is heard: if the entitlements of ownership have been established by God, they must have been made well and they must have been preserved; now show them! But it is too late now to make us believe that a God of infinite justice has created humanity to rob the greatest number of their necessary means of subsistence, and to make them suffer the utmost injustice and misery! This is the work of the oppressors of humanity. 6. The so-called Divinity of these rights being worn-out, what are the new entitlements which the oppressing party wants to make prevail for the property of its landed goods? The recent revolutions which erupted as struggles of the people against the causes of its suffering, despite being crushed time and again, have nevertheless opened the eyes of the people. This has incited the party that feels that the magical power of its so-called Divine property rights in land is fading away, to unite, and to publish all fallacies in order to prove that it is by Divine Providence that humanity is now living in society against the will of nature, and that all existing institutions, laws and religions, miseries, destitution and popular deceit, could not be more just and beneficial to the people!

62 Napoleon De Keyser

First they allege that man owns his own arms, legs and mind; they would believe no-one who affirmed the contrary! And then they prove that everything that man gains or obtains by means of these is also legitimate property! In their words: ‘Imagine that we are not allowed to buy beautiful clothes, or precious objects, or leisure, or land with the money which we have earned by our sweat, labour and ingenuity! Imagine that we cannot rent out to our advantage the lands which we made fertile by our bitter sweat and hard labour and which we have commissioned to be cultivated, planted with trees, enclosed by canals, and covered with buildings and gardens! How could the world have become as bad as to be against all that?’ That is what these gentlemen proclaim, and then they are outraged over the fact that the many people who die of hunger because they lack their legitimate portion of land on which they could have made their living, are hostile to them! These gentlemen do not need to prove that man owns his own arms, legs and mind, and that all he obtains by means of these is also his legal property. It is just a pity that they show so little respect for this property when the poor are concerned, as we will see below. But we will show what it is they try to pass off as the fruits of their sweat and of their bitter labour! The fruits of which they say they were the legal owners, and which they have exchanged for their landed goods, or in other words, with which they have obtained or bought their landed goods! 7. Consider the man who cultivates a portion of land with his own hands, as well the man who is unable to employ his labour for his own benefit on the portion of land which he owns of the world and who as a result is obliged to sell his labour to someone else. The fruits reaped by the first and the wage earned by the second are certainly fruits of their own labour and sweat, and are therefore respectable and legal items of property, which can be donated or exchanged for objects that can be legally and justly bought and sold. But consider now the members of the High Nobility. Have they ever earned anything in comparable just ways, and by means of which they have obtained their lands? In earlier days a few shrewd men have managed, in their capacity of leaders, to come into possession of extensive areas of land, either by robberies related to war or by other acts which disturbed the people. To preserve this possession and to make themselves stronger, they soon thought about deceiving the Mind of the people by means of so-called

Natural Law 63

religions with the help of men who, in a society in which everything is suppression, equally grab their chance and call themselves priests. In this way they managed to pass the first Tyrant for a man sent by God, to whom the people owed obedience and submission, and through the faith they pushed submission to such extent that the members of the popular class became the slaves of his property. By deceit, therefore, the landed goods and the people of the popular class have long remained the property of a few families, who since then have forged in all countries the oppressing power which lets nothing escape, and which continues to weigh upon society to this day. In a few countries, however, where the eyes of the people have been opened, they have been obliged to abandon their so-called divine rights according to which they could own human beings as slaves. These rights, therefore, have already undergone the fate which their counterparts, the so-called divine rights of land ownership, are bound to undergo in all countries of the world. Hence, conquest and deceit are at the origin of the treasures, fortunes and landed goods which they say they have obtained by means of their sweat and bitter labour! No, gentlemen! The origin of your entitlements with regard to the possession of landed goods does not give you the right to squander the right to live of the numerous popular class, of your many fellowmen. Because inasmuch as you are forced to prove, in order to justify the unjust possession of your landed goods, that man legally owns his own arms, legs and other parts of his body, we maintain that man, in order to preserve the life which has been given to him and to be able to respond to the insights and reasons for which life has been given to him, legally and inseparably owns a necessary part and portion of the earth and the sky. To this end he has been given the earth and the sky as general inheritance and means of support; for without earth and sky man would have received nothing from Creation: no arms, no legs, no mouth, no life! You proclaim that ‘those who do not own land should try and find a job!’, and that this is all there is to say. To find a job! Because the laws do not even oblige the rich, who possess everything, to offer jobs! Do we need to go beyond the Flemish region to show that those who are in possession of the land have the life of the disinherited outcasts in their hands? Is it because they failed to look for a job that during the last six years in the most fertile and industrious part of the world more than 30,000 people have perished of hunger, out of a population of 800,000? What a nice game that goes on every day!

64 Napoleon De Keyser

No gentlemen! Your party does not have the right to own the land, just as it does not anymore have the outrageous right here (although it still has today in some other countries) to buy, kill or sell people, with the fruits of their sweat and their labour, as if they were cattle, and whom for that purpose you deceive, make obedient and stuff with your so-called divine rights! 8. Now that the oppressing party has in this way got hold of the land, it wants to justify this possession by the prescription of a holding period of thirty years, without being contradicted by the legitimate disinherited! Being the masters, it is not difficult to make such laws! No: prescriptions with regard to objects which belong to all and which cannot be sold or taken away without signing the death warrant of humankind, have no validity. Justice is eternal, and when it is violated, no law stipulates that it must remain violated. And how could a contradiction or contention be staged by the disinherited masses? After the conquest not only their landed goods but also they themselves were brought under the domination of the conquerors, of their lords and Masters, who killed them not only for the smallest crime or disobedience, but often also just for fun or as a pastime, without having to provide another ground for this than to dump their dead bodies in some kind of dirt pit, especially made for that purpose! And now that evil is coming to an end, that each man wants to come into possession of his legitimate portion of the earth so that he can achieve the aim of his Creation, you still put his rights into question, and call for his rights to yield to yours! Your rights? Conquest by the most outrageous of means! And during the whole period of your unjustified possession: suspension of the course of justice for humanity! These are the entitlements of the oppressing party to remain into possession of its landed goods! These entitlements are sealed with the carrions of ten times more people than there are now on earth! Of all those who have been killed and are being killed each day for defending the rights of the people! Of all those who have died as sacrifices of the fanaticism or the raving mad belief in the misleading thoughts of their heaven and the misleading idea of God! Of all those who have died through the wars of religion; through intolerance, treason and persecution, all means to keep up your dominance; through the many popular revolutions as rebellions and protests against your so-called divine property

Natural Law 65

rights; through all wars of any kind, which would have been impossible if the oppressors of humanity had not deprived the numerous popular class of its just claims on the lands of the earth! This earth, on which every man can live and find his destiny according to the will of the Almighty, who did neither create nor destine man or the popular classes to kill one another to the satisfaction of their oppressors! We have heard the cries of distress and the heartbreaks of all those who as human beings had received from Supreme Providence all they needed to be happy, but who have died in the disastrous order of society which you want to keep intact. Their curses would testify how your so-called divine property rights and the so-called religions which make people believe in these rights, are supported, as you dare to claim they are, by the general adherence of the people! [II. Details of the Plan] In every community the lands are divided up in portions or parcels of three categories. All parcels of the first category have a size of 1 hectare and 25 are. All parcels of the second category have a size of 50 are. All parcels of the third category have a size of 5 are. The amount of parcels of the second and the third categories together will amount only to a quarter of the amount of parcels of the first category. The lands, which differ in quality, are sorted in nine classes according to their productivity, and are submitted to a rental tax which is determined as follows: the the the the the the the the the

1st class: 120 francs 2nd class: 110 francs 3rd class: 100 francs 4th class: 90 francs 5th class: 80 francs 6th class: 70 francs 7th class: 60 francs 8th class: 50 francs 9th class: 40 francs

The lands of the third category are graded in the middle class [i.e. the 5th class].

66 Napoleon De Keyser

After having been graded according to quality, all parcels of land are given a number. Every year, in every community the numbers of the available lots of land are put into a lottery, except those lots that are already in use in virtue of the transitory measures and those that have been set aside for public services. Every citizen who reaches the age of 25 years will require the right to use a portion of land to which he is entitled and of the category which he prefers, by means of a blind lottery draw. One has to be registered since at least one year as a resident of the community in which one wants to obtain the use of a portion of land. This registration will be made as soon as formal proof is given of the previous place of residence. The person who does not accept the portion of land which has been assigned to him by the lottery, can take part in another lottery only after four years have passed. No exchange of land can take place without the formal approval (by decree) of the government. The way to exploit the land usefully is subject to a code of conduct which must be introduced. The portions of land that have not yet been assigned permanently, are rented by public auction to those who make the highest bids. Some of these lands are used by the state pensionaries to provide for their own subsistence (section on State pensions). The use of the portion of land to which one is entitled is granted to everyone throughout his or her lifetime. After death, the right of use is transferred to the longest living spouse. After the death of the longest living spouse, the right of use is transferred to one of the children, to be determined by chance. This lottery takes place under the auspices of the government. If there is a longest living spouse from a second wedding, the community council will determine to whom the right of use will be given: to the longest living spouse, or to the children of the first wedding, unless the longest living spouse had already obtained the right of use before the wedding. Even after lands have been earmarked for private use, they can be appropriated by the State, for reasons of public benefit, provided it gives compensation. This compensation consists of: (1) the choice of a parcel of land from a set of ten parcels taken from the lands available in the community; and (2) an indemnity covering both the residence removal costs and the value of the manure and the wood yielded by the land which has to be

Natural Law 67

abandoned, and by other ameliorations. But everything has to be approved by the community council. (…) On all parcels of land which have been assigned for permanent use, the State will construct a suitable house and other necessary buildings, which can be freely used by the user of the land, provided he takes charge of the maintenance costs. The buildings will all have the same contents and will be worth about two thousand francs; they will consist of simple constructions which provide what is needed for the comfort of the family and for the exploitation of the land, according to the size category. The plan of these buildings will be approved by the State government. The costs of these buildings will not lead to extra spending for any State, since every State has at its disposal materials and the labour force of its State pensionaries (cf. chapter on State pensions). (…) Every year each Community draws up a list of its inhabitants and of the land rents which it has received, and sends it to the District administration. Each District does the same with regard to the Communities under its jurisdiction, and sends its list to the Province administration. In each Province the same activity is performed with regard to the Districts, and the list is sent to the State administration. After deduction of all the general expenses of the State, the State administration establishes the share of the general proceeds of the State to which each citizen of the State is entitled and which everyone will enjoy as nature’s support. All citizens of the State, and the parents of the young until they become State pensionaries, receive nature’s support in the office of the treasurer of their Community. This payment is made every three months. It will not be possible to sell nature’s support, to dispute it before a court, or to confiscate it. For all those who use their share of land, nature’s support is diminished with the amount of the land rent due. [III. The state pension system] The law or religion of nature demonstrates that there is room and happiness for all people in creation, and that among humans, there never has been, and there never will be, a reason to destroy the life of ANY human being.

68 Napoleon De Keyser

Instead of preparing and exercising man for the destruction, the killing, the devastation of man, the new society puts the young under its special care and protection in order to mould their moral character and education during these precious years. The young enter into [the system of] state pension: The men from the age of 17 to the age of 23. The women from the age of 15 to the age of 21. Both sexes devote one half of the day to the study of advanced arts and sciences, and the other half to bodily exercises, in useful work for the state. Instead of destroying man’s incentives to work, of alienating him and of dehumanizing him, the new society utilizes this precious time to make man dignified of this name, and to mould him into someone who is useful to himself and extremely useful to society. The tasks which the state pensionaries have to perform on behalf of the state, consist of the following. 1. To construct the houses and related buildings to which every human being, on his legally assigned area of land, is entitled in society and as an aid from society, since no one is capable of building his house all by himself. 2. To work in the mines, with construction equipment, fuels or other material, and in general to perform all those types of work which in the counter-natural society are constantly accomplished by the same set of people, are dangerous, and damage and shorten life. When done by state pensionaries in half days, these tasks are performed playfully and as useful gymnastic exercises. Having building materials and labour available, society will, by its state pensionaries, who also continue their higher education, provide to each of its members a suitable accommodation on his legitimate share of land. In this way, half of mankind will no longer live without a proper house, or stacked together in creepy and dirty alleys without air; no longer in smelly shacks, basements and argyle huts, beneath man’s dignity, and of which the rents and charges moreover keep him in permanent fear of death. These advantages will cost less to society, and be less humiliating and less irksome to the young, than the rough life of acting like soldiers and shedding one another’s lives in the service of a few wicked men, to the detriment of themselves and of humanity. 3. To travel the seas. One can always find some young people who love to do this. On the ships the continuation of education should not be hampered.

Natural Law 69

These travels are done with the purpose of acquiring objects that are judged to be indispensable, and on behalf of the state, who will sell them publicly. 4. To exploit and to cultivate the lands of which the returns will be used to support the state pensionaries, and also, as much as possible, to do public works, to build roads, canals, ports, etc. 5. For both sexes: to do service in institutions which help humanity, such as hospitals, old men’s houses, asylums for lunatics, etc., always with intermissions. 6. For women: to do the spinning, weaving and knitting, to prepare the meals for the state pensionaries, to weed and to do other activities which correspond to their abilities in state agriculture and public works. Spending one half of the day on bodily works and the other on study, on works of the mind, is as much as what is allowed by these two capabilities. While the one is at work, the other takes a rest. Spending whole days studying or whole days doing bodily work, would after some time yield no more results. Hence, the pensionaries of both sexes have a better education, moral formation and knowledge than the children of kings and nobility in the counter-natural society, of whom the judgment has been poisoned and the education and feelings suppressed by the invented religions and all sorts of injustice. (…) One can say, therefore, that six years of state pension, in those precious years, count as six full years of study, and at the same time as six full learning years of useful bodily labour for which the parents have nothing to pay. – The State pension and the labour of state pensionaries will, as a result of their engagement in agriculture, cost nothing to the state, but on the contrary bring substantial advantages to the state. By working for six years in the state service, man also pays his debts to society, which during the very first years of life, during old age, or during any other period of life when one lacks wealth, has to provide for the existence of its members. [IV. A summary] The means to escape from the counter-natural society and to found the new society according to the will of creation, is as easy as it is simple and sure. Since the two essential natural rights – essential because the others will follow from them – are so easy to understand, let us begin with the first.

70 Napoleon De Keyser

Disinherited popular classes, speak up! Discuss amongst yourselves about the rightful enjoyment of one hectare and 25 are of land, which is allotted to every human being as his legal share in the lands of the earth! Talk about it as if some years ago such an inheritance had been left to you by your father, and as if you now discover that it happens to be appropriated by a dishonourable co-inheritor. How much effort, how much activity, how much energy would you not be prepared to expend in order to obtain this last portion! Talk about this with your neighbours, your wife and your children! By talking about this you will gain even more than this last portion, since it is Supreme Justice which will bring right! Next, discuss the second natural right: the right to Vote! This imperative right, by which every human being (all men having been created with equal rights and duties) has the right, and even the obligation, to vote, and is capable of being elected to any office and any representative organ of the people. This right ensures that the government of society will not be transferred to, and remain forever concentrated in the hands of a few voters and rulers who by almost arbitrary and unfair policies have deprived the people of the enjoyment of the lands of the earth and of other natural rights. (…) From these two imperative natural rights: (1) To each and everyone throughout his lifetime the enjoyment of one hectare and 25 are of land; and (2) To each and everyone the right to vote; It follows by necessity: (3) The moral life for every human being: full knowledge (…), full freedom and independence (…). (4) To every adult and to everyone who is turning adult: a dowry [dot] or gift of a thousand francs. This gift has to be made by society to every human being. As a Member of society, every human being is entitled to a share of the new money capital which society will create, and which it will allocate in such a way (…) that everyone can hold his position in society according to his necessities. (5) And to each and everyone without exception: nature’s support. In every state, everyone should receive an equal share of the general rental revenues of the land and of the revenues derived from everything which is held in common: mines, forests, pasture, rivers, trees along streets, etc. (…)

Natural Law 71

Nature’s support must be perceived at the office of the treasurer of the community. Everyone receives his own share and that of his minor children. Justice imposes that these children, who cannot cultivate themselves the area of land to which they are entitled, are as human beings entitled to a rent of similar magnitude for their support. This is radically different from the situation in the counter-natural society, where the disinherited worker must face that the more children he has, the more of them have hunger, if they do not perish from want (blindfaith-happiness!). In all communities the lands are divided in parcels (…) and graded into nine classes according to their quality; the first and highest class is taxed at 120 francs per hectare, and by a successive reduction of 10 francs the lowest tax is set at 40 francs for the ninth and lowest class. (If all lands happened to be of the same quality, everyone would simply use the area of land which has been assigned to him by the lottery, without having to rent it from the state.) The rent or tax must therefore simply be seen as a means of compensation, from those who pay more than the middle-class tax of 80 francs to those who pay less than it (…). All rent or tax is, for the same amount, deducted from nature’s support. (In addition to the costless use of the state-constructed residence, in the lowest classes the parents will receive for any of their minor children the undiminished amount of nature’s support.) As soon as all the lands have been graded and divided into parcels, they are given numbers. These numbers are then put into a lottery, and each person receives the parcel of land which corresponds to the number he has drawn. The lottery and all related activities are public. They take place on annual basis in the community hall. A person has the right to keep on using, throughout his life, the parcel of land which has been assigned to him by the lottery. When he dies, the use is transferred to his rightful descendant. (…)

Notes 1. One easily understands that the acerbity of these remarks is not directed against those landowners who have obtained landed goods after the time when the descendants of the original conquerors have, in some countries, brought these goods to the market, but against those tribes of high nobility,

72 Napoleon De Keyser who in conjunction with the high priests in all countries of the world, constitute the party that oppresses the people in order to protect property rights and their powerful landed goods. 2. [Matthew, 5:3. – The Editors] 3. [This corresponds to about 3.09 acres. – The Editors] 4. [In the detailed explanation of his plan (see below, Section II) De Keyser distinguished nine classes instead of ten. – The Editors]

7 Agathon De Potter Social Economics (1874)

Translation of excerpts from Agathon De Potter, Economie Sociale (Bruxelles, Chez les Principaux Libraires, 1874). A second edition of the two volumes of this book was published in 1912–1913. The book, written in French, has never been translated into English. The extract reproduced here is taken from Volume I, Chapter XII ‘Le Crédit’, Section VII ‘Les Emprunts et les Prêts Sociaux’, pp. 306–14 of the first edition. Translation copyright © 2004 by John Cunliffe and Guido Erreygers. Agathon De Potter was born in Brussels, Belgium on 11 November 1827, as the eldest son of Louis De Potter, a wealthy historian who played an important role in the Belgian struggle for independence in 1830. He studied medicine and music, but devoted most of his life to the diffusion of Colins’ rational socialism. He contributed frequently to the Colinsian journals La Philosophie de l’Avenir and La Société Nouvelle, and published several books. He died in Brussels, on 30 November 1906. In contrast to Colins, who was a tedious writer, De Potter expressed his thoughts clearly and succinctly. He concentrated on the economic aspects of rational socialism, as testified by his book Economie Sociale of 1874, and exerted considerable influence on César De Paepe. In the article ‘Etude sur la Propriété – Le Collectivisme’, which appeared in two instalments in the 1888 issue of La Société Nouvelle , De Potter examined the origins and evolution of property rights. Without mentioning Colins, he presented rational socialism (or ‘relative communism’) as the system of the future. The system involved, among other aspects, that the soil and other durable capital goods would become collective property, that the state would provide free education for all, and that each citizen would receive ‘une dot sociale’ (a social dowry) when reaching adulthood.

As we have seen in the beginning of this study, there are two kinds of social credit. As a matter of fact either society lends to individuals or the 73

74 Agathon De Potter

individuals lend to society. I will show successively: 1. 2. 3. 4.

When each of these kinds of social credit can exist; The consequences of social credit extended by individuals; The consequences of social credit extended to individuals; Finally, when each of these kinds of social credit must exist.

The first item requires little comment. It is indeed easy to understand that society cannot lend if it is poor or if there exists no genuinely social property. And with the same ease one must infer the following propositions: Social credit to individuals can only exist through collective appropriation of the land and of the larger part of the riches acquired by past generations, in other words exclusively under the sovereignty of reason1; Social credit extended by individuals is, generally speaking, unnecessary with property organized in such a way; Social credit of the latter kind can exist, in general, only when the land is appropriated by individuals, in other words under the sovereignty of force. We can say that individuals only lend to society when it has nothing, consequently when it is unable ever to repay its loan. Or so, in fact, it appears. But reality is totally different, as we are about to see. When the land is individually appropriated, when there is sovereignty of force, genuine society is not constituted by the whole population, but only by the group of the rich. The rest are treated as mere objects: they are the political slaves or proletarians. And the little collective property that exists, serving particularly the rich, is in fact nothing but the collective property of the rich. Therefore, when society borrows it is actually the rich who borrow. This is what happens when a State borrows: The rich, as individuals, lend some money to those same rich, this time considered as constituting society. This money is spent always to the greater advantage of the rich. As far as interest payments are concerned, those are taken from the labour of the poor – since by hypothesis we are under the reign of force – and paid by society, that is the group of the rich, to the rich who have lent their money. Therefore a social loan by individuals is a kind of conjuring trick since the rich lend their money to themselves and let the poor pay the interests.

Social Economics 75

Under the sovereignty of force all social loans result, therefore, inevitably in an aggravation of the ill-being of the labourers without capital. It is a means to further ensure the domination of capital over labour. And how? By forcing those who have nothing, to work in order to pay the interest of the loan, before even thinking of earning their own living; in other words, by alienating, to the greater profit of property, not only today’s labour but equally all future labour; which is the acme of the slavery of labour. Let us examine the mechanisms of State loans more closely. Imagine a country living under the sovereignty of force, in which income taxes no longer suffice to satisfy the growing social needs, which spring from the development of intelligence. Here is a society, that is to say the group of rulers, forced to borrow. One sees the rich borrow figuratively – which means: lend to themselves – as much money as the common wealth permits. And since it is the workers without capital who are affected by taxation, and who consequently pay the interest on the loan, this financial operation results in: The aggravation of the misery of the workers in proportion to the increase of taxation, or to the importance of the loan, or to the development of intelligence, whereas the wealth of those who possess increases in the same proportion. But at this juncture, what with the intellectual developments and the social needs having become more important still, it obviously becomes more difficult to maintain order. So once more society is forced to borrow again, which is all the easier since the rich own more than before. This way there is a new increase of the misery of the unfortunate, and of the well-being of the rich, always in proportion to the importance of the loan, or to the total amount of the national wealth so to speak. And this train of cause and effect continues until the extreme development of pauperism threatens to disintegrate society. Whereas social credit extended by individuals results in an aggravation of the domination of wealth over labour, and in pauperism carried to an unimaginable level, social credit extended to individuals has very different consequences: reinforcement of the domination of labour over wealth, and consequently the distribution of well-being for all. These results are the product of the competition society offers to the capitalists in lending, just like them, material to those who need it to labour. This kind of social credit results in forcing the capitalists to demand smaller interests for the capital they let, or to raise the wages, which is

76 Agathon De Potter

in fact the same thing since both elements of the price of things always need to work in inverse order like the scales of a balance. I need not dwell much longer on this subject, which seems sufficiently comprehensible without being further developed. But before passing on to the next topic, I want to elucidate various secondary questions. First of all, and in relation to the liberty of labour: what is the goal future society seeks to achieve? To whom will it lend capital? What capital will it lend? On what conditions will it lend? Let us answer these questions in the order I put them. The goal of future society is to render the domination of labour over matter as complete as possible, a domination which already exists, in principle, by the mere fact of including the land in the collective property. What does it have to do in order to accomplish this? Enable the labourers to do without individual capitalists. To this end society sees to it that at all times, at the lowest possible price, everyone can have the capital which is indispensable for his labour, without being compelled to suffer the conditions a capitalist might impose on him. Because it is exactly this compulsion which constitutes the domestic exploitation of labour, as I will demonstrate in due course. And society achieves this goal by lending capital at a moderate price, depending on the circumstances; which forces individual lenders to demand a less significant rent if they want to be given preference. To whom does it advance capital? Especially to the labourers who do not yet have any, or to those who have lost it through bad luck. To the first, who are minors upon their entering the society of majors, it advances a social dowry; to the latter it lends some capital. As to the unfortunates who are unable to work or the mentally disadvantaged who are incapable of normal conduct: it lends them nothing. To those society owes the means to live, and gives it to them. As I have already explained, society is bound to protect everyone from domestic exploitation; but this is all it is bound to. Moreover, in general – and I put it like this since an application no longer permits an affirmation in absolute terms – the total amount of advanced capital will be equal to that of the social dowry. Social credit extended to individuals can never be the same as private credit. As a matter of fact the creditor is eternal in comparison to the

Social Economics 77

debtor, and the annuities cannot be calculated accordingly. They have to be proportionate to the life expectancy of the borrower. Taking this into consideration, the repayment of the social loan can take place: 1. Either by annuities until the death of the debtor; 2. Or by annual payment of an interest to be determined according to his age; but then the capital is refunded by his succession; 3. Or finally, by payment, upon the death of the debtor, of a sum equal to the capital plus the compound interest over the term of the loan. It can be easily understood that it is not a simple matter of arithmetic to equate these various ways of paying back a debt. It remains for me to demonstrate when each of the two kinds of social credit must exist. At the origin of societies social credit extended by individuals is unnecessary as long as labour can be exploited domestically. But there comes a time when, as a result of the developments of intelligence, domestic slavery has become impossible. From then on labour has to be exploited socially, which is done by means of taxation. Indeed, from the moment the land is alienated from individuals, all taxation is levied on labour whereas wealth does not contribute a mite. For a demonstration of this argument I refer the reader to chapter XVIII dealing especially with taxation. This way, wealth absorbs to its profit the product of the labour of generations past and present. But this does not suffice for long. Because of the significantly increasing development of a critical attitude, force becomes increasingly less capable of maintaining order. At that moment social credit extended by individuals comes into being, in order to enable the powerful to take possession of the product of the labour of future generations by means of national loans. I have sufficiently dwelt on the mechanisms of these loans and on how this alienation is caused, so I need not come back to it. This way the exploitation of labour by means of State loans is typical of a society having reached the pinnacle of the domination of capital. Only when the sovereignty of force, having become utterly incapable of maintaining order, has made way for the sovereignty of reason, the second kind of social credit becomes possible and necessary. As I have shown before, a consequence of the extension of social credit to individuals is indeed that wages are raised to the maximum

78 Agathon De Potter

according to the circumstances and that, as a result of this, well-being is generally spread.

Note 1. [According to the Colinsian terminology, the ‘sovereignty of reason’ refers to the future, rationally organised society, which is opposed to the past and present, anarchically organised societies, referred to by the term ‘sovereignty of force’. – The Editors]

Part II Basic Income Proposals

This page intentionally left blank

8 Thomas Spence The Rights of Infants (1797)

Reprint with permission of Spokesman Books, of Thomas Spence, The Rights of Infants (1797), in: Pig’s Meat: The Selected Writings of Thomas Spence, Radical and Pioneer Land Reformer, with an introductory essay and notes by G.I. Gallop (Nottingham, Spokesman Books, 1982), pp. 111–22. Thomas Spence was born on 21 June 1750 in Newcastle upon Tyne, England. He became a school teacher active in radical politics in the course of which he first presented his land plan in 1775. In 1792 Spence moved to London where he made a precarious living producing and selling radical publications, for which he was imprisoned on two occasions. By the early 1800s Spence had attracted a group of followers who continued to promote their version of his ideas through to the 1830s and beyond. Spence died in poverty on 8 September 1814. Spence’s plan called for the ownership and control of land and other natural resources by local parish communities. These would lease the resources to the highest bidders. The rentals from the lease would provide for public goods and utilities and a contribution to the expenses of a limited national government. The residual income would be distributed equally between all members of the parish at quarterly intervals. This plan was presented in virtually identical form from 1792 until his death. In The Rights of Infants Spence defends his own plan and vehemently criticises the proposals of Paine’s Agrarian Justice.

