Protection and Communism

But there is in France a workman who extracts coal from the earth. Now, it so happens that the officials, whom the miner and I contribute to pay for preserving to each of us his freedom of labour, and the free disposal of its produce (which is property), it so happens, I say, that these officials have become newly enlightened and assumed other duties. They have taken it into their heads to compare my labour with that of the miner. Consequently, they have forbidden me to warm myself with Belgian fuel: and when I go to the frontier with my piece of furniture to receive the coal, I find it prohibited from entering France, which comes to the same thing as if they prohibited my piece of furniture from going out. I then reason with myself – if we had never paid the government in order to save us the trouble of defending our own property, would the miner have had the right to go to the frontier to prohibit me from making an advantageous exchange, on the ground that it would be better for him that this exchange should not be effected? Assuredly not. If he had made so unjust an attempt, we would have joined issue on the spot, he, urged on by his unjust pretensions, I, strong in my right of legitimate defence.

We have appointed and paid a public officer for the special purpose of preventing such contests. How does it happen, then, that I find the miner and him concurring in restraining my liberty and hampering my industry, in limiting the field of my exertions? If the public officer had taken my part, I might have conceived his right; he would have derived it from my own; for lawful defence is, indeed, a right. But on what principle should he aid the miner in his injustice? I learn, then, that the public officer has changed his nature. He is no longer a simple mortal invested with rights delegated to him by other men, who, consequently, possess them. No. He is a being superior to humanity, drawing his right from himself, and, amongst these rights, he arrogates to himself that of calculating our profits, of holding the balance between our various circumstances and conditions. It is very well, say I; in that case, I will overwhelm him with claims and demands, while I see a richer man than myself in the country. He will not listen to you, it may be said to me, for if he listen to you, he will be a Communist, and he takes good care not to forget that his duty is to secure properties, not to destroy them.

What disorder, what confusion in facts; but what can you expect when there is such disorder and confusion in ideas? You may have resisted Communism vigorously in the abstract; but while at the same time you humour, and support, and foster it in that part of our legislation which it has tainted, your labours will be in vain. It is a poison, which, with your consent and approbation, has glided into all our laws and into our morals, and now you are indignant that it is followed by its natural consequences.

Possibly, Sir, you will make me one concession; you will say to me, perhaps, the system of Protection rests on the principle of Communism. It is contrary to right, to property, to liberty; it throws the government out of its proper road, and invests it with arbitrary powers, which have no rational origin. All this is but too true; but the system of Protection is useful; without it the country, yielding to foreign competition, would be ruined.

This would lead us to the examination of Protection in the economical point of view. Putting aside all consideration of justice, of right, of equity, of property, of liberty, we should have to resolve the question into one of pure utility, the money question, so to speak; but this, you will admit, does not properly fall within my subject. Take care that, availing yourself of expediency in order to justify your contempt of the principle of right is as if you said, 'Communism or spoliation, condemned by justice, can, nevertheless, be admitted as an expedient,' and you must admit that such an avowal is replete with danger.

Without seeking to solve in this place the economical problem, allow me to make one assertion. I affirm that I have submitted to arithmetical calculation the advantages and the inconveniences of Protection, from the point of view of mere wealth, and putting aside all higher considerations. I affirm, moreover, that I have arrived at this result: that all restrictive measures produce one advantage and two inconveniences, or, if you will, one profit and two losses, each of these losses equal to the profit, from which results one pure distinct loss, which circumstance brings with it the encouraging conviction, that in this, as in many other things, and I dare say in all, expediency and justice agree.

This is only an assertion, it is true, but it can be supported by proofs of mathematical accuracy.9

What causes public opinion to be led astray upon this point is this, that the profit produced by Protection is palpable – visible, as it were, to the naked eye, whilst of the two equal losses which it involves, one is distributed over the mass of society, and the existence of the other is