Preface1 At last Mr Paine has thought fit to own, with the Psalmist, and with Mr Locke, that ‘God hath given the earth to the children of men, given it to mankind in common.’2 This is a truth so indisputable, and which I always thought of such vast importance for mankind universally to understand and acknowledge, that I have indefatigably embraced every opportunity, from my youth up, to publish it, together with the most consistent plan that I could form thereon. 81

82 Thomas Spence

I am glad that Mr Paine has, even though late, made this acknowledgement, because his celebrity will procure him many readers, and greatly add both to the investigation of this great fundamental truth, and of such philosophical superstructures as may be built on the same. But as to the plan that he has laid down in his AGRARIAN JUSTICE (where he first acknowledges this principle) it does not appear to me to be in any measure just or satisfactory. The principle is without doubt incomparably grand, and the very first maxim in the law of nature, and in the science of right and wrong, and is fraught with all the blessings that can render mankind happy on earth. But, O dire disappointment! Behold! Mr Paine, instead of erecting on this rock of ages an everlasting Temple of Justice, has erected an execrable fabric of compromissory expendiency, as if in good earnest intended for a Swinish Multitude. The poor, beggarly stipends which he would have us to accept of in lieu of our lordly and just pretensions to the soil of our birth, are so contemptible and insulting that I shall leave them to the scorn of every person conscious of the dignity of his nature, not detaining the reader from the perusal of the following little tract on the Rights of Infants, where men who dare contemplate their rights, may see them portrayed boldly at full length. The more I contemplate human affairs, the more I am convinced that a landed interest is incompatible with the happiness and independence of the world. For as all the rivers run into the sea, and yet the sea is not full, so let there be ever so many sources of wealth, let trade, foreign and domestic, open all their sluices, yet will no other but the landed interest be ultimately the better. In whatever line of business, or in whatever situation the public observe men thrive, thither every one presses, and in competition bid over each other’s head for the houses and shops on the lucky spot, thereby raising the rents till the landlord gets the whole fat of their labours. It is the same in respect to the farms; for if a profitable market, foreign or domestic, spring up for the produce of the earth, then farming will be the rage, and every one will over bid another for farms, till they can hardly live by them. Nay, even abolish the tythes, and the rents of the farms will immediately so advance that the whole advantage shall center in the landlords. Thus all things work together for good to those who love God, which seems to be fully accomplished in the landed interest, who are the visible elect. Yes, for theirs are all things whether the state, the government or the dignities; the principalities, or the powers. All dominion is rooted and grounded in land, and thence spring every kind of lordship which

The Rights of Infants 83

overtops and choaks all the shrubs and flowers of the forest. But take away those tall, those overbearing aristocratic trees, and then the lowly plants of the soil will have air, will thrive and grow robust. Nevertheless, take care you leave not any roots of those lordly plants in the earth, for though cut down to the stump like Nebuchadnezzar, yet if any vestage of the system remain, any fibre of the accursed roots, though ever so small lie concealed in the soil, they would sprout again and soon recover their pristine vigour, to the overshadowing and destruction of all the undergrowth. Thus do philosophy and the purest philanthropy compel us to eradicate this baneful order from human society. Whether my plan of enjoying man’s rights, which I have been publishing in different ways for more than twenty years, be objectionable or no, it is certain it has never been answered; neither have I seen or heard of any arguments on the subject, but what have only more effectually convinced me that no system can be more universally just even to those it seems most to militate against; more easily established, because it is the interest of every one not to oppose it; nor of course more likely afterwards to be more peaceful and permanent. If I am wrong, let me be confuted; and if I am not, let mankind for their own sakes, pay attention to what I say. They ought at least to give me credit for my disinterestedness in this scheme, for according to it I can have no private landed estate, no tenants to work for me, nor claim any privilege above my fellow-citizens. Wherefore, before any be so ungenerous as to condemn me as presumptuous, I hope they will candidly weigh my several arguments which they will find in the various little things I have published, which are neither many nor dear, and in the following Rights of Infants. LONDON, March 19th, 1797. THO. SPENCE

The Rights of Infants Written in the Latter End of the Year 1796 Open thy mouth for the dumb. Prov.xxxi.8.3 ‘AND pray what are the Rights of Infants?’ cry the haughty Aristocracy, sneering and tossing up their noses. Woman. Ask the she-bears, and every she-monster, and they will tell you what the rights of every species of young are. – They will tell you, in resolute language and actions too, that their rights extend to a full participation of the fruits of the earth. They will tell you, and vindicate it

84 Thomas Spence

likewise by deeds, that mothers have a right, at the peril of all opposers, to provide from the elements the proper nourishments of their young. And seeing this, shall we be asked what the Rights of Infants are? As if they had no rights? As if they were excrescences and abortions of nature? As if they had not a right to the milk of our breasts? Nor we a right to any food to make milk of? As if they had not a right to good nursing, to cleanliness, to comfortable cloathing and lodging? Villains! Why do you ask that aggravating question? Have not the foxes holes, and the birds of the air nests, and shall the children of men have not where to lay their heads? Have brute-mothers a right to eat grass, and the food they like best, to engender milk in their dugs, for the nourishment of their young and shall the mothers of infants be denied such a right? Is not this earth our common also, as well as it is the common of brutes? May we not eat herbs, berries, or nuts as well as other creatures? Have we not a right to hunt and prowl for prey with she-wolves? And have we not a right to fish with sheotters? Or may we not dig coals or cut wood for fuel? Nay, does nature provide a luxuriant and abundant feast for all her numerous tribes of animals except us? As if sorrow were our portion alone, and as if we and our helpless babes came into this world only to weep over each other? Aristocracy (sneering). And is your sex also set up for pleaders of rights? Woman. Yes, Molochs! Our sex were defenders of rights from the beginning. And though men, like other he-brutes, sink calmly into apathy respecting their offspring, you shall find nature, as it never was, so it never shall be extinguished in us. You shall find that we not only know our rights, but have spirit to assert them, to the downfall of you and all tyrants. And since it is so that the men, like he-asses, suffer themselves to be laden with as many pair of panyers of rents, tythes, etc., as your tender consciences please to lay upon them, we, even we, the females, will vindicate the rights of the species, and throw you and all your panyers in the dirt. Aristocracy. So you wish to turn the cultivated world into a wilderness, that you may eat wild fruits and game like Indians? Woman. No, Sophists, we do not want to be as Indians. But the natural fruits of the earth being the fruits of our undoubted common, we have an indefeasible right to, and we will no longer be deprived of them, without an equivalent. Aristocracy. Do you not, in lieu of those wild productions, get bread, and mutton, and beef, and garden stuff, and all the refined productions and luxuries of art and labour; what reason then have you to complain? Woman. Are you serious? Would you really persuade us that we have no reason to complain? Would you make us believe that we receive

The Rights of Infants 85

these productions of art and culture as a fair compensation for the natural produce of our common, which you deprive us of? Have we not to purchase these things before we enjoy them? Aristocracy. Sure, woman, you do not expect the fruits of men’s labours and ingenuity for nothing! Do not the farmers, in the first place, pay very high rents for their farms; and, in the next place, are they not at great trouble and expence in tilling and manuring the ground, and in breeding cattle; and surely you cannot expect that these men will work and toil, and lay out their money for you, for nothing. Woman. And pray, ladies and gentlemen, who ever dreamt of hurting the farmers, or taking their provisions for nothing, except yourselves? It is only the privileged orders, and their humble imitators on the highway, who have the impudence to deprive men of their labours for nothing. No; if it please your noblenesses and gentlenesses, it is you, and not the farmers, that we have to reckon with. And pray now, your highnesses, who is it that receive those rents which you speak of from the farmers? Arist. We, to be sure; we receive the rents. Woman. You, to be sure! Who the D-v-l are you? Who gave you a right to receive the rents of our common? Arist. Woman! Our fathers either fought for or purchased our estates. Woman. Well confessed, villains! Now out of your own mouths will I condemn you, you wicked Molochs! And so you have the impudence to own yourselves the cursed brood of ruffians, who by slaughter and oppression, usurped the lordship and dominion of the earth, to the exclusion and starvation of weeping infants and their poor mothers? Or, at the best, the purchasers of those ill-got domains? O worse than Molochs! now let the blood of the millions of innocent babes who have perished through your vile usurpations be upon your murderous heads! You have deprived the mothers of nature’s gifts, and farmed them out to farmers, and pocketed the money, as you audaciously confess. Yes, villains! you have treasured up the tears and groans of dumb, helpless, perishing, dying infants. O, you bloody landed interest! you band of robbers! Why do you call yourselves ladies and gentlemen? Why do you assume soft names, you beasts of prey? Too well do your emblazoned arms and escutcheons witness the ferocity of your bloody and barbarous origin! But soon shall those audacious Gothic emblems of rapine cease to offend the eyes of an enlightened people, and no more make an odious distinction between the spoilers and the spoiled. But, ladies and gentlemen, is it necessary, in order that we eat bread and mutton, that

86 Thomas Spence

the rents should be received by you? Might not the farmers as well pay their rents to us, who are the natural and rightful proprietors? If, for the sake of cultivation, we are content to give up to farmers our wild fruits, our hunting grounds, our fish and game; our coalmines, and our forests, is it not equitable that we should have the rents in lieu thereof? If not, how can the farmers have the face to sell us again the produce of our own land? Hear me! ye oppressors! ye who live sumptuously every day! ye, for whom the sun seems to shine, and the seasons change, ye for whom alone all human and brute creatures toil, sighing, but in vain, for the crumbs which fall from your overcharged tables; ye, for whom alone the heavens drop fatness, and the earth yields her encrease; hearken to me, I say, ye who are not satisfied with usurping all that nature can yield; ye, who are insatiable as the grave; ye who would deprive every heart of joy but your own, I say hearken to me! Your horrid tyranny, your infanticide is at an end! Your grinding the faces of the poor, and your drinking the blood of infants, is at an end! The groans of the prisons, the groans of the camp, and the groans of the cottage, excited by your infernal policy, are at an end! And behold the whole earth breaks forth into singing at the new creation, at the breaking of the iron rod of aristocratic sway, and at the rising of the everlasting sun of righteousness! And did you really think, my good gentlefolk, that you were the pillars that upheld the universe? Did you think that we would never have the wit to do without you? Did you conceive that we should never be able to procure bread and beef, and fuel, without your agency? Ah! my dear creatures, the magic spell is broke. Your sorceries, your witchcrafts, your priestcrafts, and all your juggling crafts, are at an end; and the Meridian Sun of Liberty4 bursts forth upon the astonished world, dispelling the accumulated mists of dreary ages, and leaves us the glorious blue expanse, of serene unclouded reason. Well then, since you have compelled, since you have driven us, through your cruel bondage, to emancipate ourselves, we will even try to do without you, and deal with the honest farmers ourselves, who will find no difference, unless for the better, between paying their rents to us and to you. And whereas we have found our husbands, to their indelible shame, woefully negligent and deficient about their own rights, as well as those of their wives and infants, we women, mean to take up the business ourselves, and let us see if any of our husbands dare hinder us. Wherefore, you will find the business much more seriously and effectually managed in our hands than ever it has been yet. You may smile, tyrants, but you

The Rights of Infants 87

have juster cause to weep. For, as nature has implanted into the breasts of all mothers the most pure and unequivocal concern for their young, which no bribes can buy, nor threats annihilate, be assured we will stand true to the interest of our babes, and shame, woe, and destruction be to the pitiful varlet that dare obstruct us. For their sakes we will no longer make brick without straw, but will draw the produce of our estate. If we deprive ourselves of our common, in order that it may be cultivated, we ourselves will have the price thereof, that we may buy therewith, as far as it will go, the farmer’s produce. And so far as our respective shares of the rent may be inadequate to the comfortable and elegant support of ourselves and infants, so far will we chearfully, by our honest endeavours, in our several callings, make up the deficiency, and render life worth enjoying. To labour for ourselves and infants we do not decline; but we are sick of labouring for an insatiable aristocracy. To convince your highnesses that our plan is well digested, I will lay it before you. You will find it very simple, but that is the sign of the greater perfection. As I said before, we women (because the men are not to be depended on) will appoint, in every parish, a committee of our own sex, (which we presume our gallant lock jawed spouses and paramours will at least, for their own interest, not oppose) to receive the rents of the houses and lands already tenanted, and also to let, to the best bidders, on seven years leases, such farms and tenements as may, from time to time, become vacant. Out of those rents we can remit to government so much per pound, according to the exigencies of the state, in lieu of all taxes; so that we may no longer have taxes nor taxgatherers. Out of these rents we shall next pay all our builders and workmen that build or repair our houses; pave, cleanse, or light our streets; pay the salaries of our magistrates and other public officers. And all this we women shall do quarterly, without a bank or bank-notes, in ready money, when the rents are paid in; thus suffering neither state nor parish to run in debt. And as to the overplus, after all public expences are defrayed, we shall divide it fairly and equally among all the living souls in the parish, whether male or female; married or single; legitimate or illegitimate; from a day old to the extremest age; making no distinction between the families of rich farmers and merchants, who pay much rent for their extensive farms or premises, and the families of poor labourers and mechanics, who pay but little for their small apartments, cottages and gardens, but giving to the head of every family a full and equal share for every name under his roof. And whereas births and funerals, and consequent sicknesses, are attended with expence, it seems requisite to allow, at quarter-day, to the

88 Thomas Spence

head of every family, a full share for every child that may have been born in his house since the former quarter-day, though the infant may be then but a day old; and also, for every person who may have died since the former quarter-day, though the death should have happened but a day after it. This surplus, which is to be dealt out again among the living souls in a parish every quarter-day, may be reasonably supposed to amount to full two-thirds of the whole sum of rents collected. But whatever it may amount to, such share of the surplus rents is the imprescriptible right of every human being in civilized society, as an equivalent for the natural materials of their common estate, which by letting to rent, for the sake of cultivation and improvement, they are deprived of. Wherefore, now ladies and gentlemen, you see the glorious work is done! and the rights of the human species built on so broad and solid a basis, that all your malice will not be able to prevail against them! Moreover, when we begin with you, we will make a full end of your power at once. We will not impoliticly tamper with the lion, and pluck out a tooth now and then, as some propose to melt down your strength by degrees, which would only irritate you to oppose us with all the power you had remaining. No; we will begin where we mean to end, by depriving you instantaneously, as by an elective shock, of every species of revenue from lands, which will universally, and at once, be given to the parishes, to be disposed of by and for the use of the inhabitants, as said before. But yet be not cast down, my good ladies and gentlemen, all this is done for the sake of system, not revenge or retaliation; for we wish not to reduce you to beggary, as you do us, for we will leave you all your moveable riches and wealth, all your gold and silver, your rich clothes and furniture; your corn and cattle, and every thing that does not appertain to the land as a fixture, for these, you know, must come to the parish with our estates. So that you see you will still be the richest part of the community, and may, by your chearful acquiescence, be much more happy than you are now under the existing unjust system of things. But if, by foolish and wicked opposition, you should compel us, in our own defence, to confiscate even your moveables, and perhaps also to cut you off, then let your blood be upon your own heads, for we shall be guiltless. It will therefore be your interest and wisdom to submit peaceably, and fraternize chearfully with us as fellow-citizens. For, instead of you then having the revenues of the country to carry on war against us, as you have now, the parishes will then have these revenues to carry on the war against you. And as to your moveable property, we

The Rights of Infants 89

are not afraid of it, for it would soon melt away in supporting you in a state of hostility against the strength and standing revenues of the country, unburthened with debts and pensions. So prepare yourselves peaceably to acquiesce in the new system of things, which is fast approaching. And when you shall hear of the blessed decree being passed by the people, that the land is from that day forth parochial property, join chorus with your glad fellow-creatures, and joyfully partake in the universal happiness. The Golden Age, so fam’d by men of yore, Shall now be counted fabulous no more. The tyrant lion like an ox shall feed, And lisping Infants shall tam’d tygers lead: With deadly asps shall sportive sucklings play, Nor ought obnoxious blight the blithesome day. Yes, all that prophets e’er of bliss foretold, And all that poets ever feign’d of old, As yielding joy to man, shall now be seen, And ever flourish like an evergreen. Then, Mortals, join to hail great Nature’s plan, That fully gives to Babes those Rights it gives to Man. Chorus. – To the Tune of ‘Sally in our Alley ’.5 Then let us all join heart in hand, Through country, town, and city; Of every sex and every age, Young men and maidens pretty. To haste this Golden Age’s reign, On every hill and valley, Then Paradise shall greet our eyes, Through every street and alley.

Conclusion BUT stop, don’t let us reckon without our host; for Mr Paine will object to such an equal distribution of the rents. For says he, in his Agrarian Justice, the public can claim but a Tenth Part of the value of the landed property as it now exists, with its vast improvements of cultivation and building. But why are we to be put off now with but a Tenth Share? Because, says Mr Paine, it has so improved in the hands of private proprietors as to be of ten times the value it was of in its natural state.

90 Thomas Spence

But may we not ask who improved the land? Did the proprietors alone work and toil at this improvement? And did we labourers and our forefathers stand, like Indians and Hottentots, idle spectators of so much public-spirited industry? I suppose not. Nay, on the contrary, it is evident to the most superficial enquirer that the labouring classes ought principally to be thanked for every improvement. Indeed, if there had never been any slaves, any vassals, or any daylabourers employed in building and tillage, then the proprietors might have boasted of having themselves created all this gay scene of things. But the case alters amazingly, when we consider that the earth has been cultivated either by slaves, compelled, like beasts, to labour, or by the indigent objects whom they first exclude from a share in the soil, that want may compel them to sell their labour for daily bread. In short, the great may as well boast of fighting their battles as of cultivating the earth. The toil of the labouring classes first produces provisions, and then the demand of their families creates a market for them. Therefore it will be found that it is the markets made by the labouring and mechanical tribes that have improved the earth. And once take away these markets, or let all the labouring people, like the Israelites, leave the country in a body, and you would immediately see from what cause the country had been cultivated, and so many goodly towns and villages built. You may suppose that after the emigration of all these beggarly people, every thing would go on as well as before: that the farmer would continue to plough, and the town landlord to build as formerly. I tell you nay; for the farmer could neither proceed without labourers nor find purchasers for his corn and cattle. It would be just the same with the building landlord, for he could neither procure workmen to build, nor tenants to pay him rent. Behold then your grand, voluptuous nobility and gentry, the arch cultivators of the earth; obliged, for lack of servants, again to turn Gothic hunters, like their savage forefathers. Behold their palaces, temples, and towns, mouldering into dust, and affording shelter only to wild beasts; and their boasted, cultivated fields and garden, degenerated into a howling wilderness. Thus we see that the consumption created by the mouths, and the backs, of the poor despised multitude, contributes to the cultivation of the earth, as well as their hands. And it is also the rents that they pay that builds the towns, and not the racking building landlord. Therefore, let us not in weak commiseration be biassed by the pretended philanthropy of the great, to the resignation of our dearest rights. And if our

The Rights of Infants 91

estates have improved in their hands, during their officious guardianship, the D-v-l thank them; for it was done for their own sakes, not for ours, and can be no just bar against us recovering our rights.

Notes 1. The Rights of Infants was wrote in the latter end of the year 1796, but Paine’s Agrarian Justice coming to hand before it was published, the following Strictures, by way of Preface and Appendix, were added. 2. [The King James version of the Bible has: ‘The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD’s: but the earth hath he given to the children of men’ (Psalms, 115: 16). The reference to John Locke (1632–1704) is to his Two Treatises of Government (1680–1690), First Treatise, Chapter IV, Section 31. – The Editors] 3. [The full version of this verse, according to the King James version of the Bible, reads: ‘Open thy mouth for the dumb in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction’ (Proverbs, 31: 8). – The Editors] 4. [In 1796 Thomas Spence had published a pamphlet entitled The Meridian Sun of Liberty; or, The Whole Rights of Man Displayed. – The Editors] 5. [‘Sally in our Alley’ was a popular ballad written in 1715 by the English musician and poet Henry Carey (1687?–1743). – The Editors]

9 Allen Davenport (Including Richard Carlile’s Reaction in Footnotes) Agrarian Equality – To Mr. R. Carlile, Dorchester Gaol (1824)

Excerpts from Allen Davenport, ‘Agrarian Equality – To Mr. R. Carlile, Dorchester Gaol’ The Republican, Vol. 10, No. 13, 1 October 1824, pp. 390–411. The article included Richard Carlile’s extensive reaction in footnotes. The extracts reproduced here are from pp. 390, 391–3, 394–6, 398–400 and 411. Allen Davenport was born in Ewen, Gloucestershire in 1775. After seven years in the army as a convinced loyalist to church and state, he moved to London and became a shoe-maker for the remainder of his life. From 1810 until his death in 1846, Davenport was a moderately important figure in successive phases of London radicalism, initially as an active supporter of Spence’s land plan. Richard Carlile was born in Ashburton, Devonshire on 8 December 1790. After moving to London, Carlile tried to earn a living as a journalist promoting a range of radical causes through various newspapers, including The Republican, which at the height of its popularity outsold even the establishment Times. Carlile was imprisoned several times for his religious and social radicalism. Toward the end of his life, Carlile adopted a form of Christian rationalism but continued to advocate political and social radicalism. Carlile died in extreme poverty in London, on 20 February 1843. Throughout the 1820s The Republican published a protracted debate between Carlile and Davenport over Spence’s land plan. Although sympathetic to theories of land and fiscal reform, Carlile rejected the idea of an individual dividend on three grounds. The first was that the level of land tax could be reduced if it had to meet only the essential costs of government without the additional burden of that dividend. The second was that the appropriate individual dividend would be impossible to calculate given constant population changes. Finally, Carlile argued that the dividend would act as a disincentive to labour, creating a host of idle parasites – so many little royal families, and one of those was already one too many. Carlile’s sardonic responses to Davenport’s arguments are contained in the footnotes signed ‘R.C.’. 92

Agrarian Equality 93

To Mr. R. Carlile, Dorchester gaol Agrarian equality ‘Independence is my happiness, and I view things as they are, without regard to place or person; my country is the world, and my religion is to do good’. Paine1 (…) No nation will be permitted to enjoy any thing like rational freedom, until some plan be adopted, which shall induce the people to defend their country, and their country’s liberties, with the same spirit and determination, as an individual would defend his own private property, if it were attacked by a thief. And the only plan, known at present, which would produce that glorious effect, is that of Agrarian Equality. In other words, let every individual have an equal interest, or profit in that land which gave him birth,2 and from which is extracted the sustenance of every thing that has life. All the lands which are reduced to private property, are so many usurpations; those who hold lands to the exclusion of others, would, if they could, usurp, enclose, and exclude us from the air we breathe, nay, this has been done as far as it was practicable, in the shape of window tax! We have now had a sufficient number of revolutions, and counterrevolutions, to convince, I should hope, every reflecting man, that there is something still wanting to give permanency to any great national reform. We need not make much inquiry into the cause of revolutions; they are the effect of an over-wrought despotism, of a heavier burden than the people can bear. So peaceably inclined are men in general, that that country must be in a dreadful state wherever a revolution takes place: to such a people it is a matter of life or death. The true and only cause of counter-revolutions, is the want of the above3 mentioned plan being put into full practise. It is clear to me, that there is no other scheme sufficiently strong, to enable the people effectually to conquer their tyrants, and to retain the advantages which are sought for in revolutions. And yet, it is on this very point, Mr. Carlile, that you and I disagree. You believe, that every thing that is necessary to be known to render a country as happy and as prosperous as possible, is to be found in Paine’s works.4 For many years I believed the same; but I am now, more than ever convinced, that there remains another step to ascend in political science, ere we can reach that prosperity and happiness which Mr. Paine, more than any other man, laboured to promote. If I have attempted to prove that Paine did not go far enough in political reform; how far, how

94 Allen Davenport

very far have you not out-run him in theological speculations. Paine only denied the divinity of Christ; but you deny an almighty power, and have proclaimed through an hundred publications the non-existence of that God whom Paine left omnipotent, omniscient, and omnifick. This is a convincing proof, that you think he did not go far enough in religious reform. I will, therefore, endeavour further to prove, that every thing short of an absolute equality in land, is a denial of those rights which nature or nature’s god intended that man should enjoy.5 (…) In your address to the Haytians, No. 30, Vol. VI, you say, ‘It is a bad principle in a nation to alienate its lands and mines to individuals, as individual property.’ And again, ‘the land with all its natural productions, may, and ought to be a common property ’. Here we are united, our sentiments are the same; but no sooner do you come within the embrace of nature and throw yourself on her bosom, than you spring up with a sudden start, and exclaim, ‘Of all the projects that were ever broached, that of an equality of property is the most impracticable.’6 Why, Sir, many things seem impracticable, and impossible too, until they are attempted. It seems to me impossible, under the present order of things, to maintain an equal balance of power in Europe, and yet, what seas of human blood have not been spilt, and mines of wealth expended to obtain that still distant object? The discovery of the origin of matter and motion seems to me quite impossible;7 and yet, what time is not spent, and what volumes are not written on that mysterious subject? I contend that an equality of property in land is practicable. I never knew any body that advocated an equalization of all sorts of property, except Tom Preston the shoe-maker.8 (…) I know that an equality of all sorts of property is both impractical and impossible; but why will they withhold from man those common privileges, and necessary benefits which are so readily granted to the beast? If a man has a mare, and the mare has a colt, the owner of the mare does not pinch out of the mare’s allowance a maintenance for the colt; neither does he impose more labour on the animal for that purpose, as is the case with a man and his children. If you think this is not a fair comparison, I will ascend a little higher; I will refer you to the plantations, where there are none but slaves; for there you will find, that whether men, women, or children, they all receive a proportionate equality in the means of subsistence. The slave-masters, brutes as some of them are, would never think of dividing that among three or four, which was only necessary for one. The same equalizing principle is recognised in the economy of every royal family in Europe. If an unmarried king, is in the possession of a million

Agrarian Equality 95

a year; there is something wrung from the state, as an outfit; an extra annual allowance granted when he takes a wife. The moment a royal child is born, a principality, a dukedom, or a bishoprick, is conferred on the infant, from which is drawn a revenue for its maintenance. Should the royal couple have a hundred children; every child would be provided for by the state, independent of the revenues of the King and Queen. It has been said, that royal parents ought to maintain and portion their own children, the same as private gentlemen, and so they do in this artificial state; but the present system is that which nature points out. It matters not how great the revenue of the unmarried king is, whether it be a million, or two millions a year, it is supposed by those who grant it, that it is no more than his comforts and pleasures require; so that it is very natural, that if his expenses increase, his income should increase. Now if this is right and just in royal families, which I think no one will attempt to deny; why should not the same principle be acted upon towards private families, and a provision made by the state for every child? Why should not every child that is born in the country be entitled, at its birth, to a revenue from the state,9 from the common farm, from the productions of the earth, as well as the child of a king? Nature owns the peasant,10 and proclaims the assistance she receives at his hands; but kings she acknowledges not; they are the violators of her brightest laws, and the destroyers of her noblest walks – they are the foes of man.11 (…) Your principal objections, Sir, when I wrote to you last on this subject were, that any equality of property even in land was impracticable; and if it could be put into practice, it would ruin all sorts of commerce (…). (…) Others object to this plan, and say, that if such a plan was to be acted upon, many of the working people, knowing that they would have something whether they were industrious or idle, would cease to labour, and the consequence would be, that the land would run to waste, and not produce enough of the necessaries of life for the general support of the population; which would produce discontent, anarchy, and every species of petty warfare, so that the result would be a general cry for the restoration of that government, which the people previous to this wonderful revolution thought so grievous, so unjust, and so tyrannical. Such objections as those would never be made by any reflecting man. It is the want of reflection, and entertaining that readiness of doubt of every thing that does not spring from our own brain, that keeps us continually in the dark, and makes us cherish the very system that destroys us. Mr. Owen rejected this system with disdain; but very readily adopted one of his own invention, though it is well known, that his plan, besides being absurd, tends

96 Allen Davenport

to dependence and slavery; whilst the system I advocate is calculated to produce liberty, independence and the most perfect happiness.12 Those who are afraid that the people would become idle, the land cease to be cultivated, and every thing thrown into confusion, have only to look around them; let them look at the East India Company, the Banking Company, or any other Joint Stock Company, and see if they can discover any idleness, any inactivity, or any confusion among them; or whether they are not the most prosperous, the most wealthy, and the most powerful people, according to their number, of any people on the earth. (…) This will probably be the last effort I shall make on this subject, for after all, if the present generation think that the land cannot be placed in better hands than13 it is at present, the present system is sufficient for the present age. But posterity may think otherwise, and to posterity I leave it, who will pronounce, whether my views are wild and visionary, or whether the system of which I am the humble advocate is the most just, the most humane, and the most natural system, that ever was submitted to the world, for the political redemption of mankind.14 Meantime, I remain,15 Sir, Your most obedient Servant, Allen Davenport.

Notes 1. [Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man, Part II, Chapter V. – The Editors] 2. What are they to have who are born upon the water? The fishes? Besides, the land gives birth to other animals as well as to man, who have the same claim for sustenance; which clearly proves, that there is no right of possession but in the right of power or conquest. Again, is the female to have as much profit as the male? the new born infant as the aged sire who has toiled to improve it? If not, by what right do you exclude? If so, at what age does the right of possession commence? The truth is, that by the rule of right, there is no right of profit or possession in the matter, beyond that policy which human law establishes. If the present law be wrong, and I think it wrong, all we can do is to re-conquer that which we have lost, or what is right and better. And this conquest, neighbour Davenport, must be obtained by something more than a war of words. The aristocrats will tell you, that their possessions are worth fighting for with deadly weapons. Call upon them for their title deeds, and like the Earl Warren, whose case you have quoted, they will show you their swords. R.C. 3. [Misprinted ‘obove’. – The Editors] 4. I really do not know that I believe any thing of the kind. I grant, that Mr. Paine, from his situation, ability and disposition, did more individual good, as a

Agrarian Equality 97

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

political writer, than perhaps will ever fall to the lot of another man; but I have never made his writings my Bible or Divine Revelation, not to be departed from even if absurd. I admire all in Mr. Paine that is admirable, and I find more of that quality in him than in the history of any other man recorded. I have no idol; but am free to follow that line of conduct and those opinions which shall promise the greatest amount of public good. I have no political creed in common with Mr. Paine, unless it be the one of electing all public officers by universal suffrage. If it be the taste of the nation, upon this scale of election, to have every thing as it now exists, I shall not murmur; though I would go on to point out the evils connected with such a system, and advise changes, attributing that taste to a want of knowledge upon the subject. R.C. Neither ‘Nature’ nor ‘Nature’s God’ intended any thing about the matter. It ranks among the class of absurdities, to be ever saying that an almighty power intends that which is never brought about. The contradiction in the assertion is a proof of its nonsense. R.C. There is no contradiction in my observations. The land and its natural products are wholly distinct from that capital which we call property, an accumulation of the produce of industry. I have plainly and consistently advocated the raising of a revenue for the purposes of Government from the land, in the shape of tax or rent. All a people can fairly desire is, to be an untaxed people; and if those (…) who hold the land pay a tax for its use to those who do not hold, ‘agrarian equality’ is fully accomplished. To me, Allen Davenport seems to crave to be a little aristocrat, to have a rent roll. In a former letter, I made it plain, that if he and each individual had such a rent roll, it would not benefit them; for if received as a tax, or rent upon the land, it must be paid away in the shape of some other tax. That system of Government which shall leave a free trade and an untaxed people, appears to me to be the highest good in politics. I am inclined to be very deep as a Reformer, thoroughly radical; but not be silly. R.C. Yes, if there be no origin to be discovered. It would be like a journey to find the ends and corners of the earth, because the Bible, being the word of God and some priests, has taught such geographical errors. None but madmen, spiritualists, talk about the origin of matter and motion. R.C. [Thomas Preston was a member of the Society of Spencean Philanthropists. In 1817 he published The Life and Opinions of T. Preston, Patriot and Shoemaker, Etc. – The Editors] What revenue? The tax must be imposed before it can be obtained: and what is this but an equality of all sorts of property. Thomas Preston can say no more. Pounds, shillings, and pence, Friend Davenport, do not grow out of the land: though the metals that make them may. It is quite clear, that you want a nation of Royal Families; and I think one too great a burthen. The natural productions of the earth are weeds and briars, and a beautiful confusion of things almost useless to man in his social state. Its improved condition, by social man, is the result of his individual labour, and the application to it of that manure and seed, and those tools and purchased labour, which strictly and justly speaking, are his private property. Our political economists say, that there is no actual rent to be obtained from the land, but in the difference of value between the best and worst lands, and the intermediate degrees of quality. R.C.

98 Allen Davenport 10. Who or what is this Dame Nature that owns the peasant? Is she also an almighty designing power? If so, she sadly neglects the peasants of the present day. If figures be tolerated, they must have some relation to truth. Though I have long and often used this word nature, I begin to see it to be one of those words which ignorance fashions to cover its nakedness. The peasant has no protector, nor protectress, but in the strength of his knowledge, and in the right use of his brawny limbs. As he goes on to improve his knowledge, he will rescue himself from servitude to the tyrannical customs of his fellow man. R.C. 11. Who makes them so? They have not the individual physical strength of a peasant. The fault then, is not in the individuals as Kings, but in those who suffer such an institution as a kingly office. R.C. 12. Systems are all very pretty things upon paper, or in the head; but the question is, how will they fit the dispositions, the aggregate disposition of the people for whom they are intended, or to whom they are recommended? You must either make your system to fit that disposition, or that disposition to fit your system. Without this, all is speculation, vapour, for the time being: though I would not discourage a jarring of systems upon paper. There is a right time for all things, and degrees of quality in time, as relating to the advocacy of systems; but, in my judgment, the best of all political systems that can be agitated at this moment is, to overthrow the priesthood, by shewing their bad foundation. To introduce new systems of politics into society, it is absolutely necessary to begin with a removal of existing evils. I take the existence of a priesthood to be the greatest political evil in a state, and one the removal of which, will make the removal of every other one a comparatively easy task. Remove those evils, those opposing powers, and you will find society free to make any and every experiment for the best; but unless you remove those powerful evils; you may talk about systems of reform to your last day without producing the least effect. I am quite sure, that, if all those men and women, who do now, or, who, of late, did, call themselves Reformers, did see the means of Reform in its proper light, I should have their most strenuous support. I left their track to accomplish something I saw to be more useful, and many of them were erroneously angry with me for so doing. They may now, or will soon, see, that I was and am in the right course, and they in the wrong. R.C. 13. [Misprinted ‘that’. – The Editors] 14. To posterity we’ll leave, as we cannot settle the matter, so as to put it into practice for the present. The Priests are in the way. The Priests hold their benefices on the presentations of the Aristocrats, which makes every priest a stickler for the privileges of such aristocrats. Unchristianize your neighbours, Allen Davenport, and then you will be journeying straight forward to your ‘promised land;’ to ‘your land of great promise that floweth with milk and honey’. Whilst you keep these drones in the hive, they must be fed by your honey. R.C. 15. [Misprinted ‘remaim’. – The Editors]

10 Charles Fourier Letter to the High Judge (1803)

Reprint, with permission of the University of Missouri Press, of an excerpt from Charles Fourier, Letter to the High Judge (1803), in: The Utopian Vision of Charles Fourier. Selected Texts on Work, Love, and Passionate Attraction, Translated, edited and with an introduction by Jonathan Beecher and Richard Bienvenu (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1983). The extract reproduced here is from pp. 87–9. Copyright © 1983 by the Curators of the University of Missouri. François Marie Charles Fourier was born on 7 April 1772 in Besançon, France. This highly original utopian socialist presented an elaborate vision of a better, harmonious society in which human passions, instead of being restrained, would have ample opportunities to develop. In his system, production would be organised in phalanstères, where a typical working day would consist of work in different series, according to the preferences of each individual. His main works are Théorie des Quatre Mouvements (1808), Traité de l’Association DomestiqueAgricole (1812; republished in 1834 under the title Théorie de l’Unité Universelle), Le Nouveau Monde Industriel et Sociétaire (1829), and La Fausse Industrie (1835–1836). Between 1830 and 1850 his ideas were extremely influential in France, but also in the United States. He died on 10 October 1837, in Paris, France. The ‘Lettre de Fourier au Grand-Juge’ of 1803, originally published in the Bulletin de Lyon, is one of Fourier’s earliest writings. It was not included in Fourier’s œuvres Complètes, but has been re-edited by C. Pellarin under the same title (Paris: Dentu, 1874). In this letter, Fourier mentioned for the first time his idea of providing everyone with a ‘decent minimum’. The idea reappeared in all his subsequent works.

Poverty is the principal cause of social disorders. Inequality, so much maligned by the philosophers, is not displeasing to men. On the contrary, the bourgeois delights in hierarchy; he loves to see the bigwigs decked out and parading in their best finery. The poor man views them 99

100 Charles Fourier

with the same enthusiasm. Only if he lacks what is necessary does he begin to detest his superiors and the customs of society. This is the origin of social disorders, crimes and of the gallows, that sad bastion of the civilized order. It is easy to prove that all social crimes committed out of ambition proceed from the poverty of the people, from their efforts to escape poverty, from the anxiety which is instilled in society by the presence of poverty, from the fear of falling into it, and from disgust for the odious habits which it encourages. For social science there is thus only one problem to resolve, that of the graduated metamorphosis which I have mentioned. By this I mean the art of raising each of the classes of civilization to the condition of the class above it. Then indigence and discomfort will be eliminated, since the lower class will have become the middle class and will enjoy an honest comfort like our petty bourgeois who are far removed indeed from a spirit of sedition.1 When the people enjoy constant comfort and a decent minimum, all the sources of discord will be dried up or reduced to very little. Administration will become child’s play, and in Harmony the government of the whole planet will be much less complicated than that of a civilized empire. To eliminate poverty it was necessary to conceive of an industrial system more productive than our own. Such will be universal harmony which will produce at least triple – yes, without exaggeration – at least triple the yield of the civilized system in a well-cultivated empire. Accordingly, while Harmony will greatly increase the wealth of the wellto-do, it will bring about an excessive increase in that of the people, to whom it will guarantee a salary or in old age a decent minimum below which they cannot fall. This beneficence will be all the more simple in that humanity will reproduce much less in Harmony than in civilization. This is far removed from the theories of the philosophers, some of whom, the Demagogues, seek to rob the rich to provide for the poor.2 The others, who are called the Economists, do not have the welfare of the people in mind.3 They think only of enriching empires without worrying themselves about the fate of the individual. Thus the theories of the Economists have greatly enriched England without enriching the English. According to the Tableau de Londres4 you can find 115,000 paupers, prostitutes, thieves, beggars and unemployed in the city of London alone; the workers of Scotland live in a frightful state of misery. This is nonetheless the consequence of the modern systems which claim to alleviate the suffering of the people. Furthermore, just as Steuart5 prophesied, none of the philosophical theories has proved adequate to deal with the problem of excessive

Letter to the High Judge

101

population. The civilized reproduce too much, produce too little, and waste vast quantities of food, labor, time, energy, etc. Count Rumford6 and Cadet de Vaux7 are the only writers I know who have understood the vice of civilized societies. These societies are going to reduce the common people to the most frightful poverty everywhere except in new areas like the United States where labor is lacking. The source of this widespread indigence is excessive procreation. Nevertheless humanity will be able to multiply for about eighty more years in order to bring the globe to its full size of three billion inhabitants. Once this number is reached, however, the population will remain fixed in Harmony. What would be the point of having swarms of excess population once wars are abolished? Excessive numbers of people will become so useless that France, for its part, will disgorge about five million of its inhabitants who will find homes in Spain, the Ukraine, etc. Let us summarize the problem which I have just raised: it is to prove that three billion inhabitants in the order of Harmony will be just as productive as nine or ten billion in civilization. Of course this prodigious increase in wealth would be illusory if Harmony failed to eliminate the seeds of human discord, such as war, which neutralize the efforts of men and absorb the fruits of their industry, no matter how great they may be.

Notes 1. Like most social theorists of his time, Fourier was often vague and ambiguous in his discussion of social class. Even in his mature writings he generally divided society simply into the rich, the poor, and the middle class or bourgeoisie. In this text the expression classe populacière (here translated as ‘lower class’) is used interchangeably with classe pauvre and simply le peuple. [Note of Beecher and Bienvenu] 2. It is possible that Fourier has the Babouvists in mind. But it is more likely that he is referring here to the more radical Jacobin orators and publicists of the Revolutionary period, such as Marat and Chalier. The latter was the leader of Lyon’s Jacobin group and his ideas were doubtless well known to Fourier. [Note of Beecher and Bienvenu] 3. The classical liberal political economists who adhered to the ideas of Adam Smith. [Note of Beecher and Bienvenu] 4. Probably a reference to P.H. Langlois (tr.), Le Tableau de Londres et de ses environs en 1802 (Paris, 1802). [Note of Beecher and Bienvenu] [We can find no trace of the book referred to by Beecher and Bienvenu. Perhaps Fourier referred to François Lacombe, Tableau de Londres et de ses Environs, avec un Précis de la Constitution de l’Angleterre et de sa Décadence, Londres, Société Typographique, 1784. – The Editors]

102 Charles Fourier 5. Sir James Denham Steuart (1712–80) was a Scottish economist who advocated mercantilist ideas and was best known for his Inquiry into the Principles of Political Economy (1767; French translation, 1789). [Note of Beecher and Bienvenu] 6. Benjamin Thompson Count Rumford (1753–1814) was an English scientist, philanthropist and social reformer. He made significant contributions to the study of heat, but he was interesting to Fourier chiefly as a partisan of soup kitchens and other forms of public aid to the poor. [Note of Beecher and Bienvenu] 7. [Antoine Alexis] Cadet de Vaux (1743–1828) was a French chemist and agronomist, an advocate of experimental farming, and a staunch partisan of the potato. Fourier frequently praised him as an early defender of the idea of agricultural association. [Note of Beecher and Bienvenu]

11 Joseph Charlier Solution of the Social Problem or Humanitarian Constitution, Based upon Natural Law, and Preceded by the Exposition of Reasons (1848)

Translation of excerpts from Joseph Charlier, Solution du Problème Social ou Constitution Humanitaire, Basée sur la Loi Naturelle, et Précédée de l’Exposé de Motifs (Bruxelles, Chez Tous les Libraires du Royaume, 1848). This text has never been translated into English. The extracts reproduced here are from pp. 20–7, 33–47 and 51–2; for reasons of clarity headings have been added. Translation copyright © 2004 by John Cunliffe and Guido Erreygers. Joseph Charlier was born in Brussels, Belgium on 20 June 1816. His exact profession is unknown; he once classified himself as a jurist, but in successive population registers his occupation is variously described as writer, accountant and merchant. He is considered only in passing in many of the standard sources on the history of socialism in Belgium, and there is no substantial study of either his life or work. He published at least thirteen books, ranging from novels and poetry to works on technical legal issues and social theory. He died in Brussels on 6 December 1896. His first major publication was Solution du Problème Social ou Constitution Humanitaire, Basée sur la Loi Naturelle, et Précédée de l’Exposé de Motifs (1848), a work heavily influenced by Fourierist thought. It was followed by Catéchisme Populaire, Philosophique, Politique et Social (1871), La Question Sociale Résolue Précédée du Testament Philosophique d’un Penseur (1894), and L’Anarchie Désarmée par l’Équité. Corollaire à la Question Sociale Résolue (1894). In his 1848 book Charlier introduced his scheme for a ‘guaranteed minimum’ funded from the socialisation of rent. In later works he referred to it as ‘the system of territorial dividend’.

[The right to live and the right to property of the land] When he is born man brings with him the right to live; from this right, which is inherent to his being and which surely nobody will dare to contest, follows as a necessary consequence, the right to demand from the 103

104 Joseph Charlier

land, the common patrimony of men, his share of the fruits that he needs for his existence. To deny him this sharing of the fruits of the land under the pretext that the earth belongs to those who occupy it by virtue of a conventional legal title, is to question indirectly the sacred right to live God has granted him and which must take priority over all other rights, the latter being nothing but posterior facts resulting from the primordial principle of existence. From which it follows that full property of the land is unalienable by nature: it is joint property and does not belong to private individuals but to the collectivity, to all creatures as a whole. Man is and can be nothing but a usufructuary of the earth, the possession of which is a fact, not a right, since there cannot be any right in a pretension that leads to the annihilation of the right to live. Therefore, the right to property of the land, such as it has been established by civil laws, is stained with a radical vice: it is a usurpation, an abuse of force, covered and honoured by custom. And it is subversive to the point that, even though keeping within the bounds of legality, a few families might own the land, thus having the exorbitant right to render the whole of humanity tributary to their will by this monopoly. In other words: the fate of the overwhelming majority of humanity would depend on the goodwill of a very small minority, in such a way that the right to live, which is consecrated by God and which is the first of all rights, would be subordinated to the right to landownership, which is consecrated by whom? By man! This major aberration by man as to the right to property of the land, which constitutes the basis of civilized societies, forms the stumbling block that has wrecked and will wreck every attempt to improve the condition of the masses, because this right violates nature, and every doctrine perverting God’s laws cannot but engender evil and suffering. Does this mean that in order to reconstruct society on truthful principles, the rich should be deprived to the profit of the poor, and families as well as fortunes should be disrupted? Not in the least. [The fundamental problem of mankind] The problem to solve is the following: ‘To transform territorial wealth into collective wealth, without undermining legal rights and whilst fully respecting the right to legal property.’ At first sight this problem appears to be utterly paradoxical, and I would almost say completely unsolvable. Nevertheless, the humanitarian constitution provides a mathematical solution to it.1 Therefore we beg the reader, whatever opinion he may hold, to overcome the hostile prejudice which is in general the lot of dissident schools. We ask him to

Solution of the Social Problem 105

form his opinion, to establish his conviction only after conscientious and impartial examination of the theory as a whole. Let us first of all acknowledge this law of supreme providence, of unchanging wisdom of the Creator, who has put the plant kingdom next to the animal kingdom as a resource to satisfy its needs. Now, do the fruits of the earth meet the needs of our organs and do they suffice? There can be no discussion about an affirmative answer. That being the case, one has to admit that by nature man possesses all the ingredients of happiness that are compatible with his physical faculties, provided he respects the laws of Providence and does not misuse his power to distort the fair division of the territorial revenues. Hence the general principles settling the normal distribution of collective property with regard to man. ‘Because it is obvious’, one writer has said somewhere, ‘that the individual right to the common patrimony is originally equal to all, since all have the equal right to self-preservation and self-development; that therefore these equal rights are mutually restrictive and that furthermore all of them are limited by duty: this comprises the relationships between individuals insofar as they have obligations to one another, as well as between individuals and the whole community, their social unit and the unity of mankind. To which one must still add, in order to fully encompass the law, the relationships between humanity and the entire creation, relationships which impose real duties on humanity and all its members towards the other beings, even the most imperfect ones, since all have to exist, all have their rights as all have their duties, and the whole of these duties and rights constitute the supreme legislation of order and life within nature.’2 Therefore, from the day man has carried his audacity to the point of substituting his will for God’s law by decreeing the individual right to property of the land, he has violated the grand and sound principle of the brotherhood of man, he has inverted the order of nature and created the first germ of egoism, which has become the sole pivot of human action, since it is his only guarantee of self-conservation in the middle of the fragmentation and dispersion of interests, because the necessities of physical life tie the individual down to more or less exclusive personal preoccupations. First of all let us denounce citizen Proudhon’s brutal maxim here, which says that property is theft. Theft is the fraudulent removal of another man’s things. Yet, someone who has accumulated a certain capital through his labour and thrift and who, in keeping with the laws that govern society, consolidates it by buying landed property, is by no means guilty of theft. He performs an utterly legal and utterly legitimate act. There is no illegality

106 Joseph Charlier

as far as the acquisition is concerned; the illegality resides in the earlier principle under the authority of which the act is performed. Property of the land is not theft; it is essentially illegitimate possession, and it is the duty of society to stop this, on condition, however, that it indemnifies the current owners since they possess in good faith and legally. Proudhon’s maxim becomes even more monstrous when applied to personal property. Here it genuinely consecrates theft since it directly tends to deprive the hard-working man of the fruits of his labour to the profit of the idler. One might just as well organize pillaging at once; the result would be the same. [The proposed solution] The land to nobody, but the fruit to all. That is the great, the true maxim on which the faith of human society rests and of which we will demonstrate the intrinsic legitimacy and benefits. We know what can happen to those who have the courage to proclaim a truth which apparently undermines the principle of the right to property. We say ‘apparently’ because basically our theory respects the right to property; but only of legitimate property, which is acquired by labour, and not of illegitimate property, which is usurpation due to the perversion of common law. Our respect for property ends where usurpation begins. And we say that as long as the right to individual property is applicable to the land, as long as people will bow before this delusive doctrine, this impious dogma of legal usurpation, political society will never manage to realize this immutable principle of justice, which decrees that material wellbeing must be the prize of labour and not the reward for idleness. We accept in advance all the consequences of our candour; we take full responsibility for our social ideas. Some will call them illusions, pipe dreams, utopian views; others will ban them as a subversive doctrine, even a conspiracy against public order. One may criticize our work, suspect our intentions, libel our sentiments, but one cannot destroy our convictions and certainly not the truths they rely upon. We have said that our respect for property stops where usurpation begins. This thought needs explaining. One has to distinguish two kinds of human needs: 1. absolute or vital needs; 2. relative or acquired needs. The vital needs are those that are indispensable to the support of life. In the mind of the individual they constitute rights.

Solution of the Social Problem 107

The acquired needs are those which are provided by the refinement of the senses, and which can be suppressed without jeopardizing existence. They constitute only discretionary powers. Rights must be respected, protected and satisfied by society or by the State. Discretionary powers, on the other hand, do not impose any obligation; they must be left to individual activity of which they are the most energetic incentives. Now, human life can only be safeguarded if vital needs are guaranteed on the basis of the collective right to the land. Since today this guarantee does not exist, human life is often endangered by the encroachment of the acquired needs of some on the vital needs of others: human creatures starve to death while others wallow in abundance. This is awful, but it cannot surprise anyone in a cruel society in which the inequality of possession pre-exists the equality of each man’s rights. We mean to say, in a society in which the majority of men are born without an inch of land on the earth which was created for all. As if God had lacked foresight and had not harmonized the laws of plant production with those of animal production! How fortunate that the air and the sun have been put beyond man’s reach; he would undoubtedly not have failed to establish an individual right to property for them as well! [The duties of individuals and of the State] We are not among those who pretend that it is political society which has the duty to balance the desires inherent to man’s nature. The community or the State – an abstract being – should not absorb or annihilate individual responsibility. Every living being on earth is responsible for his deeds and must suffer the consequences. That is an unchanging principle of justice without which no society is possible. The State, however, owes to all its members the means to guarantee their vital needs, which God has taken care to provide, even without man’s assistance. That is where State intervention must stop, leaving man to his own devices for everything concerning his acquired needs. This State obligation is nothing but the legal protection of the whole against the part, or public security organized preventively instead of coercively, and its neglect has led to monstrous results. It can be realized only by returning to the truth, to the collective right to the land. And it is essentially the business of the State to exercise this right, by means of the first natural law: equality of rights through equality of faculties. This does not apply to acquired needs. Generated from man’s activity they must be satisfied by that activity. Therefore, in society every man has to exert his individual activity or the more or less intelligent application of his productive faculties as a resource for his well-being or for

108 Joseph Charlier

the full satisfaction of his sensory faculties. And since the only incentive for this activity is the pursuit of happiness, the fruit of this activity has to be guaranteed to everyone on pain of injustice and perversion of the second natural law: equality of obligations through equality of needs. From which follows the individual right to movable property, that is to say to the products of industry, as a logical, necessary consequence of this law. Therefore, he who succeeds in acquiring wealth through his industry, his activity and his intelligence must be able to enjoy this wealth as the legitimate reward for his labour. To undermine this right under the pretext of restricting its exercise to certain limits, or to divert its course to the benefit of the community, as rigid communism proclaims, would mean the organization of collective tyranny against the individual, just like the right to property in land is the organization of individual tyranny against community. What man has made is his product, his personal property, and no consideration can deprive him of it. A legitimately acquired fortune must therefore be sacred for all. From which it follows that movable wealth is transmissible through gifts inter vivos and through testamentary dispositions. It is in fact unquestionable that the right to property encloses the right to dispose of property as one sees fit. Once this principle is recognized, acknowledged, its consequences must be accepted, viz. the liberty to dispose of one’s fortune in the broadest possible meaning of the word. But if man has not made his intentions in this respect known before he died, he is supposed to have trusted the wisdom of the law for making use of his fortune. Then the law settles the succession ab intestat in the name of society and with a view to social interests. In the present order of things in which a child does not find any actual guarantee for education, nor any guardian institution protecting it against the contingencies of abandonment or the inevitable negligence of poverty, which is unfortunately the fate of the largest number, familism, as the sole hearth of solidarity, needs inheritance as a backing on all levels. The collectivity, at present without any direct obligations towards the individual, cannot deprive the family of the right to inheritance and substitute itself for the heirs to collect legacies in their stead while at the same time leaving them to cope with the cost of raising and educating their children. But as soon as the State – the emblem of power and unity – will offer children – the emblem of feebleness – the material support they need for a progressive development of their faculties, not by replacing the family, but by helping it with free national boarding schools created with a view to directing human activity towards its genuine productive destiny, and where all children without distinction

Solution of the Social Problem 109

of class, station or fortune will be admitted and raised along the principles of love and fraternity, only then will the legal hereditary system stop being a family necessity and become a collective right. This collective right, however, would respect the will of nature, leaving man at absolute liberty to dispose of his goods in favour of his beloved. His will is by no means thwarted: one relies on his good sense. The transmission of the right to property, therefore, has to result from the will of its owner. If this will has not been expressed, the right returns to its primitive source, since then one may presume that the deceased has not enjoyed the care and friendship among his next of kin to which he had a right and which are the sole justifications of inheritance. Provided it is not a matter of sudden death, in which case the will of the deceased is presumed to be in favour of his heirs. [A guaranteed minimum as a means to eradicate poverty] All schools agree in acknowledging the fact that the situation of the people is miserable, that they do not consume a quarter of what a modest existence requires with regard to food, clothing, heating, furniture and housing. Michel Chevalier, whom we cite as an authority in economic science only with respect to his statistical data, estimates that the production in France does not even reach a third of what would be necessary to raise the material conditions of the popular masses to the level of well-being below which neither liberty nor dignity can be conceived.3 The problem of improving the situation of the people, he says, can only be solved by a major development of production. We in our turn will add that this is but part of the solution: it does not suffice to increase production to extinguish the pauperism which decimates populations. In the first place one has to find the means to render the products accessible to all. That is the key question, because what good is a large stock of supplies if the people are reduced to contemplating them without being able to touch them. So, if one considers the abundance of all kinds of products in the shops, side by side with this mass of men, women and children in rags, does it need more than a little bit of common sense to understand that the cause of industrial anarchy does not reside in the exuberance of the population, but in the poverty of the masses who on average are merely able to meet 1/5 of their needs? The explanation of industrial decadence is therefore not to be sought in competition, but in this order of things which today condemns 3/4 of the population to suffer all kinds of deprivations, and which ceaselessly tends to expand the already vast domain of misery. And since everything is linked up together in social

110 Joseph Charlier

economy it goes without saying that the industry must collapse if the circle of consumers shrinks. Therefore, from the day everyone will be put in possession of a guaranteed minimum, and living comfortably will have taken the place of misery, the overall consumption of products will no longer allow competition the time to depreciate, to degrade labour. The speed of the flow will be in proportion to the number of consumers and will inevitably enhance manufacturing activity, since in fact we claim that if all members of society would only consume half of what constitutes a decent well-being, the entire industrial and agricultural activity of the country would at best be just sufficient to satisfy the demand. Hence it is time to stop preaching against competition, to stop being alarmed about the so-called surplus of products. And instead of making strenuous efforts to look for outlets in the Indies, one would better try to find a way of selling the products in the country where the greater majority of individuals is still walking barefoot and does not even own a second shirt. We know all too well that there is no shortage of people who will affirm that it is not through the division of the right to property that one will accomplish the replacement of misery with prosperity. We have to confess that they would be perfectly right if they believed or claimed to obtain this radical transformation overnight. Only God’s hand can work such wonders. As to us, feeble mortals, we do not promise to perform miracles and mystify the reader like so many political charlatans do. Instead we call for the help of time to emancipate the workers from the grip of misery that numbs them. But by means of figures we will soon prove that from the first year this humanitarian constitution is brought into operation, one will be able to appreciate its benefits. First of all, by the progressive enrolment of poor children in national boarding schools to the great relief of their parents, whose expenses will be much reduced, and who will moreover find the possibility of enlarging their income by spending at work the time they used to and had to give to their children: a double advantage which is bound to better by a third the living conditions of the workers. Next, by the complete and immediate suppression of taxes and excises which lay a financial burden on food. This first result, the immense benefits of which no one will fail to notice, and which in itself would already suffice to justify the system that brings it about, is nevertheless only the first stage in a growing progress which will better the physical fate of the individual markedly year by year and will only stop as soon as his vital needs will be completely and fully guaranteed.

Solution of the Social Problem 111

[The idleness objection against a guaranteed minimum] Among the other objections which the motionless spirit of the optimists will not fail to raise against this doctrine, there is the argument that the guarantee of an obligatory minimum for all, leaving labour optional, encompasses an encouragement of idleness: since man will no longer have to take care of his vital needs he will prefer the far niente to developing his acquired needs, which he can only satisfy through labour. It is a very big mistake to let the spur of needs be the driving force of industrial activity. As the attraction of labour is only situated in the advantages it procures, it is obvious that the more these advantages are real, the more love for labour will develop; and the more they are sterile, the more it will burn out. Today a worker can at the most secure the barest necessities, even if he works beyond the limits of his strength and time, and so for him labour is unrewarding, disheartening: the more he works, the more he exhausts himself, and the less he makes progress. Immersed in misery today, upset by unemployment threatening all branches of industry in the future, without hope, constantly unhappy, always a slave: does it come as a surprise that the worker often seeks distraction from his agony in the illusions of alcohol, or abandons the labour that does not even supply him with the means to restore the forces he invests in it? And what remedy has economic science come up with? – Saving! Talk about saving to men who have no bread! That is worse than madness, that is irony. First make sure they can buy everything they need, and then talk about prudential institutions. It is really pitiable to see how, with the growing depreciation of salaries, all the efforts to better the fate of the worker end up in a mystification. Saving! No doubt savings banks are excellent institutions. They inspire feelings of order and thrift in those who are able to benefit from them. But who are they in general? Domestic staff, employees, people with small private means and the odd exceptionally favoured worker: all of them people whose vital needs have been safeguarded. This proves that a man whose first needs are secured, whose material life is supported, is generally speaking more steady, more active and more industrious. That is because only then he starts to taste the advantages and to enjoy the fruit of his labour. He no longer lives from day to day, he is ahead of the future with capital, and the more his income grows, the more his courage grows. Arrived at well-being he will want to rise to prosperity, and from there to opulence. The love for possession developing through possession itself. That is the sole, the unique law of all industrial activity. Therefore, when man enjoys a guaranteed minimum, he will certainly not be diverted from work, but on the contrary, he will be energetically

112 Joseph Charlier

incited by the direct and personal advantages it provides, because from the moment his labour has to satisfy only his acquired needs, it becomes attractive in that it enlarges the sphere of well-being and spreads the benefits of capital, adopting its characteristics and realizing its enjoyments. [Who will do the dirty work?] But certainly, one will say, repugnant industries – like cleaning chimneys, sewers, cesspits, transporting garbage – and dangerous industries – like exploiting mines in general, producing white lead etc. – will cease to find arms to work them, for what human being will be mad enough to expose and compromise his life or lend himself to disgusting occupations, when his vital needs are covered anyway? To answer this objection we will not invoke Fourier’s grand law of attraction by means of which he is able, theoretically, to find agents for every function, however unattractive it may be. The only attraction that could overcome the repugnance and danger involved in such jobs is to attach financial advantages to the exercise of these repulsive and lethal tasks. No doubt the establishment of a guaranteed minimum, by raising and bettering the material conditions of the popular masses, will render them more fastidious in their choice of a profession; but since this choice is, generally speaking, determined by the wages of labour, the industries concerned have to offer their employees, because they are absolutely necessary, sufficiently high wages for them to accept as a fair compensation for the inconvenience they incur. This way, for instance, a chimney sweep who lives miserably today, often enough receiving nothing more than a crust of bread and a lousy bed for his services to society in preventing fires, will find his rewards increased by at least three quarters in the system of guarantee, for the simple reason that without this fair improvement he would give up sweeping as a sterile and unattractive condition. He would prefer to hold on to his minimum rather than play the willing victim, and he would be perfectly right. In the same way miners and quarrymen could not be kept working but by a salary rise corresponding to a general improvement. The acknowledgement of the collective right to the land, therefore, will not entail the suppression of these exceptional industries for lack of manpower. But its immediate consequence will be a restitutory reward for that class of pariahs whose compensation today for their tedious and useful labour is being doomed to poverty. That is a benefit the humanitarian constitution realizes by the mere impulse of its invigorating and rational action. And such is the concatenation of earthly things that once entered upon the path of the good, good will follow good, will spread and rise as if by magic. Only the first step costs.

Solution of the Social Problem 113

[A stimulus to independence] Another advantage attached to the guaranteed minimum is the mutual independence of individuals with respect to each other. Nothing consolidates social relations better, raises personal dignity higher than the actual independence of man with regard to his vital needs. We have all been able to experience the danger of a rupture when a matter of personal interest is raised between two friends. In general friendships fade from the moment personal interest is at stake. In that area everyone is on one’s guard or on the defensive. And in fact the exclusivity of this feeling – pardon the neologism – cannot surprise in the present society in which, by lack of a positive and general guarantee of the right to live, everyone is forced, by a natural feeling of conservation, which is the most powerful, the most general and the most commanding of all feelings, to sacrifice all other affections to the material I. We all know that there are beautiful examples of self-denial and disinterestedness, but these exceptions do not destroy the rule. In general man subjects to this law of personal interest, and this law is so embodied in the human heart that one finds it everywhere, at the bottom as well as on top of the social ladder. Once the right to conservation is guaranteed for all by means of a minimum, man will no longer be forced to demean himself to often shameful acts in order to snatch his existence from the urgent needs inherent to his nature. As a result the mistrust, which today keeps them more or less at a distance, will no longer have a reason to exist and will disappear in the light of the general conviction that from now on friendship will no longer be a burden, but will be profitable for all. [A recapitulation] Therefore, let us proclaim as fundamental laws, as symbols of truth and justice: Landed property, the work of God, belongs to the community of created beings: it is indivisible and invariable like humanity itself, to the service of which it has been intended and of which it must secure the natural and vital needs. Mobile wealth, the work of man, is essentially personal: it is destined to give satisfaction to the acquired needs, in direct proportion to the degree of activity of each person. As collective property, the first has to be managed by the State; as individual property, the latter has to be governed and exploited freely by individuals. Due to the confusion of these two essentially distinct principles the world has been wrestling in social anarchy for so many centuries, by pitting collective against individual rights. In vain political

114 Joseph Charlier

laws have tried to maintain peace between both by enlarging civil prerogatives; they only managed to arrive at a truce. And there is definitely nothing better to prove the fragility of human reason, when it rivals nature’s will, than the impotence of its efforts aimed at establishing order without the murderous aid of the sword. Suffice it to say that it is not in the political form of government that one must look for the salvation of the human race, but in the return to positive and rational laws that reunite the creature with creation. No one has understood this truth better than Fourier. He starts from the principle that every creation of God has its reason for being, and instead of suppressing man’s passions, instead of perverting his instincts after the example of the moralists, he plainly accepts and develops them, and finds in their free manifestation the great social harmony or the image of sovereign wisdom. From the point of view of the present social state, in which the passions are in general subversive, it is clear that the results of their free play would be subversive too. And we understand that out of a feeling of conservation society shows itself wary and arms itself against the potential abuse of an intrinsically good principle which may become harmful because of a wrong turn, by relying on safeguards of order which more or less restrict natural liberties. To want to overrule immediately this legitimate fear of society towards the absolute triumph of the natural laws is to want to commit suicide. Like waves that overflow and flood the fields when stopped by an obstacle, human passions need time to return to their bed before they can resume their natural course. That is why next to the compulsory minimum, which guarantees individual life, room must be made for the principle of collective authority, which guarantees social life. These two terms limit and complete one another. They can draw closer to each other insofar as the obstacles to the free development of the passions will melt by the progressive expansion of social capital. But they can never become identical and realize the ideal of perfection Fourier dreamt of. Let us try to realize the good while marching towards the possible: that is the surest way to attain our goal. (…) [The compensation system for the existing landowners] At last we arrive at the practical solution, where undoubtedly the reader is anxious to see how we will keep our promises. This is the moment to reassure the crowd of landowners of all kinds that there is no brutal expropriation at stake. If they wish to, they will continue to occupy and exploit the property they live upon and employ. They are granted the right to do so, but only in the capacity of tenants.

Solution of the Social Problem 115

Based upon survey estimates or any other valuation method to be decided, the value of these goods will be converted into annuities to the benefit of proprietors and their descendants, and this until the fourth generation and by depreciation of a quarter per generation. One who owns a real estate fortune worth 200,000 francs, for instance, can count on a net income, after taxes and charges, of 2.5%, that is to say 5000 francs. Instead of receiving this sum from his tenants, who often do not pay or cause him trouble and difficulties, he will be listed in the grand ledger of public debt and will only have to deal with the State which will regularly pay him his income every three months. After his death, his heirs inherit, according to their respective rights, his inscription, which is reduced to 3750 francs after writing off a quarter to the profit of the State. Though scattered and split up, these 3750 francs are subjected as a whole, when passing to the third generation, to a new proportional reduction by the writing-off of the second quarter of the original heritage. This way the grandchildren will enjoy together an income of 2500 francs. Finally, the inheritors of the fourth generation enjoy the last quarter of the heritage of their great-grandparents, and this entails the extinction of the public debt contracted with the purpose of compensating bequests. In carrying the right to inheritance of the land on to the fourth generation, one respects the natural feeling to the point where affection burns out, since beyond great-grandparents there are only memories, and to memories one can certainly not permit the sacrifice of the interests of humanity. To restrict the collective right out of consideration for an individual right derived from usurpation, is already a large concession. Moreover, let us not forget that we are dealing here with the land, that is to say the guarantee for the vital needs of the human race, and that individuals are given the utter liberty to dispose of their mobile wealth according to their own wishes. This system satisfies all interested parties without offending any positive right, and at the same time it frees the land from the piracy that made it the business of the minority to the detriment of the largest number. In fact, as to the present owners, who are the only ones whose acquired rights are to be respected, there is complete redemption by means of the settlement of annuities proportionate to the cadastral value of their real estate. They enjoy their incomes just like before. They even gain the profit of the non-productive lands, which on average represent 1/25 of the total value. So the acquired needs of the rich are by no means affected: the opulence in which they have been raised, and which has become a relative necessity for them, is fully preserved. No

116 Joseph Charlier

doubt this is a major act of tolerance if one remembers that the right to property of the land is in itself illegitimate, and that in this respect its expropriation is legal. Therefore, to those who will protest against this forced expropriation, against is arbitrariness, we will answer that in order to be expropriated one must have had property in the first place; that since the land could have become property only because of a usurpation of the collective right, one could even go so far as to put a stop to this usurpation without any compensation at all; that nevertheless, far from making use of this legal, legitimate right, one proceeds by means of redemption, not expropriation, since expropriation consists in the loss of the advantages attached to legitimate possession. Here, however, all present owners maintain their advantages thanks to the guarantee of their territorial income. One goes even beyond this by continuing to pay this income up to the fourth generation, which is the final limit of affection, even if one cannot invoke the principle of acquired rights on behalf of the three inheriting generations. [Advantages for the poor and the rich] It has to be noted that since the State owes a minimum to everyone to guarantee their vital needs, this minimum, which will not suffice at first, will progressively grow through the successive extinction of the redemption allocations, so that the 5th generation, deprived of all right to inheritance of the land, will get full possession of the territorial income. Moreover, it is important to take into account the instability of personal fortunes which so often deeply distresses families and ruins individuals. How much material disparity do we see today between the position of brothers and sisters, who were originally equally well-off, and of whom one prospers and drives in a coach, while the other has fallen back and begs for charity. How many people do we see, rich today, poor tomorrow. And these are no exceptions; there are very few families in which no examples of such contrasts can be found. No doubt these inconstancies of fortune often spring from personal faults; often enough, though, they result from involuntary and unmerited misfortune. And one who leaves a sparkling fortune to his son cannot be sure that this son will not die of want in deepest misery. Personal fortune, therefore, does not imply an absolute guarantee for the future of its owner and even less so for that of his children. From which it follows that the rich themselves have an interest in the success of this system, which in offering a guaranteed minimum to all, provides everyone with a perfect security, not only for themselves but also for their offspring, at least as far as vital needs are concerned, since society is not bound and

Solution of the Social Problem 117

cannot be obliged to correct the fluctuations in the domain of acquired needs. All it can guarantee is that in future not one single human being will die of hunger, that no one will be reduced to holding out his hand or begging for charity to save his life. In the eyes of the sybarites, who are used to living voluptuously, such a result may seem very poor. And we admit that to them the guarantee of a minimum of for instance 55 centimes per day will seem all but a brilliant compensation for the loss of their opulence. But we are dealing here with humanity in its totality and not its exceptions. The State assures bread for all, truffles for none. This is how humanity will be put back on the normal trail of its fraternal destiny, without upheaval, without violence. For the rich, being deprived of all individual right to the land, will push their children to industry, to agriculture, and will direct their faculties towards production as being the path of well-being and wealth, instead of accustoming them to idleness, to frivolous, parasitic occupations. And this rational humanitarian transformation will be accomplished imperceptibly, without hurting anyone’s feelings, without coercion and by the sole power of things, since it is put through in a transition of four generations. A worker, who is now not a man but a machine in the eyes of those who are born rich, an instrument created at their service, will then become their collaborator, their equal. Class prejudice and arrogant race distinctions will have made room for the great principle of fraternity that Christ proclaimed, that philosophers have been dreaming of for so long and in vain, and that different socialist schools have put into practice so fruitlessly. They wanted to apply their doctrines without understanding the rule of the common right to the land and of the individual right to its products, which are based on the right to live and on the individual faculty to live as one pleases. Then fortunes will no longer fall to the luckiest, like today, but to the most deserving. As to the present tenants, their position remains the same: they merely change landlords. And the same goes for leaseholders, usufructuaries, mortgagers and in general for all contracts related to property, the full execution of which is guaranteed. All engagements are respected; everyone keeps what he owns and peacefully enjoys it under the new constitution as he does under the present laws. So there is no cause for alarm with a doctrine which uplifts the small without lowering the great, and which strives for an equally good life for all and aims at spreading happiness, which today is the privilege of the happy few. One may object that, for instance, the person who sells his [landed] property today, transforms the proceeds into a mortgage and cashes

118 Joseph Charlier

in its value, could pass on his entire fortune to his heirs, whereas his neighbour who has kept his property will make his descendants suffer the principle of depreciation. Yes, that is true, but in order to prevent these property conversions the State is not allowed to touch these mortgages which are usually the fruit of labour and saving. Besides, movable capital is personal property and has to be respected as such. Moreover, one has to keep in mind that the more the system of the division of the right to property spreads in the public mind, and the better one understands the legitimacy and the practicability of the return of the land to the State, to the community, the more real estate will lose its relative value in view of this future return to its origin. There will come a time, in a not too distant future, when everyone will want to get rid of it at all costs in the event of a more or less imminent expropriation, and just because of this possibility buyers will become so rare and the prices of properties so low that owners will prefer to keep and enjoy the income of the general redemption, which will in every case be less disadvantageous than alienation. Conversions of real estate into movable property will have become materially impossible at the time when public opinion will be ready to accept and consecrate the doctrine of the right to collective property of the land, and this way investments on mortgage escape all suspicion of fraud. [An equal guaranteed minimum for all] Once the principle of the minimum is acknowledged, should there be a distinction between ages and sexes according to the respective needs of individuals, or should it be equal for all? One might in fact say that logically it should be proportionate to the vital needs, since the minimum intends to guarantee these needs. It is obvious that a two-year-old child, for instance, does not have the same needs as a 30-year-old man. That is true in the absolute physical sense, but one must not forget that even if materially speaking the child consumes less, it has, apart from the rigorous right to conservation, the right to development of his faculties in order to accomplish his social goal, and this gives rise to education and apprentice costs, which add up to the total sum of the vital needs of the grown up, if not more. As to the sexes one cannot make differences either when determining the minimum without falling into very arbitrary valuations. Anyway, in this regard women’s rights are exactly identical to men’s rights, so a distinction could not be made on a genuine, rational basis. Therefore an equal minimum for all has to be acknowledged as the rigid rule based on the equal, uniform, indivisible rights of everyone.

Solution of the Social Problem 119

[The legal status of the compensatory payments to landowners] In the second place: can the redemption allocations be alienated, can they be seized? Yes, since redemption allocations are personal property and as such they are transmissible and have to serve as a guarantee for the execution of the unsecured contracts. Nevertheless the alienation cannot be absolute. When the seller dies the allocation returns to his heirs. The reason for this restriction is that individual rights and social rights have to be reconciled. The individual right here is the liberty to make the best use of one’s assets in realizing the capital represented by the allocation one enjoys, and by the presumed period of this enjoyment according to the beneficiary’s age, either with a view to an enterprise, a project, a journey, or to settle abroad, etc. The collective right is that since the redemption allocations are pushed to the fourth generation out of respect for natural feelings, it is important that the principle is carried out, otherwise the concession would not be justified. Moreover, if the alienation could be complete and absolute, one who has no legitimate heirs, for instance, would be able to frustrate the State by selling his right to a head of family who would then transmit it to his offspring, thus perverting the rule of expropriation since the State would then pay undue allocations. Moreover, the conversion of the right to property of the land into allocations has deprived the heirs of a certain guarantee because of the mobilization of fortunes, and it is suitable to compensate them by assuring them the enjoyment of a part of the territorial fortune of their maker. (…) [Squandering and individual responsibility] ‘Why!, are you seriously suggesting to eradicate poverty by the fragmentation and dispersal of territorial fortunes’, is what the exploiting, who are constantly looking for objections against the theories aimed at the emancipation of the exploited, will say. ‘Are you not forgetting that the creation of a usufruct share of the land4 for the benefit of the scum will allow them to waste their time in the cabaret instead of doing their duties at work; and that so doing, instead of helping the family of the workman, you are inciting people to alcoholism and as a result of that contributing to the development of poverty? You better beware of giving to the low class a resource which endangers its health as much as it threatens the public order, and which would have no other effect than the enrichment of the distillers.’ We have already encountered this objection when we discussed the issue of the incitement to idleness. In addition, let us observe that this

120 Joseph Charlier

hypocritical language is contradicted every day by the admirable conduct and the sublime resignation of the workers. When the labourer receives his salary on Saturday, does he run off to the cabaret to spend it all? Is it not so that in general these courageous and hardworking artisans with moving enthusiasm hand over their meagre weekly earnings to their housewives? But even if we admit that here or there someone might abuse his territorial dividend, this would only be an exception, and the exception can never discredit the rule; because if it were allowed to attack a principle on the ground of the exceptional abuse that can be made of it, scepticism would be the only rational system. Moreover, any abuse that might occur will be confined by the three-months limit,5 and therefore will have an essentially temporary character. Suppose that a person who has received his minimum, squanders it and finds himself a few days later in a position where he does not any longer have the means to satisfy his vital needs. All alone he will have to carry the burden of his misbehaviour, since the public will no longer be as naïve as to help him by means of charity, given that everyone knows that in this case the misery has been caused by the one who suffers from it. It is with reason that a kind of public reproach will be attached to this case, whereas today this reproach is cruel because it falls upon the innocent. As a victim of a well-merited desert, the person who will have squandered his minimum will be less tempted to experience the same deficiencies and rebukes when the next three-monthly payment is due. If against all expectations he did not change his behaviour, he would logically receive the same punishment for every error and every periodical squandering, and society would have no obligation at all to intervene or to care about the issue.

Notes 1. [This ‘humanitarian constitution’ can be found on pp. 93–106 of Charlier’s book; an English translation of some key articles is in Cunliffe and Erreygers (2001: 479–80). – The Editors] 2. [Source unknown. – The Editors] 3. [Michel Chevalier (1806–1879) was a leading French liberal economist, who had participated in the Saint-Simonian movement when he was young. – The Editors] 4. [Charlier used the term ‘un part d’usufruit du sol’. – The Editors] 5. [Charlier proposed to pay the dividend every three months. – The Editors]

12 E. Mabel and Dennis Milner Scheme for a State Bonus (1918)

Reprint, with permission of J.H. Milner, of E. Mabel and Dennis Milner, Scheme for a State Bonus (London, Simpkin, Marshall & Co, 1918). The pamphlet is reproduced in its entirety. Dennis Milner was born into a staunchly Quaker family in 1892 at Hartford, Cheshire. He was educated at a Quaker school in York. Along with many other Quakers, Milner served for a period in an Ambulance Unit in the First World War. He then worked as an engineer in the Rowntree (chocolate) factory in York, which again had strong Quaker connections. There, Milner developed his interest in social and political issues, leaving Rowntree in 1918 to work full time on developing the State Bonus scheme which had possibly first occurred to him some three and a half years previously. He died in 1956. The pamphlet Scheme For a State Bonus (1918), was published in several versions both singly by Dennis Milner, and jointly with his wife, E. Mabel, who herself came from an eminent Quaker family. The State Bonus would be a universal cash grant at a subsistence level paid at frequent and regular intervals; it would be funded by a proportional contribution from all those with any income at all; and its objective was to solve the social problem, interpreted as widespread poverty and its consequences. In their defence of the scheme, the Milners claimed that it was economically sustainable and morally justifiable, countering especially the objection that it would promote ‘slacking’.

Scheme for a State Bonus Object To solve the Social Problem. Probably the most generally acceptable definition of the Social Problem is the widespread unhappiness of the poorer classes, seen most strikingly in the squalor and wretchedness of the slums, and forced on our attention most by the prevalence of industrial unrest, leading constantly to strikes and even violence. 121

122 E. Mabel and Dennis Milner

All of us are expecting to see big reforms in housing, education, and the organisation of industry, but the whole social question is now so complicated that we recognise that none of these reforms, nor all of them together, deal adequately with the difficulties and dangers of the immediate situation. Moreover, the question is now so pressing that even were these reforms adequate in themselves, they could not be put into effective operation before the situation becomes unmanageable, or the dangers are increased by the outbreak of Peace. In other words, if the solution is to be adequate it must be – (1) So comprehensive that it will remove the widespread dissatisfaction. Therefore it must benefit everyone, in such a way that the most ignorant can understand and appreciate the benefit, at once. On the other hand, it must not dislocate the existing industrial organisation or endanger the good of all in the interests of any class, however large; this is the more important since urgency demands that it should be applied during the War. (2) So simple and require so little new machinery that it can be applied at once. Reading the summary of the Commission of Enquiry into Industrial Unrest1 confirms the strong belief that the removal of this widespread dissatisfaction involves – (1) Money. Somehow incomes must be better proportioned to the expenditures they have to meet. (2) Confidence. The growing lack of confidence in Government methods would be most speedily allayed by a solution which affected personally each individual of the community, if possible by an appeal through the family unit. (3) Industry. Better relations must be established between the various parties in industry. Much good is being done by the gradual introduction of the plans outlined in the Whitley Report, but these advances are gradual, and in the meantime some juster method of money payment in all trades and in all classes is essential. The Scheme for a State Bonus is an attempt to outline a method of dealing with the problem in a simple, direct, and yet comprehensive way: suitable for immediate legislation, yet making a fundamental change in our social relationships. It appeals to the family unit by making for a juster proportioning of money payment to the needs of the

Scheme for a State Bonus 123

family, and by so doing will re-establish confidence, not only in the State organisation, but between all classes. The following four examples remind us of the extraordinary difficulties of the problems to be solved, at the same time indicating the relation of money to the personal and industrial problems: 1. We are well aware that children cannot choose to whom they will be born, so that we cannot hold them responsible for the success or failure of their fathers in earning money. Yet we know that the inequality of opportunity resulting from this cause is a grave menace to the health and development of the race, and leads directly to the suggestion that children are entitled to some ‘pay’, which is theirs, regardless of their parentage. 2. It is customary for employers to pay the same wage for the same work, whether it is done by a single man or a married man, or, in the case of female workers, whether it is done by a single woman or a widow with many children. The mere statement of this fact is sufficient to remind us that the employer can do no other, but, obviously, it is not an equitable arrangement. If wages are to take account of a man’s family and if the employer cannot make this allowance, it is necessary for some independent agent to take action. Something, therefore, very like a soldier’s separation allowance (which already applies to about half the population) is required for all families. 3. Civilisation has agreed that members of modern communities must not be allowed to starve, without a chance to earn at least food and shelter: thus we have in England a Poor Law system which guarantees physical life to all, though some die rather than accept the humiliating conditions which are imposed. In fact it is true that nearly all our charities, by insisting that those who receive help must first of all admit poverty, withhold help from the more deserving, who know they would not be benefited, in the long run, by a dole which marks them out as paupers. Thus we give our help to the undeserving and to a few of the deserving, provided they are destitute, but deny it to all others. For instance: one man saves patiently, puts his money into industry or the Post Office, and therefore gets no pension; another man spends recklessly, and so at 70 is poor enough to qualify for a State Pension. The less he has saved, the more he gets. Yet the drunkard has no better right to a pension than the thrifty: if we give to the one we must give to both. The same applies to most

124 E. Mabel and Dennis Milner

charities: if we give to those who are so poor they must confess it or die, we must be willing to give to all those who are not prepared to beg or prove their need publicly; the idler must not get more from his fellows than he who works or saves. But if we want to give help to the latter we must do it without questions and without poverty tests, namely, give equally to all. 4. Despite our belief that the competitive system rewards individuals in proportion to the services which they render, and presumably with some reference to the disagreeableness of the tasks undertaken, J.S. Mill had to admit, in 1852, that this principle only applied to the higher grades of employment, and that in the case of the very poor man the imminence of destitution caused him to accept exceedingly low wages for exceedingly disagreeable work.2 If the principle, of pay being proportional to the services rendered, broke down, it was because of the existence of classes of men who, when they sought employment, were either destitute or in immediate danger of destitution; they had therefore to accept what terms were offered them. In order to complete the working of this principle for everyone, it is only necessary to remove these classes, or, rather, the destitution which they fear. The conclusions from these four striking examples, of ways in which our social arrangements are wrong, are summarised below and lead us stage by stage to the solution which follows: 1. Children have the right to life irrespective of the earning capacity of their parents. 2. Industry cannot equalise the burdens between single and married men, spinsters, widows, etc. Therefore the Community must make some provision for everyone such as the soldier’s separation allowance. 3. The Community should help all alike, not only those who have failed to help themselves. 4. No one should be driven by the threat of destitution into accepting work which is underpaid, unhealthy, or even dangerous. Therefore destitution must not exist. The shame is that these faults in our system react chiefly upon the children of the poor, next upon all women, and last and least upon men. It is obviously wrong that men who control nearly all material wealth should suffer least from its bad distribution. Clearly the above problems, apart from the many that have not been referred to, are not simply material questions, capable of being suddenly

Scheme for a State Bonus 125

set right by material means, but in each, lying at the root, there is an economic factor, the removal of which would begin to change the whole system. The proposal here outlined sets right this economic factor, strikes at the root of all these problems, and by so doing enables men and women to set themselves right. It also allows all those improvements in housing, education and morals, which are so vitally important in their effect on the lives of those they benefit, to become permanent improvements. This scheme is not antagonistic to other methods of reform, but is essentially a first step: creating a new leaven of freedom and security which will permeate our whole social system, and thus give time for the proper consideration of detailed Reconstruction.

Proposed State Bonus It is suggested – (a) That every individual, all the time, should receive from a central fund some small allowance in money which would be just sufficient to maintain life and liberty if all else failed. (b) That as everyone is to get a share from this central fund, so everyone who has any income at all should contribute a share each in proportion to his capacity.

(a) The Allowance Received 1. The first essential of this allowance is that it must be just sufficient to maintain life and liberty. It follows, therefore, that it will have to be based on the primal needs of individuals (which are nearly the same for all), namely, food, shelter, and a minimum of recreation, say, for instance, what could be bought before the War for 5/- a week. 2. The next essential is that this amount – whatever is decided on as just sufficient – must be absolutely dependable. Every man, every woman, and every child must have it in their own right; it must be theirs irrespective of the faults and errors of the past, making it possible for the fallen to start out on life again with a new hope: it must be clear of all taxes and legal obligations. It must be ours like the air and the sunshine. 3. On the other hand, it must not be too much, since some are lazy, and if luxury were possible without work, they would be glad of the opportunity to rest. Of course, if many were idle the contributions to the central fund would be reduced and the Bonus correspondingly reduced. It must also be noticed that there would be no inducement to be idle, because the

126 E. Mabel and Dennis Milner

idle would only get their Bonus, whereas those who work would get their earnings in addition. Compare this with example 3 above. 4. As the Bonus is intended to take the place of all Poor Law relief, it must be given at such short periods – say weekly – that spendthrifts will not have to starve too long. There must be no more begging. 5. The distribution could be very simply done through the Post Office in a similar way to the separation allowances, Old Age Pensions, etc., and need not involve inconvenience to individuals or expense to the State. Presumably mothers or guardians would receive the money for children under 14, the legal school-leaving age. Money not applied for could be automatically transferred to Post Office Savings Bank accounts.

(b) The Contribution 1. The first essential of the contribution is that it should be from everyone, with any income at all. While this would not in any way reduce the absolute guarantee of life and liberty, it means that the Bonus would not come as a sudden net addition to wages; also it means that the transfer of money from rich to poor would be reduced to a minimum. It cannot be too clearly stated that the object of the Bonus is to introduce this feeling of security, not to make an arbitrary addition to wages. It is, in short, a very comprehensive insurance scheme. Therefore, as with other insurance schemes, the contributions must be from all, while the benefit would be most felt by those in need. 2. The contribution must also be simple to collect, requiring if possible no new machinery. 3. The contribution should be arranged so that the fund automatically increases with prices, thus standardising the purchasing value of the Bonus. 4. All these points would be met by pooling a fixed percentage of all incomes – earned and unearned – by deduction at source. The State is the obvious organisation to raise and distribute such a pool on behalf of the Community. 5. The collection of this money would be fairly simple: A very large proportion of the pool would be raised on money which is paid as wages and salaries: the part going to the State would be deducted from the wage, the receipt for this deduction being paid to the worker as a cancelled stamp. Another large proportion would be raised, as the Income Tax now is, by deduction at source on dividends and profits from industry. This and

Scheme for a State Bonus 127

the previous portion of the pool could be raised without much difficulty. The remainder would present more difficulty, as it would have to be raised from small trades people, from farmers, etc., and would involve a great deal of careful assessment. There are about a million people in England and Wales employed in this way, but many of these people already come under review for Income Tax purposes. The whole cost of this collection is not likely to be more than £2 million per annum – half the amount now spent on collecting the Health Insurance contributions. 6. In round numbers 5/- a week per head would mean £470 million per annum for England and Wales. This allowance would do away with the need for public charities (such as Old Age Pensions, Poor Law, Health Insurance, etc.) to the extent of over £70 million per annum. This leaves a net sum to be raised annually of £400 million, when all allowances for the cost of collection and distribution have been made: this is about onefifth of the annual National Income or sum of all the incomes of persons in England and Wales before the War. (Census of Production, 1907, etc.)

Summary We have now arrived at an equal distribution of 5/- (pre-War) per head for all persons, to be provided from a pool maintained by everyone contributing 20% of their incomes. Moreover, it is essential that the purchasing value of the Bonus should be standardised without constant legislation. If prices rise 10%, the pool must rise 10%, so that the Bonus may still buy the primal necessities of life. Therefore the 20% once arrived at should be a fixed percentage, so that the pool would vary with the National Income and thus with the fluctuations of the purchasing power of money.

Main Effects Claimed 1. It will be clear from the above that the proposal is really a simple and comprehensive insurance scheme, with continuous benefit, so that this sum of £400 million will not be transferred from rich to poor, but will be taken from people with fluctuating incomes (all of us) and given back to everyone as a regular fixed weekly payment. Like all insurance schemes the contributions will be from all, and the benefits will be most felt by people when they are in need.

128 E. Mabel and Dennis Milner

This means that incomes will be divided into two portions: (a) A regular payment which will cover primal needs, such as food and clothing. (b) A variable payment which will be given, as at present, in return for the services sold in the open market. Note that the immediate result of this guarantee of the primal necessities of life will be to abolish the chief excuses there may be for begging, petty theft, the under feeding of children, and all the minor deceits that are covered by such phrases as ‘business is business’ and ‘a man must live’. Note also that to the 87% of the population who had incomes of less than £160 per annum per average family of 5 before the War, the Community will be insuring the continuance during unemployment of £65 per annum, or 2/5ths of their normal incomes; and at death £52 per annum, or 1/3rd of their normal incomes. 2. This Scheme is a frank recognition that there is an element of Communism underlying many of our existing social arrangements – such as the Poor Law, Health Insurance, Charities, etc. It attempts to apply this moderate Communism more effectively, and should be contrasted with the suggestions which are being made for complete socialistic schemes, to be arrived at by revolutionary methods. We see to-day in Russia the tragedy of an attempt to readjust the Social Order by methods not sanctioned by public opinion. The inevitable sequence following upon such revolutionary methods is – weakening of leadership; mob rule, chaos. 3. Unfortunately taxation is already very heavy, and will get heavier, but it is not raised with the object of solving industrial unrest, so that it is clear that if money is required in the removal of this unrest, it must be an additional charge upon the incomes that remain. In order to understand the real cost of this Scheme to individuals let us take the example of a man having an income of £500 per annum before the War and before the deduction of any taxes: Income from all sources (earned and unearned)....................£500 p.a. The contribution of 20% to the central fund for this Scheme..£100 p.a. An average family of 5 would receive in Bonus.......................£65 p.a. The Bonus would also give benefits, for which a man, say 35 years old, in such a position would ordinarily be paying in Insurance Premiums (such as Life Insurance, Sickness, Accident, Deferred Annuities, etc.) at least.....................................................£45 p.a. Thus the family would receive a total financial benefit of £65
£45.........................................................................£110 p.a.

Scheme for a State Bonus 129

That is, a man in this position will benefit to the extent of £10 per annum. Further examples of the net financial effect on individuals are as follows: Single men or women earning less than £65 per annum will get in Bonus more than they pay to the pool – a clear cash gain. And they will gain financially up to an income of at least £110 per annum, if allowance is made for the insurance benefits. A man and wife whose joint income is less than £130 per annum will get in Bonus more than they pay to the pool – a clear cash gain. And they will gain financially up to an income of at least £220 per annum, if allowance is made for the insurance benefits. An average family (of 5) whose joint income is less than £325 per annum will get in Bonus more than they pay to the pool – a clear cash gain. And they will gain financially up to an income of at least £550 per annum, if allowance is made for the insurance benefits. And even a family with an income of £1,000 per annum will only lose financially to the extent of £90 per annum or 1/10d. in the £. N.B. – All the above incomes should be doubled at the present time ( June, 1918) to allow for the depreciation in the value of money and the consequent doubling of the Bonus. For example, a family of 5 with a present income of £2,000 per annum would lose about £180 per annum, or only 1/10d. in the £! The reasons for using pre-War figures are that they are more easily available, and are not constantly changing. About 90% of the people in England and Wales have incomes of less than £550 per annum for an average family of 5, and will therefore be in a better financial position as a result of the Bonus. 4. The remaining 10% who have incomes of more than £550 per annum will lose financially in proportion to their incomes, but they are chiefly people who can appreciate the other advantages of the Scheme. Most people in this class fall under one or more of the following heads: (a) Employers. These will gain at once by the increase in the general satisfaction of all the workers, and the consequent reduction in strikes and trade disputes which now absorb so much time. It should also be noted that minimum wages and other restrictions on competition are rapidly being introduced, so that it is clear that the profits of industry are in any case going to be interfered with in the interests of the workers. This Scheme in no way interferes with the right of employers and individuals to bargain about wages; it merely insures that

130 E. Mabel and Dennis Milner

the worker shall be in a fairer position for bargaining. This is what the worker wants. Better wages will mean a greater demand for necessities, and thus a steadier trade in all the staple industries. It will also help the small trader to sell his goods, and will absorb much of the over-production which now hampers the proper development of manufacture. Better wages will also mean, in the future, healthier workers, with all that that involves. It is, moreover, an advantage to the employer, that the Bonus should be different for married and single men, so that the inducement to work for a 30/- wage will be about the same for a married or single man. This is scientific wage paying. The Scheme is also a simple yet complete profit-and-loss sharing system, giving all a direct interest in the efficiency and productivity of industry, and the abolition of restrictions on output, since 20% of the product is pooled for the benefit of all. Nor does it involve any disorganisation of existing systems. (b) People with many Dependants. Many rich people help to maintain more than an average family of 5 – their own families, their relatives, friends, and old servants – so that proper allowance should be made for the deductions they may reasonably make from these demands on their incomes. Then, although the Scheme only provides a minimum subsistence allowance, it has been shown above how it will be a financial benefit to all who are in receipt of incomes of less than £550 per annum for an average family of 5; in other words, it guarantees help to all those whose incomes fall below this standard. The value of this is perhaps best understood by considering the help it will be to the children and grandchildren just beginning to set up for themselves, and indeed it would mean setting aside a large capital sum in order to provide even this small Bonus allowance for the grandchildren and great grandchildren of a large family. (c) Humanitarians. It is idle to suppose that most persons would not willingly part with a fifth of their incomes if they could be assured that starvation would be abolished, that beggars would not exist, that the responsibility for the existence of slums was no longer theirs, and that the burden on large families would be relieved. Note also that the cost of getting £470 million distributed by this method will only be, say, £2 million, or 1/2% of the fund, whereas in the case of the Poor Law something like 75% is absorbed in organisation and only 25% reaches the pauper!

Scheme for a State Bonus 131

The Bonus will make it possible for children to stay longer at school and continuation classes. It will always give the fallen man a chance to rise. It will prevent married men from falling below their bachelor standard of living. Women will be freer to make proper choice about marriage, because they will be less economically dependent. Alfred Russell Wallace3 believed this to be of great importance in race development. They will also be freer because of the assurance of help from the Community in maintaining their families. When everyone is secure at least of subsistence pay, we may surely hope to see people less engrossed in their material prosperity, thus the Bonus will release many of the higher and nobler aspirations, which cannot be valued in terms of money. 5. Many people will at once foretell an increase in slacking; yet the people who do no work at all are already able to get State or charitable assistance. The workhouse attempts to enforce useful work, but does not press it to the point of starvation, nor is the work very useful; while most charities are even less successful. Then, again, persuading people to work is an educational problem. Starvation must not be used as an educative force, for it only makes inefficient workers. Even the slave-owner gives his slaves food and shelter before applying the whip. Of the wisdom of maintaining people in health by proper nourishment, before attempting to induce them to work, there can be no question: every soldier is so maintained, in Peace and in War, in the sure knowledge that when the time comes he will do his best. This Scheme frankly acknowledges that in order to produce a healthy race everyone must have access to the primal necessities of life, namely, food, shelter, and liberty. Then, in order to encourage work it will be necessary to offer proper inducements, such as just pay, proper conditions of labour, public opinion, patriotism, and the common welfare. Of course, the best work will still be done by those actuated by high motives, among which must be included genius and a man’s love for his family. Furthermore, on a point of justice most people are agreed that everyone ought to have access to the land, but it is clear that in our existing civilisation this right is denied, so that it would seem only reasonable for Civilisation to give in exchange the cash equivalent of what a man could grow with very little effort. Obviously giving the equivalent in cash is a great deal simpler than reorganising our whole land system!

132 E. Mabel and Dennis Milner

6. Others claim that there is a moral value in poverty, both to the poor and to those who assist them. Yet there is abundant evidence that those who live in ‘want and the fear of want’ are cramped in their spiritual outlook, and the few who are virtuous would be so under any circumstances. On the other hand, those who minister to the needs of the poor will find ample scope for their efforts when the merely economic factor in destitution is removed. Surely this economic minimum is a first step to the realisation of any spiritual advance. ‘Great are the uses of adversity’4 – but even the preacher has his breakfast. 7. Everyone will receive their equal share of the pool, formed by the contribution of 1-5th of all incomes, therefore the more people contributing to this pool the better. It is most important that this should be realised before the War ends, so that there may be no suggestion of ill-feeling about – (a) Women who stay in industry, and thus are able to contribute to the pool; (b) The greater number of men who will be available5 for work, and thus be able to contribute to the pool; (c) Those people who will be doing their utmost to organise these men and women for greater production, and therefore for greater contributions to the pool. Without some such Scheme of National Profit-sharing these three classes will be the cause of serious disorganisation and ill-feeling. The distribution of this Bonus on National Production will help to maintain the unity of purpose which has been developed by the War, because it perpetuates the idea of ‘each for all and all for each.’

Conclusion It is impossible to appeal to all shades of opinion by one line of argument, but this Scheme has not been worked out for the benefit of one class more than another, and it is hoped that enough has been said to indicate its value to all. To the economic failure it offers life and liberty. This means that for every man with a moderate income there will always be in the back of his mind a sense of security, which will make for greater stability throughout the whole of industry; and for the fallen there will be fresh hope. It removes from all the fear that Peace will bring dislocation accompanied by strikes and further restrictions on personal liberty, and

Scheme for a State Bonus 133

ensures that no mistakes in demobilizing will lead to the destitution of anyone. For the children it means more equal opportunities for development; to their parents, less anxiety and less difficulty in meeting the growing expenses. It removes, for all of us, the reproach of the existence in our midst of extreme and dire poverty. In short, it makes men and women, rather than materials, the basis of Reconstruction.

Notes 1. [The Commission of Enquiry into Industrial Unrest was appointed by the British Government. In 1917 it issued eight reports, together with a summary prepared by G.M. Barnes. – The Editors] 2. [This refers to a change introduced by John Stuart Mill in the third edition of his Principles of Political Economy, with Some of Their Applications to Social Philosophy, which appeared in 1852. Mill inserted an additional paragraph in Book I, Chapter XIV ‘Of the differences of wages in different employments’, Section 1. He criticized Adam Smith, who had suggested that those who do disagreeable work would tend to receive high wages. – The Editors] 3. [Alfred Russell Wallace (1823–1913) was a natural scientist who became involved in the land reform movement. In 1882 he published the book Land Nationalisation. – The Editors] 4. [‘Sweet are the uses of adversity, Which like the toad, ugly and venomous, Wears yet a precious jewel in his head; And this our life exempt from public haunt, Finds tongues in trees, books in the running brooks, Sermons in stones, and good in every thing.’ (William Shakespeare, As You Like It, II.i.12–17) – The Editors] 5. [Misprinted ‘avilable’ – The Editors].

13 Bertram Pickard A Reasonable Revolution. Being a Discussion of the State Bonus Scheme – a Proposal for a National Minimum Income (1919)

Excerpts from Bertram Pickard, A Reasonable Revolution. Being a Discussion of the State Bonus Scheme – a Proposal for a National Minimum Income (London, George Allen and Unwin Ltd, 1919). The extract reproduced here is from Chapter III ‘State Bonus in Action’, pp. 31–8. Bertram Pickard was born in 1892 into a family with a long Quaker pedigree. He was one of the founding members of the State Bonus League in 1918. From 1921 he and his wife Irene played an important role in various Quaker inspired peace movements based in England and Geneva. He actively promoted the work of the League of Nations. During the second World War he moved to the United States, where he lectured and supported the Quaker peace movement. After the war he returned to Geneva. He died in 1973. In A Reasonable Revolution (1919) Pickard presents a moral justification of the State Bonus scheme especially to the Quaker community. His justification of an unconditional and regular income stream is on two main grounds: it expresses the moral right to subsistence; and it helps to promote the moral right to equal opportunities for personal development. Far from constituting an incentive to idleness, the economic security obtained would lead to increased production, which would ensure the sustainability of the scheme.

Introductory THE Social Problem is many-sided, and, therefore, as we saw in Chapter I, open to attack at many points. There are, however, two such points of attack where, it is generally agreed, reformers should concentrate their forces. There is, firstly, the need for a greater equality of status as between different classes of the community. There is also the need for a more equitable distribution of the products of industry. 134

A Reasonable Revolution 135

But there is a third need sufficiently important to be grouped with the two preceding ones, namely, the need for an increased Production. Possibly the urgency of this third need may not be generally admitted, so that it may be well to expand the idea, at the same time seeking to justify its inclusion. To some, increased Production only spells increased private profit. Merely to state that point of view is to condemn it. To others, increased Production, viewed nationally, spells economic supremacy and dominance in the affairs of the world. This view is very prevalent just now, but reflection will show that it is every whit as anti-social and every whit as futile as the ideal of military supremacy and dominance. It is just these false conceptions, virtually setting up Production as an end in itself to which all else must be subordinate, that have driven many to revolt against the present industrial system, and to turn their minds to the old industrial system of handicrafts, as offering a way of life not inimical to the free growth of personality. But surely it cannot be that the great natural resources of the world exist to no purpose. Surely the great discoveries of Science and the marvels of Invention might be organized in the service of man. There is much that is good in the old system of handicrafts – the simple life, the joy in creative work, the dignity of labour; but it offers no true liberty, for it would mean long hours of labour in order to satisfy the primal needs of the body, and would debar men from the richest fruits of Travel, Science, and Art. Let then the motive for Production be the ideal of organizing the resources of the world for the benefit of man. Let the aim be the harmonious development of man, the development of body, mind, and spirit. At the present moment the national Production is not great enough to provide, for all, that liberal culture and that leisure which are essential to the free growth of personality.1 Yet, not only must that culture and that leisure be secured to all, but also the conditions of home-life and of labour, for a great proportion of the community, must be revolutionized. The more we consider this present disability, the more we shall become convinced of the vital necessity of increasing Production, always bearing in mind, however, that nothing in the process must be allowed to interfere with that free harmonious development which we have set before ourselves as the ideal. Let us now examine some of the chief probable effects of the Bonus under the three heads Status, Distribution of Wealth, Production.

The Bonus in Relation to the Problem of Status The insistent demand of Labour for a greater measure of control leaves no doubt as to the importance of the question of Status, an importance

136 Bertram Pickard

which has been admitted by the Whitley Report.2 It is a twofold problem – social and industrial. In both these spheres the problem is largely educational, but the economic factor is nevertheless of great importance. The following are a few ways in which the Bonus would accelerate the movement towards an adequate solution. There is, first and foremost, the frank recognition of the right to life, together with the truly democratic method of translating this principle into practice. Here is a courageous admission of the supreme value of human personality, irrespective of class, creed, or sex. Who can doubt that the Nation sowing such generous seed would reap a rich harvest of goodwill and mutual understanding, tending to the dissolution of social barriers? There is the certain and immediate abolition of dire or ‘Primary’3 poverty, with the consequent abandonment of much of the machinery of public and private philanthropy, which, however well-intentioned, has failed to raise permanently any considerable number of the ‘submerged tenth’ from an abyss where Faith is a mockery, Hope an impossibility, and Charity a byword indeed. Again, the Bonus would bestow greater economic freedom upon that very large section of the community to whom the fear of destitution is an ever-present reality. It is easy to see how this new-found freedom would increase the bargaining power of the ‘worker,’4 and how this power would be used to reinforce, not only his demand for a larger share in the fruits of industry, but also for a greater control of the machinery of Production itself. The influence upon the question of Status is obvious. It will not be irrelevant here to point out the relation of the Scheme to the problem of the status of women. The Bonus would be tantamount to a recognition of the value of woman’s service in domestic life. The fact of economic security both for single and married women would assuredly give a great impetus to the ideals of social purity. The Bonus would operate equally both for men and women. It would be fitting that the recognition, upon a basis of sex equality, of the right to life should follow swiftly upon the granting to women of the political franchise. Lastly, but by no means of least importance, there are the educational aspects of the Bonus. We would point out, firstly, the effect upon the problem of Education in the narrower sense of the term, and secondly, the effect in the wider sphere of general education for citizenship. The recognition of the rights of the child, irrespective of parentage, is a fundamental feature of the Scheme. The benefits it bestows on the family would enormously reduce the economic stumbling-block which, as we pointed out in Chapter I, bars the way to the higher education of the

A Reasonable Revolution 137

people. The effect upon the general civic education of the people would be more gradual. Nevertheless, who can doubt that increased responsibility in the control of money, and later of the machine of Production itself, would develop qualities of mind and character which hitherto have had no room for expansion? Who can doubt that the introduction of the principle of national production-sharing inherent in the Bonus Scheme would lead to the right understanding of such principle, thus fostering the spirit of co-operation? This is surely the summum bonum of true education.

The Bonus in Relation to the Problem of the Distribution of Wealth In considering the probable effects of the Bonus upon the problem of the equitable distribution of the products of industry, we shall be considering what is perhaps the most original and far-reaching aspect of Mr. Milner’s Scheme. One of the outstanding features of the years immediately preceding the War was the struggle of organized Labour for a greater share in the fruits of industry. Again and again Labour was able to force a rise in wages, but there is every reason to believe that this temporary betterment was speedily counterbalanced by the depreciation of money, due to a rise in prices. This is to say, that those in control of the machinery of Production were able to take away the advantage they had conceded. Mr. Milner would probably prefer to express it thus: that the relative value of services rendered in our Competitive System, as determined by the operation of the Law of Supply and Demand, cannot be changed by the arbitrary raising of wages. These relative values, he argues, are based upon the value of the Bottom Man, and he defines this Bottom Man as one who, because of the imminence of destitution, must accept exceedingly low wages for exceedingly disagreeable work. The existence of such a class obviously reduces the bargaining power of the class immediately above, and so on up the scale. The task, then, that Mr. Milner sets himself is to raise permanently the economic status of the Bottom Man. His method is simply to confer increased bargaining power. He proposes to give to every one – and therefore to the Bottom Man – a minimum subsistence allowance. This means that the Bottom Man – supposing him to be married, with at least three children – would receive as a right about the same amount as he previously received for wages. The benefit does not cease there, however, for he would still be free to sell his labour, but he would not, as

138 Bertram Pickard

formerly, be driven to accept low wages for disagreeable work. Economic security would have made it possible for him to demand fair value in return for his services. All that is now requisite to give permanence to this betterment of the Bottom Man’s position is some device to prevent those in control of the machinery of Production restoring the old scale of values. It is in this connection that we shall realize the vital importance of Mr. Milner’s proposal that the percentage of the national income required for the purposes of the Bonus should be a fixed percentage. Nothing less than a reduction in national productivity could then reduce the spending power of the Bonus. What effect these proposals would have ultimately upon the distribution of wealth experience alone could show, but there will be few, we think, even in reactionary circles, disposed to argue that the elimination of the influence of the fear of destitution upon the operation of the Law of Supply and Demand is bad. There will be very many, on the other hand, who will welcome with open arms any scheme that offers a practical escape from some, at least, of the cruelties inherent in the Competitive System.

The Bonus in Relation to the Problem of Production It is in this connection that the State Bonus Scheme is subjected to the keenest criticism. This criticism is of the following twofold character. It is urged, in the first place, that the Scheme would encourage idleness, and in the second place that it would cripple those who largely control the machinery of Production, thus crippling Production itself. Let us consider these charges separately. The first charge, if it is to be valid, must demonstrate that under the Bonus System there would be a very much larger number of persons idle than there are at present. Even the cynic will probably admit that genius, love of family, satisfaction in labour well done, ambition, and the desire for free and full development, together account for a very large proportion of the stimulus that urges men and women to work. The vast majority of individuals are not prepared to live at the lowest possible level of efficiency, which is only to say that a very small minority are actuated by the urge of necessity. Those who are determined to be idle can be idle to-day, living upon public or private charity. And what do we do with them? Do we coerce them into work at the point of the bayonet of starvation? No; in the last resort we can only feed them and hope they will mend their ways. In short, the treatment of the idle is an educational problem. How, then, would the Bonus operate? It would remove the plea of necessity which, as we have just observed, is a poor ally of Production, but which, it may be

A Reasonable Revolution 139

noted in passing, is a useful ally of Criminality. It would not, however, vitiate the operation of any of the higher motives, only offering as it does a minimum standard of life. It might even tempt some of those to work who were previously content to live on charity, for they would receive a full return in added comfort for the money earned, whereas to-day they are rewarded by charity in proportion to their indigence, which phrase might often be translated, in proportion to their improvidence. Thus the Scheme, whilst based upon the belief that Man is normally industrious, takes human frailty into account and is essentially a sane admixture of idealism and common sense. It is just this saving grace of common sense that is the Scheme’s strongest ally in overcoming hostility on the second charge, namely, that of crippling the machinery of Production. No one can expect that the old pre-War standards and values will be re-established. The signs of the times point to one of two things. Either there must be a generous desire amongst all classes of the community to remedy the inequalities of the present Social Order, or there must inevitably be a class conflict so bitter and so protracted that it would spell disaster to both antagonists. Facing the facts, then, let us bring about this new Social Order with the least injury to individuals and the greatest good to all. There must of necessity be a more equitable distribution of wealth. Let this adjustment, then, be made upon a basis of income rather than of capital, and thus interfere for the present as little as possible with the machine of Production, so that industrial stability may be maintained. So far we have dealt only with the negative aspects of the Bonus in relation to Production. Let us now enter the more fruitful field of the positive. There are three dynamics inherent in the Scheme which must inevitably tend towards increased Production. The first of these is that greater efficiency and those higher powers which would be liberated by the removal of ‘Want and the fear of Want.’ The second is the principle of productionsharing. There would be no case for restricted output. There would be every reason for increased output. Lastly, there is the goodwill which would be created amongst all classes of the community by this corporate endeavour to face and solve the Social Problem. We cannot take the measure of goodwill. We cannot estimate its power in concrete terms. But this we know, that without goodwill there can nothing be accomplished that is good.

Notes 1. The national income divided equally amongst the whole population (using our pre-War figures for illustration) would only have yielded about £50 per head per annum.

140 Bertram Pickard 2. [The British Government had established a Committee on Relations between Employers and Employed, which was chaired by J.H. Whitley. Its final report was published in 1918. – The Editors] 3. As defined by Mr B.S. Rowntree in Poverty. [Benjamin Seebohm Rowntree (1871–1954), a British liberal, was an influential researcher on poverty. His Poverty. A Study of Town Life was published in 1901. – The Editors] 4. This point is elaborated later in the chapter.

14 C. Marshall Hattersley The Community’s Credit. A Consideration of the Principle and Proposals of the Social Credit Movement (1922)

Excerpts, with permission of Martin Hattersley, from C. Marshall Hattersley, The Community’s Credit. A Consideration of the Principles and Proposals of the Social Credit Movement (London, Credit Power Press, 1922). A second abridged edition was published in 1933, and a third edition in 1969 (Mexborough, Yorkshire, Social Credit Co-ordinating Centre). The following extract consists of the whole of Chapter 7 ‘The Social-Credit Principles. 2. National Dividends’ (pp. 92–100 of the third edition).

Charles Marshall Hattersley was born in Swinton, Yorkshire on 2 November 1892. After reading Law at Cambridge University, he worked in his father’s firm as a solicitor. Influenced mainly by the writings of Major Douglas, Hattersley publicised the Social Credit theory and became involved in practical attempts to secure its realisation. In the early 1950s, he visited Alberta, Canada, where Social Credit principles received an enthusiastic response. Hattersley died there in December 1952. Hattersley’s first book, The Community’s Credit (1922), was based on a series of lectures for the local branch of the Social Credit Movement. In it, he criticised the orthodox economists for seeing ‘work’ as creating a unique entitlement to any share in the goods and services of the community. He maintained that modern industrial production resulted from the combination of three factors: capital, labour, and the common cultural inheritance of the community. Alongside individual rewards for productive contribution, this inheritance should be recognised by a system of National Dividends. All members of the community would be entitled to an equal share of that dividend regardless of their employment record or financial status. This dividend scheme was central to all of Hattersley’s subsequent writings, notably This Age of Plenty (1929), Wealth, Want and War (1937) and The People’s Purse (1937).

141

142 C. Marshall Hattersley

Inadequacy of the Wage System – The Dividend System – The Three Factors in Industry – The Common Cultural Inheritance – Morality of National Dividends – Necessity – Anticipated Benefits – Financing National Dividends – A New Incentive to Industry – Economic Development – A Step Forward THE inadequacy of an unsupplemented wage system to meet the requirements of a modern progressive industrial Community becomes more apparent every day.1 The object of the application of Science to Industry is the production and distribution of goods and services for the use and enjoyment of mankind with the minimum expenditure of human energy; and as the years pass, and scientific invention and discovery succeed still further in replacing human energy by the power of machines, increasing unemployment will render an already inadequate system more and more so. So much the more necessary does it therefore become with every advance made in this direction to devise some means of distributing purchasing-power to those for whom Industry has no longer any need. Among the many outward and visible signs of the gradual, if mainly subconscious, recognition of the inadequacy of the wage system at the present day, may be instanced the seeming anomalies of Old Age Pensions and Unemployment Relief. The former, in particular, is in effect nothing other than a system of conditional National or Communal Dividends, in that the right to receive an Old Age Pension is based on membership of the Community alone, and not on work done or services rendered.2 As it is, many people to-day derive their whole income from dividends of one sort and another. It may, indeed, be affirmed with confidence that the natural and logical partner of the wage system is some system of dividends, distributed to the members of the Community as such, and entirely independent of their remuneration for work done or any other exterior consideration. On grounds of expediency alone it must be admitted that some such supplementary system is eminently desirable. But the objection, heard on many sides to-day with reference to the pecuniary relief of unemployment distress, that it amounts, actually or virtually, to ‘something for nothing’, and is therefore immoral, is sure to be raised sooner or later in this connection also. It may therefore be well to point out at once that not only is some system of National Dividends eminently desirable, but that it is, in addition, ethically justifiable in principle. Production by Industry to-day is the result of the combined effort of three distinct factors. There is, in the first place, Capital, the immediate

The Community’s Credit 143

provider of plant and machinery. Secondly, there is Labour, the provider of mind, muscle, and human energy in the widest sense. Thirdly, there is the Common Cultural Inheritance of the Community. If it be asked what exactly is implied by the term ‘Common Cultural Inheritance’, we cannot, perhaps, do better than quote a few words from a brochure issued by the Manchester Credit Reform Group. We read therein how Science has lengthened the arm of man, and has strengthened his fist. It has enlarged his eye and extended his ear. He can throw his voice across an ocean or a continent, and his body through space. The power of a thousand horses is at his command by the opening of a valve. Wealth production is made so easy by machinery, that the human-labour factor decreases daily … This is our real heritage as against that of the cave-man.3 Our inheritance is, however, greater even than this. It comprises ordered government, industrial, social, and political organisation, education, religion, and the hundred and one amenities of civilisation. These collectively form what we have called the Community’s Common Cultural Inheritance. Capital without Labour is impotent. Labour without Capital is practically powerless. Machinery, mind and muscle, apart from the Common Cultural Inheritance, would be disorganised and inefficient. But who can fail to have noticed that our unhappy industrial disputes almost invariably turn upon the division of profit between Capital and Labour, and that the share due to the Common Cultural Inheritance is forgotten or disregarded? Common Cultural Inheritance – who, then, are the heirs? The heirs to this splendid heritage are the members of the Community as such. The individual members of the Community are interdependent, and every member is co-heir to the Common Cultural Inheritance of the whole. So much is this the case that it is, strictly speaking, impossible for any one man to be said to be the sole creator of even ‘his own’ idea or invention. He has merely manipulated mentally the inventions and ideas of a hundred others. The members of the Community, as such, as well as Capital and Labour, are justly entitled to a share in the produce of Industry. Now it is quite true that the Community comprises both the Capitalist and the Worker, and in so far as an individual member of the Community is also a member of one or both of the other partners in production, his or her share as a member of the Community should be additional to his or her share derived from that other source. But there are certain members of the Community who can claim to belong to

144 C. Marshall Hattersley

neither of the other two groups, and such members should in common fairness receive at any rate such just proportion of the increased Real Credit of the Community as is due to them as inheritors of the discoveries, inventions, culture, civilisation, order, thought, and accumulated resources of the past. Finally, as Douglas maintains in his preface to ‘Credit-Power and Democracy’,4 ethically speaking, ‘That is moral which works best’. If this be true, then, indeed, it is the present economic system which is frankly and flagrantly immoral. And so we look forward to the time when every member of the Community as an individual shall, apart from and in addition to his or her remuneration as a producer, receive, as a matter of course and of right, his or her Communal Dividend – his or her proper share in the increase in the Real Credit of the Community as a whole. National Dividends as such should de distributed irrespective of whether the recipient is employed or not, or of his or her financial status. At the present day, as a matter of economic necessity and political expediency, there are distributed, out of the proceeds of taxation, weekly ‘doles’ to persons who are out of employment, with the manifestly evil result that a man is penalised by the cessation of his Government grant directly he begins to earn a wage. There is thus afforded to him a direct incentive to remain unemployed. At the present time also, it must be borne in mind that the amount distributed in unemployment relief bears no necessary relationship to the capacity of the Community to pay it, but is the minimum amount required to keep the unemployed from open revolt. Unemployment pay to-day is, in effect, a kind of National Insurance against the evil effects of the present economic system, and the tendency is, of course, to keep the premiums as low as possible. Under the Social-Credit Proposals, the aggregate amount distributed in National Dividends, to employed as well as to unemployed, would be directly proportioned to the Community’s ability to pay, and it would therefore be to the direct advantage of every member of the Community to increase this ability. In his brochure, ‘The Cure for High Prices’, H.M.M. has touched upon further substantial advantages that would accrue from the adoption of a scheme of National Dividends paid to each member of the Community as such.5 He writes: The possession of a right to an income as a member of the Community by every man, woman and child, apart from what they earn by their labour, would solve several difficult problems. It would put the family man on an equality with the bachelor: it would make women financially independent of their male relatives, and enable

The Community’s Credit 145

them to choose their way in life and their partners in marriage free from ulterior considerations, besides testing the strength of their professed desire to remain in industry. It would provide for the case of the widow and orphan, the sick, the helpless and the aged, as well as for the man of genius who does not fit kindly in to the economic structure, and for many more. In addition, it would put everyone in the strongest possible position to resist tyranny from whatever quarter it might threaten. Here the question very naturally arises: ‘Where, then, is the money necessary to pay such Dividends to come from?’ Major Douglas’ reply to that question is that National Dividends could and should be financed out of the increasing Real Credit of the Community. They might be made, as are wages, salaries, and dividends to-day, a charge upon Industry, appearing as a further item in production-cost. For instance, the periodic contribution towards National Dividends made by each industry might be fixed at some definite, though strictly moderate, percentage of the capital invested in that industry. It is not, however, proposed at this juncture to examine in any detail the possible or probable methods of financing National Dividends. This can better be deferred until we come to deal with the means and methods suggested for carrying the Social-Credit Principles into effect.6 All that is aimed at for the present is to render acceptable the principle of dividends for all members of the community as such, and to suggest that there do exist feasible methods of financing the same out of the Community’s Real Credit, without adding to the load borne by the taxpayer to-day. In this connection, however, it is necessary to point out that, far from being an added burden upon Industry, the application of such proposals would provide a distinct incentive to further industrial progress. As the Community’s productive capacity increased, the amount available for periodic distribution as National Dividends would increase also. Those engaged directly in production would receive, then as now, remuneration for their work in the form of wages or salaries, in addition to and quite apart from their dividend. As pointed out by Mr. Allen Young in his pamphlet entitled ‘Dividends for All’7, wage-earners are at the present time admittedly hostile to the introduction of labour-saving methods and devices, since the tendency of such is to take away employment, whereas to-day it is practically only through employment that the majority of the population have purchasing-power distributed to them. But if each addition to the productive capacity and efficiency of the Community were accompanied by an increase in the amount

146 C. Marshall Hattersley

available for distribution as National Dividends, there would no longer be any ground for this hostility. Undeterred by the fear of causing widespread misery through unemployment, Science could then proceed apace towards the industrial emancipation of mankind. Gradually, too, the need for unemployment doles, – baneful anomalies that they are, – would diminish, until eventually they were banished, together with slums and sweated labour, into outer darkness. The application of the Social Credit Principles would plainly found our economic system upon a Real Credit rather than on a pseudo-gold basis. But this would cause no sudden break in the continuity of economic development. Rather would it be a scientific moulding of natural economic tendencies. In the infancy of the human race, the economic system rested, manifestly, upon a barter basis. Goods and services were exchanged directly for goods and services. In course of time, as Society evolved, it was found more convenient to effect exchanges by means of currency tokens. Such tokens were things desirable in themselves – hides, plumes, coloured stones, cattle – anything, in fact, sufficiently rare to be valuable and at the same time sufficiently common to be adequate to the needs of primitive commerce. This marks the second stage of economic development. It is the stage reached today by those who hanker after a return to a gold basis for our currency and economic system as a whole. The notion that money could have value apart from the intrinsic worth of the token itself is of much later origin. The third stage was reached when, with expanding trade and development of ideas, there entered into economic life a new factor, and it gradually became realised that a medium of exchange need not be in itself a thing of value, so long as attached thereto was a certain something, which we to-day know as Credit. Tokens, valueless in themselves, began to be accepted in exchange for goods and services simply because, attached to each such token was the belief that, by its means, other goods and services might be procured. It was immaterial of what these tokens consisted. The notched stick and the modern Treasury Note are equally good examples of the intrinsically valueless token being recognised as valuable because of the Credit attached thereto. So long as such tokens are accepted as title to goods and services, they are money. The issue of ‘money’ has from the earliest times been the prerogative of Government. But with the advance of Industry and the extension of Commerce, there was felt keenly the need for a still more liquid medium of exchange, or, more correctly, of Credit. This need was in due course supplied by the Banking Houses. Thereafter, in addition to the legal tender issued by the sovereign authority, there came into circulation a mass

The Community’s Credit 147

of credits issued by private persons and firms, fostered by which trade prospered exceedingly. These new credits, which we shall hereafter refer to as Bankers’ Credits8, were matters of book entry, and it has to-day become a usual and convenient practice to pay debts and settle accounts by means of mere transfers of such credits in the books of the Bank. With expanding Commerce and Industry, there has been a corresponding expansion of Bankers’ Credit, until to-day the aggregate amount of such credit in circulation in this country is between five and six times the total amount of legal tender. To this extent, then, have the Bankers usurped the functions of Government. The power of Credit-Issue and Credit-Restriction is in private hands, while Bankers’ Credit, not Legal Currency, is becoming more and more the life-blood of industry9. There would seem to be but one restriction to the amount of BankCredit that may be put into circulation at any one time; that is the statutory liability of the Banks to pay out legal tender in exchange for their own Credit when called upon to do so, which liability in effect restricts the total amount of Bankers’ Credit to a certain number of times the total amount of legal tender simultaneously in circulation. The Bankers must, in fact, preserve a kind of safety limit. But the raison d’etre of Financial Credit being the proper distribution and utilisation of Real Credit, it would seem an absurd restriction to limit the amount of such credit, not by the needs of industry, but by the amount of legal tender there happens to be in circulation. And the absurdity is greater still if the aggregate amount of such legal tender is in its turn restricted by the amount of gold within the Community10. The natural and logical development of the economic situation will undoubtedly be the ultimate withdrawal of the function of credit-manipulation from the Financier and Banker, and the regulation of the issue and, if necessary, the restriction of Credit automatically with the needs of Industry – that is, by the simultaneous increase or decrease in the Communal Real Credit. Expanding Industry and Commerce will then be nurtured by expanding Financial Credit, unhampered by artificial and irrelevant restrictions. As part of, and quite auxiliary to such credit, there will be placed in circulation such amount of currency – which Douglas aptly terms ‘the small change of credit’ – as might be deemed generally convenient. And finally, with automatic credit-expansion there must be correspondingly automatic price-regulation11. In this way, then, would the adoption of the Social-Credit Principles assist the logical development of economic tendencies. In place of the present-day system, under which financial credit is virtually a monopoly serving private interests, there would arise a financial and economic

148 C. Marshall Hattersley

system under which financial credit was directly controlled by the consumers in the interests of the Community as a whole. The amount of financial credit in circulation would tend more and more to become an accurate reflection of the National Real Credit. Economic development would have been carried another step forward.

Notes 1. See also supra, page 25. 2. The fact that receipt of a pension is subject to certain arbitrary conditions as to the age and means of the recipient has no bearing on the fact that the only title to such pension is membership of the Community. 3. ‘Socialisation of Credit’, page 9. [We have not been able to find any trace of this brochure or of the Manchester Credit Reform Group. Neither of them are mentioned in John L. Finlay, Social Credit. The English Origins (1972). – The Editors] 4. At page 7. [The first edition of this book is Clifford Hugh Douglas, Credit-Power and Democracy, with a Draft Scheme for the Mining Industry. With a Commentary on the Included Scheme by A.R. Orage, London, Cecil Palmer, 1920. – The Editors] 5. [‘The Cure for High Prices’ was first published in four weekly instalments in The New Age: (I) 24 June 1920, pp. 116–17; (II) 1 July 1920, p. 132; (III) 8 July 1920, p. 151; and (IV) 15 July 1920, pp. 164–65. The man behind the pseudonym H.M.M. has been identified by John L. Finlay, Social Credit. The English Origins (1972): ‘The leading Guild Socialist – Social Credit light on the Clyde was H.M. Murray, the only writer on Social Credit to whom Douglas awarded his imprimatur’. (p. 204) – The Editors] 6. See, infra, Chapter VIII, at page 108. 7. At page 24. [William Allen Young, ‘Dividends for All’: Being an Explanation of the Douglas Scheme for Solving the Industrial Crisis by Rescuing the Nation from the Financial Morass and Setting it on the Road to Prosperity, London, Cecil Palmer, 1921. – The Editors] 8. For a more detailed consideration of the Subject of Bankers and Credit, see supra, Chapter II. 9. In the year 1920 the London Clearing House passed through £39,000,000,000, representing transfers of Pure Bankers’ Credit. 10. See supra, pages 58 and 59. 11. See supra pages 61 and 62.

15 G.D.H. Cole (I) The Next Ten Years in British Social and Economic Policy (1929) (II) Principles of Economic Planning (1935)

(I) Excerpts, with permission, from G.D.H. Cole, The Next Ten Years in British Social and Economic Policy (London, Macmillan & Co, 1929) The extract reproduced here is from Chapter IX ‘Wages – Family Allowances – Population’, pp. 198–200. (II) Excerpts, with permission, from G.D.H. Cole, Principles of Economic Planning (London, Macmillan & Co, 1935). The extract reproduced here is from Chapter IX ‘Planned Distribution of Incomes and Production’, pp. 224–37. George Douglas Howard Cole was born on 25 September 1889 in Cambridge, England, and educated at Oxford University. From an early age, he became prominent in the labour movement in general, and the Fabian Society in particular. In the early 1920s, Cole was a lecturer at the University of London, where he made a significant contribution to adult education, a role continued in his long career in various colleges at Oxford. As a prolific writer on many aspects of socialist history and theory, Cole sympathised with its pluralistic and libertarian versions, and from that perspective he addressed a wide range of current issues of economic and social policy. He died on 15 January 1959. In the first extract, from The Next Ten Years in British Social and Economic Policy (1929), Cole assesses proposals for a ‘State Bonus’ or ‘Dividends for All’ as favouring a distribution according to need rather than labour contribution. But, he argues that the ‘ordinary worker’ would prefer a compromise between these two opposed principles, combining an incentive to work with safeguards against destitution. Although this accommodation might be illogical, Cole argues that society ‘does not live by pushing ideological rivalries to their conclusions’, and rejects those ‘enthusiasts’ who call for a complete and immediate implementation of a distribution solely according to need. The same reservations are expressed in the second extract, from Principles of Economic Planning (1935),

149

150 G.D.H Cole where Cole again considers the tensions between the principles of a distribution according to need or labour. Once more he argues that an incentive to work had to remain, even if wages provided for the ‘little luxuries’ of life, with basic needs being met by the social dividend.

[I. The Next Ten Years in British Social and

Economic Policy (1929)] All practicable progress in the redistribution of wealth in the next decade or so will (…) still leave the mass of the people mainly dependent for their living on wages or other forms of payment for services rendered. The principle of distribution according to need will, if family allowances are introduced, begin to elbow the rival principle of payment for economic value received; but it will not oust it yet from its supremacy. Nor is it possible to foretell accurately at present whether the new principle will destroy the old, or whether the two will patch up a working, even if illogical, accommodation. Logically, they have clearly nothing in common. Payment according to need, and payment according to the economic price of the service rendered, are two totally different and irreconcilable principles. Society, however, does not live by pushing ideological rivalries to their conclusions, and a working accommodation is quite within the bounds of possibility. It is clearly possible to take whole ranges of human expenditure out of the scope of the ‘wage’ principle, and bring them under the principle of need. We are doing this, more and more every decade, with education and the other so-called ‘social services’. The institution of family allowances would mean doing it on a far larger scale, and taking the minimum needs of childhood wholly out of the sphere of the wage principle. But, even if this were done, the actual circumstances of children would still vary enormously with the economic position of their parents. The poorest would live on their allowances; but all above the poorest would share also in their parents’ incomes. The principle of need would have been applied to the minimum, but to nothing above it. It seems probable that, on a somewhat longer view, this principle will be pushed a good deal further. This may be done by the complete communisation of certain services, as we have already communised elementary education. We may come to a ‘State Bonus’, or to ‘Dividends for All’ – to use two names which have been adopted by advocates of giving every citizen, quite apart from his work, a certain minimum claim to a share in the annual social product. Wages and earnings may come to be only supplementary payments for work, and not the main

Principles of Economic Planning 151

source of men’s livelihood. We may in the end decide to give up paying for work altogether, and settle down, as Mr. Bernard Shaw1 desires, to a complete equality, not of remuneration – for that will have disappeared – but of income, that is, to a completely equal distribution of the material means of life, as the best working compromise with the principle of distribution according to need. This last has a tremendous fascination for the social Utopian, because it seems to dispose, at one blow, of so many of the sources of our troubles – of the sordid struggle for gain, of the ungentlemanliness of being richer than one’s neighbour, and of the equal ungentlemanliness of being poorer. It puts economists once and for all into a back seat in the affairs of life. This complete equality, however, plainly postulates a very different set of economic conditions from those we know now. It fascinates a narrow group of enthusiasts; but it is repudiated no more energetically by the successful business man than by the ordinary worker in industry. The latter will, as a rule, have none of it. It strikes him as mad and wrong that the man who is less skilled than he, or works less hard at the same job, should get the same money. He believes that the world’s goods are badly distributed, and he is quite prepared to agree to a minimum distribution according to need as a basis for the protection of childhood and for other special purposes; but he still wants to reward each according to his works – according, that is, to his own revised estimate of what each man is worth. He will explain, as volubly as the business man, that he would never work hard without a financial incentive: in short, he believes in a wage-system shorn of class-exploitation, and not in a society based on communistic principles. In this, as in other matters of ends rather than means, the ordinary man forms a court from which there is no appeal. If this is what he wants, he will have it, whatever Mr. Shaw and other intellectuals – myself among the number – may have said. We are, however, at liberty, if we cannot advocate equality of income as a practical political reform, to seize every chance of widening, with the ordinary man’s consent, the area of distribution according to need or equality. We can preach family allowances or free secondary education, with good hope of carrying him with us. For, though these things can be regarded as steps towards complete economic equality, they can be regarded no less reasonably as steps towards an accommodation between the rival principles of remuneration for work and income as a social right based on need. The practical political maxim for the present is not full economic equality, but the recognition of an all-round minimum of human needs below which no human being must on any account be allowed to fall.

152 G.D.H Cole

[II. Principles of Economic Planning (1935)] If (…) planning is introduced by Socialists, it will obviously not take the existing distribution of incomes for granted, and it obviously will seek to plan production, at least in some degree, according to conceptions of social expediency and social justice. What, then, are the criteria of expediency and justice which will be applied? The first and most far-reaching is that need, rather than demand, will become the primary criterion of the worthwhileness of productive effort. The need for bread will take precedence of the demand for cake, up to the point at which the entire community is in a position to consume enough bread to satisfy all reasonable needs. More broadly, the need for a generally diffused supply of all things which can be regarded as necessaries of civilised living will constitute the first overriding claim upon the available resources of production. A satisfactory minimum of food, fuel, clothing, housing, education and other common services will come before anything else, as a social claim that a planned economy must meet. There is, however, in any advanced society a very wide range of goods and services that can be classified neither as necessaries nor as luxuries. Some things, such as bread and housing and education, are necessary, up to a certain minimum standard, for every member of such a society. Others, such as tobacco, or cinemas and theatres, or beer, or a further supply of the elementary necessaries beyond the minimum standard, are not necessaries for everybody; but it is necessary for everybody to have at least a minimum income which he can devote to buying goods and services of this second class. What he buys is for the most part his affair; and the more advanced a society is, the wider his range of choice is likely to be. The satisfaction of this need for further goods and services which, while no one of them is a universal necessary, yet form a necessary part of a tolerable standard of living, will constitute the second claim upon the available productive resources. In the field of primary necessaries there will be no doubt about what the planned economy is to set out to produce, though there will be doubt about the level at which the necessary universal minimum is to be set, and therefore about the total size of the primary claim. But in the secondary field of what we may call ‘substitutable necessaries’, there will be doubt. It will be desirable for the most part to leave the individual citizen the widest range of choice in deciding which of these secondary goods and services he prefers, and is therefore prepared to pay for out of his limited income. But as soon as this freedom of choice is assumed, it

Principles of Economic Planning 153

is at once apparent that the structure of demand for substitutable necessaries to which the planned economy will have to respond will depend on the distribution of incomes, and that no plan for their production can be made except with a definite distribution of incomes in view. The primary necessaries can be distributed free to everybody, or, if they are sold, their prices can be lowered so as to bring them, or the required minimum quantities of them, within everybody’s reach; or again a basic minimum income can be assured to everybody without any general control of the distribution of incomes above the minimum. But none of these methods will solve the problem of planning the production of substitutable necessaries. This will have to be done either in the light of the distribution of incomes as it is, or in the light of a planned redistribution of incomes. Our Socialist planners will, however, by no means be prepared to take the existing distribution of incomes as an adequate criterion of the justice or expediency of production in this secondary field, any more than in that of the production of luxuries, properly so called. They will therefore be inexorably driven to plan the distribution of incomes as a condition precedent to the just or expedient planning of production. At the very least, this problem will begin to face them as soon as they have dealt with the first problem of planning the required minimum of primary necessaries. It will face them the sooner, because primary and secondary necessaries consist so largely of the same types of goods and services. A house is a primary necessary: a rather better house is only a substitutable necessary: a still better house is a luxury. But how big a house belongs to each of these categories depends first on the standard of living which the community is in a position to achieve, and also on the size of the family group that is to live in it, and further in some cases on the climate and the occupations of the family. Some meat is a primary necessary, some more a substitutable necessary, yet more a luxury – and so on, through almost the whole range of products which are primary necessaries at all. The planning of production of primary necessaries, substitutable necessaries and luxuries is not the planning of three different types of output, but largely of different quantities of the same things. The three sectors of the production plan cannot be isolated. There is indeed a wide range of commodities that does not belong at all to the primary class. But it largely overlaps between the second and the third. Almost any substitutable necessary becomes a luxury when you have more than a certain very limited amount of it. This makes it the more evidently impossible to plan production on a basis of social justice or expediency except in the light of a prior planning

154 G.D.H Cole

of incomes. There is, except in a limited number of special cases, no clear reason why a society should wish its members to spend their incomes on one thing rather than another, after the minimum requirements of decent and healthy living have been met. It may be desirable to prohibit altogether certain forms of consumption – drug-taking for example – and therefore to restrict production in this field to what is required for strictly medical purposes. It may be desirable to discourage the consumption of certain things without prohibiting it altogether – for example, spirits; but the most natural way of doing this will be by charging a high price for such goods, and then limiting production to what is demanded at this price. It may be desirable, on the other hand, to encourage certain kinds of consumption, even when they cannot be regarded as strictly necessary; and this can best be done by providing them either free of charge up to a rationed amount, or at specially low prices. Subsidised municipal theatres or orchestras may serve as examples of this type. But, except where a service is provided actually free of charge, the demand for it will be affected by the distribution of incomes. The fixing of a certain price for spirits, or theatre-seats, will have quite different effects with different distributions of income among the members of the community. A pricing policy designed to encourage or discourage particular kinds of consumption can be framed only in the light of a given income structure. With most things, however, beyond the level of a minimum standard of necessity, the State will be concerned neither to encourage nor to discourage consumption on social grounds. There may in certain cases be strong economic reasons for encouraging one form of consumption against another, where the output of one kind of goods can be more easily increased, so as to lower unit costs as the total output rises. But cases of this sort, which involve no further question of social expediency, can obviously be met by lowering prices in accordance with the fall in costs. If demand does not respond to the fall in prices, that constitutes a clear reason for not expanding production; for it means that, within the given structure of incomes, a larger supply of the goods in question is less wanted than a larger supply of something else. Over by far the greater part of the field of production, therefore, the task of a planned economy will be not to dictate what is to be consumed, but to respond to the movements of consumers’ demand. It will be for the consumers, and not for the planners, to express a preference for more gramophones as against more cigarettes, more commodious houses as against more motor-cars, more mutton as against more

Principles of Economic Planning 155

bacon – in fact, more of any one thing as against everything else. If things are to be sold at all, as we are assuming, the consumers can do this only by buying up the available supply, or by demanding more than the available supply, or by not buying all of it, at the prices at which it is offered. The planning authority will be endeavouring to anticipate correctly how much will be demanded, at the prices at which it is proposed to sell, and at producing just the quantity needed to satisfy the demand. If it proves to have overestimated the demand, it will have either to reduce its prices so as to clear its remaining stock, or, in the case of nonperishable goods, to hold the balance over and reduce its output to the required extent in the next period of production. If the demand has been under-estimated, either prices will have to be raised or, more probably, some people will have to manage with less than they would have been prepared to buy until there has been time to increase the supply. This is, of course, so far exactly how matters are managed in the planless economy of to-day. When a product is monopolised in the hands of a single united group of entrepreneurs, this group seeks to anticipate correctly how much it can sell at a given price, and to correct its errors by adjusting either its prices or its further production. Where competitive conditions do exist, each rival entrepreneur makes the same attempt, with the added liability to error that arises out of his want of knowledge of what his competitors are doing. The difference is only that under the present system each entrepreneur adjusts his price and output to the securing of maximum profit, whereas the planned economy will seek in all cases to market the largest output that can be sold so as to cover necessary costs. To this vital difference we shall come back later. For the present we are concerned only with the similarity. Both the planned and the planless economy have the same necessity to adjust their output to what the consumers are prepared to buy at prices at which the producers are prepared to sell. The consumers’ preparedness to buy is the expression of their desires as limited by their incomes. They possess each a limited total purchasing power, which each endeavours, more or less rationally, to expend so as to secure the greatest satisfaction. Demand therefore depends on two distinct factors, which find a combined expression in the prices consumers are willing to pay. The structure of demand can be altered either by changes in wants, or in the relative urgency of different wants, or by changes in the distribution of incomes. Take two sums of £100 each. Give £100 to one man, and £1 each to one hundred others. The effects on demand will be radically different. Repeat the process a year later, and already changes in fashion will have caused changes in relative wants which will cause both sums to be spent in somewhat different ways.

156 G.D.H Cole

It is clearly out of the question for any planning authority, however skilled, to anticipate changes in fashion with perfect correctness. No planned economy can ever hope to produce in exactly the right proportions the various things which the consumers will want to buy. It will, therefore, be necessary to keep the structure of production as unrigid as possible, in order quickly to adapt it to changing currents of demand. But, as we have seen, the large-scale producer and the largescale trader have both a very great power to influence fashion, and thereby to make their predictions come true; and this power will accrue to a planned economy in still larger measure. It is indeed one of the principal dangers of a planned economy that the power of influencing demand may be so used as to weaken the consumers’ power of choice; and it will be necessary, by associating representatives of the consumers with the working out of the plan, constantly to guard against this tendency. If, however, consumers’ incomes can be so raised as to give everyone a surplus to be spent on substitutable necessaries and cheap luxuries, the consequent enlargement of freedom of choice is likely very much to outbalance any tendency of the planning authority to persuade consumers into buying what they do not want. The second cause of uncertainty in demand – uncertainty about the distribution of incomes – a planned economy will be able largely to remove. Working on the basis of a planned income structure, and with a fixed intention of keeping all the available resources of production regularly employed, the planning authority will be aware in advance what the total money purchasing power available for buying finished goods and services will be, and broadly how this total will be divided between incomes of different sizes. With this knowledge at its command, it will be able to make far more exact estimates of the probable demand for different types of goods and services than even a complete monopolist can usually make inside a planless economy. For the monopolist is always uncertain both of the total purchasing power that will be applied to buying goods and services and of its distribution. Unless the demand for his wares is exceptionally inelastic, he is bound to be very uncertain about the amount of sales he will be able to make at any given level of price, or the prices he will be able to charge so as to dispose of any given supply. The planned economy, on the other hand, has only to face changes in the consumers’ tastes, and not changes in the absolute and relative sizes of their incomes as well, save to the extent to which these latter changes form part of the plan, and are therefore taken into account in framing the estimates of production. I am not, of course, suggesting that the planning authority will have

Principles of Economic Planning 157

advance knowledge of the exact size of every individual’s income. That is by no means required. What is needed is a knowledge of the total purchasing power which is to be made available for spending on consumers’ goods and services, together with a broad general knowledge of its prospective division into incomes of different sizes and types, and between different areas – say, between urban and rural populations, because urban and rural incomes are likely to yield somewhat different allocations of demand. We have therefore to consider, before we can advance to any clearer idea of a Socialist plan, how and in what proportions, a planned economy would provide for the distribution of incomes. In the planless economy of to-day, incomes fulfil a dual function. They have to finance the current spending of all the people on consumable goods, and they have also to provide for the accumulation of capital through saving and investment. Some saving and investment is indeed already provided for in a special way, through the placing of sums to reserve account by businesses and other corporate bodies; and these corporate savings never pass through the stage of becoming personal incomes. But much investment is still done out of the personal incomes either of rich people who save what they have no strong desire to spend or of relatively poor people who put away resources to provide for a ‘rainy day’, for their old age, or for giving their children a start in life. The sum accruing as incomes to the members of the community is therefore meant to be large enough to buy not only the current supply of consumers’ goods and services, but a proportion of the investment goods as well. It is safe to assume that in a planned economy this serious source of disturbance in the economic world will no longer be suffered to exist. Investment in planned industry will be provided for, not by appealing to individuals to save a part of their incomes, but by holding back, before private incomes are distributed at all, the purchasing power needed to acquire the requisite supply of investment goods. The distributed incomes will therefore not need to cover the purchase of such goods, but will be wholly available for spending on consumption. There is, of course, no reason why people should not continue, if they so desire, to save a part of their incomes; but in a planned economy their doing this will be of no economic service, and their savings will accordingly command no interest. The State will be prepared to accept such savings on deposit, and to release them for spending when they are asked for; but it will meet any such disposition on the part of the citizens to save, beyond the collective saving already provided for, by an

158 G.D.H Cole

equivalent reduction in its collective saving and an equivalent increase in the current distribution of incomes. Similarly, if there is a tendency at any time for such savings to be withdrawn, the planning authority will meet the position by increasing the sum withheld from the current distribution of incomes, so as to preserve what it considers to be the appropriate balance between capital accumulation and consumption. Under such a system, both over-saving and under-saving will be impossible save as the result of mistakes made by the planning authority itself. We can, then, assume that normally the total income distributed to the citizens will be intended to be enough to purchase the current supply of consumers’ goods and services, and these only. On what principles will the distribution of incomes for these purposes be made? At present incomes accrue to individuals either as payments for real or imputed services to production, or as ‘doles’ of one sort or another from the public purse – the term ‘dole’ being here used to include payments of interest on public debts as well as pensions, insurance payments, poor relief, and so on. The consequence of this system is that if for any reason production is cut down incomes are cut down as well; for State doles are paid not by creating additional incomes, but by taxing those which already exist. Consequently, if for any reason under-use of productive resources sets in, it tends to become self-perpetuating, because incomes cannot be increased until production has been increased, but production will not be increased until incomes are available to purchase the extra products. A planned economy will seek to begin at the other end, by distributing enough income to buy at the planned prices all the consumers’ goods and services which can be produced with the available productive resources, so as to leave adequate provision for the making of the requisite supply of capital goods. There will be a planned total of incomes as well as of products, and the aim of the plan will be to balance these two at the highest practicable level. How will these incomes be distributed? There are two possible ways – payments for work done, and ‘doles’, or, to give them a less coloured name, ‘social dividends’. I believe the system of distribution will be a combination of these two, but a very different combination from that which now exists. After a transitional period of compensatory allowances to the owners of capital, payment of interest will cease altogether, both on public debts and on private investments, being superseded by the new methods of collective provision for the accumulation of capital. This will make an end of one large class of income payments for imputed services to production, and also of a large class of doles at present financed by local and national taxation.

Principles of Economic Planning 159

There will remain, broadly, two sources of income – work and citizenship. Incomes will be distributed partly as rewards for work, and partly as direct payments from the State to every citizen as ‘social dividends’ – a recognition of each citizen’s claim as a consumer to share in the common heritage of productive power. I believe the tendency will be for a planned economy steadily to reduce the proportion of total income distributed in the first of these ways, and steadily to enlarge the amount of the social dividend. For the distribution of this dividend I can see no possible basis except that of need. The aim should be, as speedily as possible, to make the dividend large enough to cover the whole of the minimum needs of every citizen. Being paid as a civic right, it will be of equal amount for all, or rather for all adults, with appropriate allowances for children. It should be from the beginning at least large enough to cover the bare physical necessities of every family in the community. Put it provisionally at 30s. a week for every adult, 20s. for each young person above 15, and 10s. for every child, at the present level of the cost of living. Put the total sum at approximately £2,750,000,000, or more than two-thirds of the estimated national income of to-day.2 This would leave the balance of the available income, after providing for the accumulation of capital, to be distributed as payment for work done. Obviously, the great majority of people would draw more income as a social dividend than as salary or wage; and earnings would become a means, not as now of supplying the elementary necessaries of life, but of enjoying a surplus above the minimum. Earnings would continue to be unequal; but the degree of inequality could be greatly reduced. If the maximum a man could earn came to no more than the amount of his social dividend, the incentive to earn it, in a society living nearly at a common standard, would be fully as powerful as the incentive to earn many times as much is in the class-ridden society of to-day. For the demand for little luxuries and a larger supply of substitutable necessaries is the keenest of all human demands. The need for very high monetary incentives is a product of class-inequality, and not of human nature. It will be ended when men can no longer accumulate property as a means to power, or hope to live at a standard far beyond that of the great majority. Earnings will become, under such a system, more and more of the nature of ‘pocket-money’, without any loss of the incentives to effort such as absolute equality of incomes would involve. Work will have its sufficient reward; but the main part of the national income will no longer be distributed as a by-product of industry. It is clear that under such conditions the greater part of demand will be very much easier to anticipate than it can be to-day. The basic needs

160 G.D.H Cole

are neither highly subject to individual caprice nor very liable to rapid change. What each individual demands will vary; but the law of averages will afford, over a large part of the field of production, a fairly safe and accurate guide to the demand of the market. The uncertainty will arise chiefly over the expenditure of earnings – that is, of incomes above the national minimum of the social dividend. But even here the much closer approach to equality will make the uncertainty, over short periods, very much less. It will be fully possible for a planning authority constantly on the watch for changes in fashion and interest to frame its plan of production in such a way as to keep errors of anticipation within fairly narrow limits, and to provide for their prompt discovery and correction as they arise. This is the more practicable because errors are more likely to arise in the finishing trades than in primary production, and to be capable of quick correction by diverting materials and semi-manufactures from one finishing process to another. The capital structure of the finishing trades can be more easily and quickly adapted than that of the basic industries; and it should be part of the policy of the planning authority to increase adaptability by making machines and factories no more costly and durable than they must be in order to serve their shortrun purpose.

Notes 1. [George Bernard Shaw (1856–1950) was a prominent English socialist and a strong advocate of the equality of incomes; in 1925 he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature. – The Editors] 2. For the further development of this proposal see the Appendix to this Chapter, page 246. [Not reprinted here. – The Editors]

16 Juliet Rhys-Williams Something to Look Forward To. A Suggestion for a New Social Contract (1943)

Excerpts, with permission of Time Warner Books, from Juliet Rhys-Williams, Something to Look Forward To. A Suggestion for a New Social Contract (London, Macdonald & Co., 1943). The extract reproduced here is from Part III, Chapter X ‘Outline of the Scheme for a New Social Contract’, pp. 138–48. Lady Juliet Rhys Williams was born in 1898. She was a Liberal Party activist and played a prominent role in many areas of public life. She started her political career as private secretary to the Director of Training and Staff Duties at the Admiralty in 1918 and subsequently held a wide variety of posts. In the 1930s, she was closely involved in medical welfare, but she also developed a keen interest in economics, participating in various study groups including the Economic Research Council. As a member of the Liberal Party, she contested Pontypridd (1938) and held the post of Honorary Secretary of the Women’s Liberal Federation. She died in 1964. In Something to Look Forward To (1943), Rhys Williams introduced her alternative to the Beveridge Plan, in which she proposed the idea of a subsistence level income for all citizens, but most significantly this was subject to a work test. These ideas were reformulated and published in a later book, Taxation and Incentive (1953). Following the Second World War, Rhys Williams campaigned strongly for European unity, but she vigorously opposed Britain’s joining the Common Market, which she thought would hand over sovereignty to Europe and betray the Commonwealth. In this extract from Something to Look Forward To, the conditional nature of the payments is emphasised directly and explicitly: in an actual contract between the state and those citizens who wished to be eligible, the state would acknowledge the duty to provide a subsistence income, but only in return for the individual acknowledging a duty to work.

A List of Problems for Solution IN the foregoing chapters a formidable list of political and economic riddles has been set out, together with a brief description of some of the 161

162 Juliet Rhys-Williams

present or proposed means of dealing with them. The principal problems are these: (1) The distribution of wealth, as the chief dilemma is usually described, that is the need to discover a means of completely relieving all want, and of putting an end to poverty in the midst of plenty without destroying the will to work by offering the same rewards to the idle as to those whose efforts have produced the wealth. (2) The freeing of the unemployed to undertake part-time work for profit, that is the solution of the problem of subsidised versus unsubsidised labour. (3) The maintenance of a stable price level, that is the need to discover a means of matching the purchasing power in the hands of the community with the output of consumable goods and services. (4) The opposition between taxpayers and State beneficiaries which has resulted from the present system of taxation, and which must be ended if national unity is to be preserved. (5) The complete abolition of the Means Test, without involving State bankruptcy. (6) The maintenance of full employment without resort to compulsory labour. It is seriously suggested that all of these grave difficulties would be solved, or at least greatly assisted, by a comparatively slight alteration in the present system of taxation and poor relief which is described, for convenience, as a new Social Contract, and which involves the acceptance of the unfamiliar but obviously logical view that the State owes precisely the same benefits to all of its citizens, and should in no circumstances pay more to one than to another of the same sex and age, except in return for services rendered. The effect of the adoption of this idea upon the problems under discussion is explained below. (1) The Problem of Distribution It is commonly believed that the Beveridge Report1 proposals, if adopted in full, would succeed in providing complete social security without involving any undesirable complications other than an increase in taxation. This is, unfortunately, not the case. The means by which poverty is to be reduced by the Scheme are: (a) the establishment of a free and comprehensive health service, available to all without means test; (b) Family

Something to Look Forward To 163

Allowances in respect of each child after the first. Sir William Beveridge proposed allowances of 8s. per week, but the Government has announced its intention of accepting only 5s; (c) Unemployment and sickness benefits of £2 per week for a married couple. Although self-employed persons are theoretically included in the benefits, they will not receive these allowances, in spite of having to contribute the same weekly premium as those employed by others. There is thus room for much poverty and insecurity to continue in respect of independent workers even if the whole Scheme were adopted; (d) Maternity, marriage and funeral benefits, and (e) pensions for all at the retiring age of sixty-five for a man and sixty for a woman. The pensions actually proposed by Sir William Beveridge, for the commencement of his Scheme were quite inadequate, being only 25s. a week for a married couple. Full benefits of £2 a week for married people would not be payable to all until 1965, owing to the requirement that a certain number of contributions should be paid before receiving them. For the substantial number of couples already too old to qualify for the full pension, the only way of obtaining a supplementary payment would be by application to the Local Authorities for relief, involving submission to a Means Test, and consequent penalisation in respect of any savings possessed or small property owned. The Government appears to be prepared to go beyond the Beveridge proposals in respect of immediate pensions, but the extent of the increase granted is not yet clear. The sincere and world-wide welcome given to the Beveridge Report has established beyond doubt that the social conscience of civilised nations will no longer tolerate the persistence of want, malnutrition, or avoidable disease within their borders. Criticism of the report comes as much from those who think it does not go far enough (Mr. Seebohm Rowntree estimates that as much as 11 per cent of want will still persist owing to gaps in the Scheme)2 as from those who oppose the main object of the plan, which is to provide complete social security for the whole nation. There are those, however, who are apprehensive about the scheme on financial grounds, in view of the fact that it will demand a contribution of £254,000,000 a year from the taxpayer and £49,000,000 from industry in a full year, in addition to the weekly contributions from the beneficiaries, which provide only 25 per cent of the real cost of the proposals. Such critics declare that we should wait to discover the amount of ‘cloth’ available after the war before attempting to cut out the pattern of the coat to be made from it. This point is discussed later on in this chapter, and in Chapter XII. The Beveridge Plan is undoubtedly open to criticism on the grounds that it fails to provide any security for the independent worker, who

164 Juliet Rhys-Williams

comes badly out of the Scheme; that it makes no allowance for the wide difference in rents payable in different areas for similar accommodation; that it deprives elderly widows of their existing right to a pension of 10s. per week, attempting, instead to force them on to the labour market by providing a training grant for a limited period only, whereas no opportunities of earning an adequate livelihood will in fact be open to them alter the war; and so on through a multitude of points wherein it fails to achieve complete social justice and security, and is unable to do away with the Means Test altogether. It does, however, represent a great step forward in the direction of abolishing poverty, and could no doubt be amended in order to remove the injustices referred to. The real objection to the Beveridge Scheme does not lie in its shortcomings in respect of the abolition of want, which could be made good, but in its serious attack upon the will to work.

Failure of the Beveridge Plan to Solve the Economic Riddle There can be little doubt that the Beveridge Plan, if put into full operation, will have the effect of undermining the will to work of the lowerpaid workers to a probably serious and possibly dangerous degree. Not only will the idle get as much from the State as will the industrious workers, they will get a great deal more. Indeed, the whole basis of the Scheme rests upon the conception that those who serve the community by working and producing wealth must not on any account receive any State assistance or reward, but must be heavily taxed instead. Only those who, as a result of idleness, sickness, or misfortune are unable or unwilling to play their part in maintaining the wealth of the community will receive its favours; for them the rewards of idleness will approximate very nearly to the wages of the regular worker, particularly after the various contributions, taxes, subscriptions and other impositions required from him, but not required from the unemployed man, have been deducted from his pay. The only exception to this rule contained in the plan is to be found in the payment of family allowances to all parents, and not merely to the unemployed, a very great advance which has long been advocated, but the advantages of which are whittled down to a certain extent in the Beveridge Scheme inasmuch as children’s benefit is withheld from the first child of the worker, although granted to the first child of the unemployed man. The effect of carrying out the Beveridge proposals (as modified by the reduction in family allowances announced by the Government) will be

Something to Look Forward To 165

that the man earning £3 a week with a wife and child or children will be receiving only 10s. 9d. a week for his work, the man earning £4 a week will benefit by only 30s. 9d., and so on.3 No allowance is made in these figures for reductions in income resulting from any additional income tax which may have to be imposed to pay for the scheme in addition to the 4s. 3d. contribution, although this factor should not be overlooked. It is in reality completely misleading to discuss the Beveridge Plan as if it were being financed by the contributions alone; actually it will cost three times as much as they will bring in. When the expenses involved by fares to and from work, wear and tear of clothes and boots, trade union contributions, and other sundry deductions from wages are taken into account, it must be admitted that the agricultural labourers and other low-paid workers will, if the plan becomes law, be working (if they do continue to work) not out of desire for gain, but solely out of habit or the spirit of public service. The drawbacks of such a situation were discussed in Chapter II. It would not be surprising if an epidemic of twisted ankles or chronic dyspepsia were to break out among those placed in such circumstances. Chaotic conditions may even ensue in some industries, once the discipline and patriotic claims of war-time conditions are removed. One of the worst features of the Beveridge Plan is its transformation of the doctor from a friend into a policeman. It will be upon the grant of certificates of exemption signed by the doctor that the relief from work upon full benefit will be obtainable on the ground of sickness, and the need to suspect fraud in respect of all symptoms reported, which is the normal attitude of the Service doctor, will thus be imported into civil life, to the lasting detriment of medical science and of the happy relationships between doctor and patient which have prevailed in the past. The relationship between management and worker, and the general discipline which is essential if output is to be maintained must also be seriously affected if the loss of a job represents only the loss of a few shillings per week, leaving the disgruntled workman, dismissed for refusal to comply with instructions, to enjoy (if married) 40s. a week, without means test, for an indefinite period. Owing to the high wages at present paid, and the success of the savings campaign, the majority of workers have substantial savings invested, which could be used to supplement the unemployment allowances, and to bring them up to the level of wages for a considerable period. It is hard to believe that the sight of a number of such undisciplined ‘holiday-makers’ enjoying all the delights of care-free leisure at the expense of those still at work, and obliged to contribute 4s. 3d. a week towards the maintainence of those

166 Juliet Rhys-Williams

not working, would not have a distinctly unsettling influence upon the regular workers. Human nature being what it is, there can be little doubt that, in the lower-paid industries at any rate, a grave risk attaches to the adoption of the Beveridge Scheme, or indeed of any other plan which proposes to subsidise the idle and not the worker. If we are to continue to rely upon the desire for gain as the motive power of industry, we must at all costs avoid producing conditions in which the advantages of not working nearly approach, if they do not distinctly outweigh, the benefits of steady employment. On the other hand, it cannot be said that the allowances proposed are any too high, at the prices likely to prevail after the war. They are only just sufficient to prevent malnutrition, and to cut them down in order to meet the difficulty would represent a mere return to the bad old days of the 1930s, and would be entirely wrong.

The Solution of the Dilemma As already pointed out, there is a simple solution to this dilemma, and it is difficult to know why it has been so consistently overlooked. It lies in the abandonment of the strange convention, derived from the old ideas of private charity, and perpetuated by the practice of insurance against misfortune, that the State must on no account assist any of its citizens unless they are destitute or sick. We must substitute for it the democratic principle that the State owes precisely the same advantages to every citizen, and should consequently pay the same benefits to the employed and healthy as to the idle and sick. The old ‘Lady Bountiful’ basis for the relationship between a man and his Government is out of date, and must be swept away. The prevention of want must be regarded as being the duty of the State to all its citizens, and not merely to a favoured few. The notion that only the unemployed, the sick, the improvident and the unfortunate should obtain the largesse of the State, and never the hardworking, the energetic, the thrifty and the successful should be replaced by a fresh and insistent interpretation of the conception that all men are equal in the eyes of the law.

A New Social Contract The new relationship would be expressed by the actual signature of a contract between the individual man or woman of eighteen and over, and the State, whereby the State would acknowledge the duty to maintain the individual and his children at all times, and to ensure for them

Something to Look Forward To 167

all the necessities of a healthy life. The individual, in his turn, would acknowledge it to be his duty to devote his best efforts to the production of the wealth whereby alone the welfare of the community can be maintained. The practical result of such a contract would be the payment of an average benefit (if the Beveridge proposals are taken as a basis) of 21s. per week to a man, 19s. per week to his wife, or to a single woman, paid in her own right and not merely as a dependant, and 10s. per week in respect of each of his children under eighteen. The actual payments would be made dependent upon the level of rents prevailing in the district concerned, and the children’s allowances could be graded in accordance with the age of the child, as are evacuation allowances. The payments would be available immediately upon the signature of the contract, and every week thereafter, provided that proof was supplied, say, once a month, to the local Labour Exchange, that the signatory was gainfully occupied, or if unable to find employment, then that he was willing to accept suitable employment offered by the Exchange (or by an accredited professional organisation in the case of professional men and women) at standard rates of pay. In the event of refusal to accept such employment, or to remain in it or in alternative employment, the benefits would cease, as in the case of unemployment assistance to-day. The same tribunals would be available for appeals. No other form of public assistance would be available after the introduction of the Scheme, except institutional care, since it would no longer be required. The Social Contract allowances would replace all other forms of payment made from the public purse, whether national or local, such as Health and Unemployment Insurance and Out-relief. They would, of course, be made in addition to earnings and income from whatever source, including civil and military pensions, disability payments, and other forms of deferred pay or compensation, and there would be no Means Test of any kind. There would be no compulsion to enter into the contract. Those unwilling to hold themselves out for employment on account of private means could simply refrain from signing. They would thereby forfeit the benefits, but would not be exempt from the Social Security tax which would be necessary to finance the Scheme, and which would represent their contribution to the resources of the country in lieu of personal service. Married women and those acting as unpaid housekeepers, where no other domestic assistance was provided to a worker, would receive the benefits of the contract without being required to register for employment. Single women and widows under sixty without dependent

168 Juliet Rhys-Williams

children, although free to take up full-time work, would not be required to do so, but only to do part-time work, if available, for eighteen hours a week, since the labour market would otherwise be overcrowded. In addition to the weekly distribution (which would be carried out as in the case of pensions, by way of books of dated postal orders, one of which would be available each week) a Maternity Benefit of £5 per birth, Marriage Benefit of £5 to each partner (not repeated for second weddings) and Funeral Benefit of £12 to the next of kin of every death would be paid. A genuinely comprehensive, free, medical, dental, nursing, midwifery, hospital and convalescent service is a necessary corollary of the Scheme, as it is of the Beveridge proposals. The idea of issuing any form of State grants to individuals who are not poor or sick has been introduced and accepted in respect of Family Allowances, as already pointed out. Children’s allowances are not a species of charity, as are other forms of assistance, but rather a kind of wages paid by the State to the parents of the next generation in return for services rendered to its future citizens. They form, in short, a social contract, not a dole. But family allowances of five shillings per child per week, desirable and necessary as they are, are quite inadequate as a cure for a situation whereby the rewards of labour are scarcely distinguishable from the grants provided during unemployment. In order to right that situation, the whole benefit of wages (less taxation) must differentiate the one from the other. It must really profit a man to work, and he must be able to enjoy a genuinely higher standard of living if he does so than if he does not, whether he is married or single, childless or the father of ten. Unless we recognise this fundamental fact and adjust our ideas accordingly, it will be impossible to continue to utilise the desire for gain as the motive for labour, and we shall find ourselves obliged to revert to some form of State compulsion in order to keep the wheels of industry turning. The Social Contract proposals represent a genuine means of escape from the economic dilemma which bids us choose between a continuance of want, on the one hand, and the destruction of the desire for gain as the motive for labour on the other, with its implied reversion to compulsion as the only means available to provide the labour required to sustain our civilisation.

Notes 1. [William Beveridge (1879–1963) was an English social scientist and member of the Liberal Party. In 1941 the British Government asked him to make a survey of the existing systems of social security, and to make recommendations.

Something to Look Forward To 169 The Beveridge report Social Insurance and Allied Services was published in December 1942. – The Editors] 2. [In a letter to the Editor of The Times, published under the heading ‘The Poverty Line – Measure of Social Security – Mr Rowntree’s Figures’ in The Times of 15 December 1942, Benjamin Seebohm Rowntree had calculated what would have been the effect of the introduction of the Beveridge plan on the poverty rate in York. According to his estimates, the plan would have reduced the poverty rate of the working class population from 31.1 to 12.1 per cent. – The Editors] 3. See Appendix ‘A’, Table IV(b). [Not reprinted here. – The Editors]

References Ackerman, Bruce and Anne Alstott (1999), The Stakeholder Society, New Haven and London, Yale University Press. Angenot, Marc (1999), Colins et le Socialisme Rationnel, Montréal, Presses Universitaires de Montréal. Ball, Terence (2000), ‘ “The Earth Belongs to the Living”: Thomas Jefferson and the Problem of Intergenerational Relations’, Environmental Politics, 9(2), pp. 61–77. Barry, Brian (1996), ‘Real Freedom and Basic Income’, Journal of Political Philosophy, 4(3), pp. 242–76. Bertrand, Louis (1906–1907), Histoire de la Démocratie et du Socialisme en Belgique depuis 1830, Bruxelles, 2 Vols. Chase, Malcolm (1988), The People’s Farm: English Agrarian Radicalism, 1775–1840, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Claeys, Gregory (1989), Thomas Paine: Social and Political Thought, Boston, Unwin Hyman. Cole, George Douglas Howard (1953–1960), A History of Socialist Thought, London, Macmillan. Cunliffe, John (1997), ‘The Liberal Case for a Socialist Property Regime: The Contribution of François Huet’, History of Political Thought, 18(4), pp. 708–29. Cunliffe, John and Guido Erreygers (1999), ‘Moral Philosophy and Economics: The Formation of François Huet’s Doctrine of Property Rights’, European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 6(4), pp. 581–605. Cunliffe, John and Guido Erreygers (2001), ‘The Enigmatic Legacy of Charles Fourier: Joseph Charlier and Basic Income’, History of Political Economy, 33(3), pp. 459–84. Cunliffe, John and Guido Erreygers (2003), ‘ “Basic Income? Basic Capital!” Origins and Issues of a Debate’, Journal of Political Philosophy, 11(1), pp. 89–110. Cunliffe, John and Guido Erreygers (2004), ‘Inheritance and Equal Shares: Early American Views’, in: Karl Widerquist, Michael Lewis and Steven Pressman (Eds), The Economics and Ethics of the Basic Income Guarantee, New York, Ashgate, forthcoming. Cunliffe, John, Guido Erreygers and Walter Van Trier (2003), ‘Basic Income: Pedigree and Problems’, in: Andrew Reeve and Andrew Williams (Eds), Real Libertarianism Assessed: Political Theory after Van Parijs, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 15–28. De Keyser, Paul (1948), De Voorloper van het Socialisme in Vlaanderen: Napoleon De Keyser, Gent, Het Licht. Dowding, Keith, Jurgen De Wispelaere and Stuart White (2003), ‘Stakeholding – A New Paradigm in Social Policy’, in: Keith Dowding, Jurgen De Wispelaere and Stuart White (Eds), The Ethics of Stakeholding, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–28. Finlay, John L. (1972), Social Credit: The English Origins, Montreal, McGill-Queen’s University Press.

170

References

171

Jefferson, Thomas (1999), Political Writings [Edited by Joyce Appleby and Terence Ball, Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought], Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Miller, David (2003), ‘What’s Left of the Welfare State?’, Social Philosophy and Policy, 20(1), pp. 92–112. Reeve, Andrew (2003), ‘Introduction’, in: Andrew Reeve and Andrew Williams (Eds), Real Libertarianism Assessed: Political Theory after Van Parijs, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–14. Rens, Ivo (1968), Introduction au Socialisme Rationnel de Colins, Neuchâtel, La Baconnière. Rens, Ivo (1970), Anthologie Socialiste Colinsienne, Neuchâtel, La Baconnière. Rens, Ivo and William Ossipow (1979), Histoire d’un Autre Socialisme, l’École Colinsienne, 1840–1940, Neuchâtel, La Baconnière. Steiner, Hillel (2003), ‘Compatriot Solidarity and Justice among Thieves’, in: Andrew Reeve and Andrew Williams (Eds), Real Libertarianism Assessed: Political Theory after Van Parijs, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 161–71. Vallentyne, Peter and Hillel Steiner (2000), The Origins of Left Libertarianism: An Anthology of Historical Writings, Basingstoke and New York, Palgrave. Van Der Veen, Robert (1998), ‘Real Freedom versus Reciprocity: Competing Views on the Justice of Unconditional Basic Income’, Political Studies, 46(1), pp. 140–63. Van Der Veen, Robert (2003), ‘Assessing the Unconditional Stake’, in: Keith Dowding, Jurgen De Wispelaere and Stuart White (Eds), The Ethics of Stakeholding, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 149–69. Van Donselaar, Gijs (1997), The Benefit of Another’s Pains. Parasitism, Scarcity, Basic Income, Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, PhD dissertation. Van Parijs, Philippe (1995), Real Freedom For All: What (If Anything) Can Justify Capitalism, Oxford, Clarendon Press. Van Parijs, Philippe (1997), ‘Reciprocity and the Justification of an Unconditional Basic Income: Reply to Stuart White’, Political Studies, 45(2), pp. 327–30. Van Parijs, Philippe (2001), What’s Wrong with a Free Lunch?, Boston, MA, Beacon Press. Van Parijs, Philippe (2003), ‘Hybrid Justice, Patriotism and Democracy: A Selective Reply’, in: Andrew Reeve and Andrew Williams (eds), Real Libertarianism Assessed: Political Theory after Van Parijs, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 201–16. Van Trier, Walter (1995), Every One a King, Louvain, Catholic University of Louvain, PhD dissertation. Waldron, Jeremy (1988), The Right to Private Property, Oxford, Oxford University Press. White, Stuart (1997), ‘Liberal Equality, Exploitation, and the Case for an Unconditional Basic Income’, Political Studies, 45(2), pp. 312–26. White, Stuart (2003), The Civic Minimum; On the Rights and Obligations of Economic Citizenship, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Wright, Erik Olin (2000), ‘Reducing Income and Wealth Inequalities: Real Utopian Proposals’, Contemporary Sociology, 29(1), pp. 143–56.

Index accumulation xiv, 12, 13, 105, 158 aptitude for 41 incentive to xx propensity to 44, 45 Ackerman, Bruce xxvii, xxix acquired needs xxi, 106, 107, 115 fluctuations in 117 satisfying xxii, 111, 112, 113 affluence 5, 11, 12, 13, 14 age of maturity xviii, 8, 23–31 Agrarians xvi, xvii, xx Alberta 141 alienation 68, 77, 94, 118, 119 Alstott, Anne xxvii, xxix American Indians 5 American tradition xv–xvii Angenot, Marc xxix annuities 77, 115 Antwerp viii Appleby, Joyce 47 Arabia 5 aristocracy 83–5 Ashburton 92 assets xiv, xviii, xxi, xxii disputed xii liberty to make the best use of 119 self-created xx Austria 13 Babeuf, Gracchus Followers of 101 Ball, Terence xxviii, 47 Banking Company 96 bankruptcy 162 bargaining power xxiii, 129–30, 136, 137 Barnes, G. M. 133 Barry, Brian xxviii baseline income maintenance xi, xxvi, xxvii Beecher, Jonathan 99, 101–2 Belgia 9 Belgium xiii, xviii–xx, xxi, 103

benefits 110, 163, 167 continuous 127 insurance 129 monetised xxv non-material xxiii Bertrand, Louis xxviii Besançon 99 Beveridge Scheme (1942) 161–9 Beveridge, William 163, 168–9 BIEN xxviii Bienvenu, Richard 99, 101–2 birth 95 privilege of 54 Blackstone, William 37, 38, 47 Blatchly, Cornelius xv, xvi, 17–22 Boston 34 Boston Quarterly Review xvii, 32, 33 Bourbons 8, 13 Branagan, Thomas 17, 18 Brisbane, Albert 46, 47 Brownson, Orestes xv, xvii, 32–47 Brussels 56, 73, 103 Bulletin de Lyon 99 Cadet de Vaux, Antoine Alexis 101, 102 Cambridge 141, 149 capital 51 accumulated 105, 158 benefits of 111 domination over labour xxii, 75 equal allocation of 52 impotent without labour 143 indispensable for labour 76 investment 157 movable 118 national 8, 9 realizing 119 right to demand an equal quantity of 52 starting 53 sufficient for all wage labourers to become proprietors xvii 172

Index capitalism xi, xiii, xx, xxvii, 76 Carey, Henry 91 Carlile, Richard xxi, 92–8 Chalier, Joseph 101 charity xxv, 11, 27, 116, 117, 120, 123, 124, 131, 138, 139 Charlier, Joseph ix, xxi–xxiii, xxix, 103–20 Chase, Malcolm xxix Chevalier, Michel 109, 120 China 20 choice xi, xii, xvii, xx, xxii, xxvi, 156 Christianity 19, 36, 37, 39, 45 Citizen’s Income Trust xxviii Claeys, Gregory xxviii class xxv, 109, 117 Clayton, Matthew vii Clijsters, Jo vii Cole, G. D. H. ix, xxiv–xxv, xxviii, 149–60 Colins, Hippolyte xix, 73 rational socialism xix–xx, xxix, 56, 73 sovereignty of force 74, 75, 77 sovereignty of reason 74, 78 commonwealth 40–1, 75 Communal Dividends xxiv, 142 see also National Dividends communism xx, 54, 108, 128 Connecticut 23 consumption xi, xvii, 154, 158 crime 25, 100 Cunliffe, John viii, ix, xxviii, xxix, 48, 56, 73, 103, 120 Davenport, Allen xxi, 92–8 debts 27, 77 Deinze 56 De Keyser, Napoleon ix, xxviii, xix, 56–72 De Keyser, Paul xxix democracy xxv, 36–7, 39 De Paepe, César xxviii, 56, 73 dependence xxvii, 42, 45, 96 De Potter, Agathon ix, xix–xx, 73–8 De Potter, Louis 73 destitution xxiii, 61, 123–4, 136–8 Detroit 32

173

De Wispelaere, Jurgen xxviii dignity xxii, 60, 112, 135 disinherited masses/outcasts 58, 63, 64 dispossession 6, 7, 12 distribution xii, xiv, xxiv, 35, 41, 126, 132 centrally planned xvii collective property 105 dividend 159 equal xix, xx, 151 equitable 137 income 152–9 passim principle of 150 wealth 124, 137–8, 162 dividends xvii, xxiii, 21, 25 annual xv, xvi, 26 deduction at source on 126 public service xix social xiii, xxiv–xxv, 150, 159 whole income derived from 142 Dividends for All xxiv, 145, 148, 149, 150 see also National Dividends division of labour 52, 53 dominance 58, 59, 135 dotation plan xviii, 48 Doudna, Martin K. 32 Douglas, Major Clifford Hugh xxiv, xxix, 141, 144, 145, 147, 148 Dowding, Keith xxviii dowries xx, 70, 73, 76 duties 18, 21, 53, 70, 105 earnings xi, xxv, 120, 150 East India Company 96 economic development 146–8 economic planning principles xxv, 152–60 economic policy 150–1 education 21, 22, 42, 55, 68, 69, 108 children entitled to xxii civic xxvii, 136, 137 elementary, communised 150 free xviii, xx, 54, 73, 151 inequalities in xxvii linked with compulsory public service xix means for giving 54

174 Index education – continued national boarding schools 110 public xvii, 27 reforms in 122 right to 53 universal xviii, 40 efficiency xii, 130, 138, 145 emancipation 119, 146 endowments xviii–xix, xx, 33 England xiii, 3, 8–10, 13–14, 16, 20–1, 45, 47, 100, 123, 127, 129, 134 equal rights xxiii, xxvii, 27, 36–7, 50–4, 70, 105, 118 equality xvi, 50–5 income 151 preferred to privilege xvii rule of 39 Erreygers, Guido ix, xxviii, xxix, 48, 56, 73, 103, 120 Ewen 92 exploitation xi, 54, 76, 77, 113, 114 expropriation 114–18 Fabian Society 149 fairness xii, 144 family allowances 164 Finlay, John xxix, 148 fortune(s) 12, 44, 54, 63, 104–19 Fourier, Charles ix, xxi, 99–102, 112, 114 Fourierism xxi, xxix, 47, 103 France 3, 9, 13–15, 99, 101, 109 fraternity 51, 109, 117 fraud 21, 38, 44, 105, 118 freedom xii, 125, 136, 156 full employment 162 Gallop, G. I. 81 Geneva 134 Ghent xviii, xix, 48, 56 gifts 27, 43–4, 70, 108 Great Britain xxiii–xxv, 19, 21, 161 see also England; Scotland; Wales guaranteed minimum xxii, 111–20 happiness 22, 29, 57, 67, 82, 93, 96, 105, 108, 117 handicaps xiv, xxii, xv

Hartford 121 Hattersley, C. Marshall ix, xxiv, 141–8 Hattersley, Martin ix, 141 Health Insurance 127, 128 hereditary property xvii, 33, 37, 39 Huet, François xxviii, 48 Huet Society xviii, xix humanitarian constitution xxii, 104, 110–12, 120 hunger 58, 62, 117 idlers/idleness xi, 41, 44, 54, 96, 126 accustoming to 117 encouragement of xxiii, xxv, 111, 119, 138 luxurious 22 reward for 106, 164 ignorance 58, 59 imprudence xviii incentives xxi–xxv, 107, 108, 159 income charge upon 129 complete equality of 151 compulsorily deferred xv deduction of xxiii distribution of 152–9 passim divided 128 dividend xxv fluctuating 127 guaranteed xxiii minimum 134–40, 152 planning of 153–4 possibility of enlarging 110 proportioned to expenditures 122 regular 115 revenue xiv, xix, 60, 70, 95, 105 territorial 116 two main sources of xxiv independence xxii, xxvi, 44, 82, 96, 113 Indies 110 inequalities xi–xxvii, 41, 99, 123 inheritance xi, xii, xiv, xv, 18, 19–22, 36, 60 cultural xxiv, 141, 142–8 collateral successions 54 conventional practices xv, xvi, xviii

Index inheritance – continued equal share of xxiv, 39–41 illegitimate xvii individual wills xvi, 20, 28–9, 33, 55 legacy 27 proposal to equalise xvii right of 50, 108, 116 testamentary transmission xvi transmission of goods by 54 see also natural inheritance inheritance taxation xi, xiv, xv natural resources xviii revised systems of xviii injustice 54, 59, 69, 108 insurance schemes xvii, xviii, 126, 127 Jacobins 101 Jefferson, Thomas xv, xvi, 37, 47 justice xix, 19, 20, 21, 40, 51, 59 absolute 52 agrarian xv, 3–16, 82 distributive 54 equal 29 genuine 28 immutable laws of 50 infinite 61 natural 39 social xii, xx, 152, 153, 164 strict 29 symbols of 113 Kats, Jacob 56 Kent, James 36 labour xviii, xxiv, 50, 60, 62 attraction of 111 aversion to 45 capital accumulated through 105 capital impotent without 143 capital indispensable for 76 choice between self-employment and xx dignity of 135 disincentive to xxi domination of capital over xxii, 75 emancipation xvii

175

exploited socially 77 fruit of 118 individual choice expressed through xxii instruments of 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54 legitimate reward for 108 right to 48–55 subsidised versus unsubsidised 162 taxation on xxi useful 69 see also division of labour; labour market; labour supply labour market dependence on xxvii regulating terms of entry into xi labour supply positive effect on xxiii problems of xxvi Lacombe, François 101 land 13 appropriated by individuals 74 collective right to xxii cultivated xxi, 6 entitlement to portion of 60, 66 net revenues of xix non-productive 115 principle of private property in xix productively cultivated xxi unimproved xiv, xxii, 21 universal access to xxiv unjust possession of 63 waste 21 land reform radicals xiv, xx landed property xiv, 6, 7, 12 landowners xix, xxi, 58, 114 Langlois, P. H. 101 law 35 agrarian 6, 7 criminal 61 equitable 39 moral 33, 38 municipal xv positive 33 prudent and just 59 see also natural law liberal socialism xiii, xviii liberty 13, 50, 51, 96, 119

176 Index Locke, John 81, 91 London 21, 81, 83, 92, 100, 101, 149 Clearing House 148 lottery 66, 71 luxuries xxv, 19, 22, 156 Lyon 101 Madison, James 47 maintenance allowances xvii, xxii Malon, Benoît xxviii Malte-Brun, Conrad 31 Malthusian pressures xxi Manchester Credit Reform Group 143, 148 Marat, Jean-Paul 101 marriage 42, 131, 145 Martin 21 Marx, Karl xxvi means test 162, 163 Mendham 17 Mill, John Stuart 124, 133 Miller, David xxviii Milner, Dennis ix, xxiii, 121–33, 137–8 Milner, E. Mabel ix, xxiii, 121–33 Milner, John H. ix, 121 minors 26–7 misery 5, 11, 15, 22, 57, 58, 75, 100, 110, 120 misfortune xviii, xxiv, 116, 164, 167 money 16, 122, 123, 125, 126, 137, 146–7 monopoly 147, 155, 156 mortgages 117, 118 Murray, H. M. 144–5, 148 National Dividends xxiv, 141, 142, 144–6 see also Douglas, Major Clifford, Hugh; Hattersley, C. Marshall natural inheritance 6, 7, 12 natural law xv, xix, 37, 39, 56–72, 103–20 natural resources xiv–xx passim natural rights xix, 5, 6, 20, 33, 35–9, 50, 59–60, 69–70 nature’s support 67, 70, 71 necessities 58, 60, 70, 105, 109, 115, 128, 130, 144

needs 50, 159 absolute 106 basic xxii, xxiii, xxvi childhood, minimum 150 distribution according to xxiv diversity of 52 equal 52, 108 family 122–3 minimum xxv natural 113 primal 128, 135 relative 106 respective 118 satisfying 60 social 75 see also acquired needs; vital needs New Age, The 148 Newcastle upon Tyne 81 New England 46 New Jersey 19, 23 Newtown 23 New York City xvi, 3, 17, 23 Society for Promoting Communities 17 State xvi, 19 Working Men’s Party xvi–xvii nobility 62, 69 North Carolina 23 obligation 70, 105, 107 contributive xii enforceable xiv, 53 equality of 108 vulnerable groups xxii old age xxii, 13, 15, 43, 55 see also pensions oppression xix, 19, 59, 61, 63, 64 opulence 111, 115, 117 original occupancy 34, 37, 38 Ossipow, William xxix Owen, Robert 17 Owen, Robert Dale xvi, xvii, 95–6 Oxford 149 Paine, Thomas ix, xiv–xv, xx, 3–16, 81, 82, 89, 91, 93–4, 96–7 parasitism xi–xii, xxi, xxvii, 117 Paris xviii, 16, 48, 99

Index paternalism xii, xv, xxvi patrimony xxii, 25–7, 28, 30, 104, 105, 119 Pellarin, Charles 99 pauperism 44, 75, 130 Pellarin, Charles 99 pensions xv, 66, 67, 68, 69, 123, 142, 163, 164 Philadelphia 3, 30 Philosophie de l’Avenir, La 73 Pickard, Bertram xxiii, 134–40 Pitt, William 8–9, 13, 21 Poor Law 123, 128 poverty xxii, xxvi–vii, 5, 17–22, 112, 119, 123, 162–4 Preston, Thomas 94, 97 privilege xvii, 15, 20, 21, 54, 117 production 38, 109, 117, 142–3 available resources of 152 control of 136, 137 estimates of 156 increased xxii, 135 means of xvii, xxvi more efficient xxiii planned 152 problem of 138–9 work distributed to all to augment 52 profits 13 deduction at source on 126 part-time work for 162 sharing 132 proletariat xvii, 74 property xvii, xviii, xix, 8, 9, 21, 50 communal x collective xx, 74, 76, 105, 113, 118 common 4–5, 36, 38, 39 joint 27 movable 108, 118 personal 13, 24, 25, 106, 108, 118 see also hereditary property; landed property; property rights property rights xvi, xx, 23–31, 34, 48–55, 103–4, 109 attacks against 61 divine 64–5 first occupant 37 full xxii illegitimate 116

177

prosperity 14, 18, 93 family 22 material 131 replacement of misery with 110 want to rise to 111 Proudhon, Pierre Joseph 105, 106 purchasing power 145, 156, 157, 162 Quakers xvi, xxiii, 121, 134 reappropriation 34, 39, 41, 43 reason 39, 49, 54, 57, 59 fragility of 113 improvement of powers of 60 inheritance not based on 51 redemption 116, 118, 119 redistribution xii, xiv, xv–xvii, 150 Reeve, Andrew vii, xxviii Rens, Ivo xxix rent xix–xxiii, 6, 18, 60, 71, 164 Republican, The xxi, 92 revolutions 14, 15, 64, 93 Rhys-Williams, Juliet ix, xxv, 161–9 rights 11, 28, 106 acquired 116 civic xv, 20, 159 collective xxii, 107–19 fundamental xxii infants 81–91 legal 20, 33, 104, 111, 116 mothers 84 women 118 see also equal rights; natural rights; property rights Rowntree, Benjamin Seebohm 163, 169 Rumford, Count Benjamin Thompson 101 Russia 128 Saint-Simonians xvii, 47, 120 savings 111 collective 157, 158 fruit of 118 penalisation of 163 scanty 43 Schatteman, Tom vii Scotland 100

178 Index security 12, 107, 125, 164 economic xxii, 136, 138 feeling of 126 self-employment xx, xxvi, 33, 163 self-sovereignty 51, 53 Shakespeare, William 47, 133 Shaw, George Bernard 151, 160 Skidmore, Thomas xv, xvi–xvii, 23–31 slackers xxiii, xxiv, xxvi slavery 19, 63, 74, 77, 96 Sleidinge 56 slums 121, 130 Smith, Adam 101, 133 social contract xxv, 161–9 social credit xx, 73–8 see also Colins, Hippolyte; De Potter, Agathon Social credit xxix, 141–8 see also Douglas, Major Clifford Hugh; Hattersley, C. Marshall social economics 73–8 social minimum xxi, xxiv see also Fourier, Charles social problems x characterised by destitution xxiii solution of 103–20 solving 121–2 social security xxiv socialists 54, 117, 128, 152, 153, 157 Société Nouvelle, La 73 Society of Spencean Philanthropists 97 solidarity 49, 53, 54, 108 Spain 101 Spence, Thomas ix, xx, xxi, 81–91, 92 Spence, William 21–2 standard of living 159 minimum 139 reasonable xx tolerable 152 starvation xxiv, 85, 131 State Bonus Scheme xiii, xviii, xxiii, xxiv, 121–40, 150 see also Milner, Dennis: Pickard, Bertram status 135–7, 144

Steiner, Hillel vii, xxviii, 3 Steuart, Sir James Denham 100–1, 102 Stockbridge 32 subsistence xi, xxii, xxvii, 35, 60, 66 by hunting 5 instruments of labour necessary for 53–4 means of xxvi minimum allowance 137 necessary means of 61 right of all to xx, xxvi weekly allowance xxiii, xxv substitutable necessaries 153, 156 suffering 61, 104, 100 surplus xx, xxv, 52, 110 Swinton 141 taxation 7, 41, 76, 77, 144, 158, 162 authorized on successions 50 changes in policies xix conventional policies of welfare states xii income 126, 127 land xxi, xxii rent xx successions in direct lineage 54 wealth xi, xx workers without capital affected by 75 zero rate xviii see also inheritance taxation tenants 114, 115, 117 territorial dividends xxii, 103, 116, 120 see also Charlier, Joseph theft 105, 106 Thetford 3 thrift 55, 111, 123 capital accumulated through 105 Times, The 92, 169 tyranny 19, 63, 84, 86–7, 89, 93, 95 collective 108 strongest possible position to resist 145 Ukraine 101 unconditional payments x, xi, xii, xiv, xvi, xvii, xx, xxiii

Index unemployment xxiv, 142, 146 unemployment benefits 163 United States of America 14, 20, 47, 99, 101, 134 Presidential Elections (1840) xvii, 32 universal cash endowments xv unrest 58 industrial xxiii, 121, 122 removal of 128 USBIG xxviii Vallentyne, Peter vii, xxviii, 3 van der Veen, Robert vii, xxviii van Donselaar, Gijs vii, xxviii Van Parijs, Philippe vii, xvii, xxviii, xxix Van Trier, Walter vii, xxix Verbelen, Klaartje vii Virginia 23 vital needs xxii, 106, 113 guaranteed 107, 110, 115, 116 means to satisfy 120 natural resources intended by God to provide xxi safeguarded 111 Voituron, Paul ix, xviii–xix, 48–55 wages xxiv–xxiv, 13, 75, 111–12, 120, 150 exceedingly low 137 higher xxiii inadequacy of the system 142 raised to the maximum 77 reducing the proportion of total income distributed through xxv sufficiently high 112 see also bargaining power

179

Waldron, Jeremy xxviii Wales 21, 127, 129 Wallace, Alfred Russell 131, 133 want 4, 12, 163 abolition of 164 completely relieving 162 fear of 132 relative 155 satisfaction of 29, 59 Warren, Earl 96 wealth 20, 53, 75, 77 collective 104 distribution of 137–8, 162 inherited xii mobile 113, 115 national 75 redistribution of 150 social xii, 50 taxation of xi territorial 104 transfers of xx welfare 29, 100, 131 welfare states xi, xii well-being xvii, 57, 75, 107, 111, 117 White, Stuart xxvii, xxviii, xxix Whitley, John Henry 140 Whitley Report (1918) 122, 136 women 68, 69, 83–9 freer to make proper choice about marriage 131 rights of 118 status of 136 working class 42–3 wretchedness 4–6, 6, 11–14, 121 Wright, Erik Olin xxviii, xix York 121, 169 Young, William Allen 145, 148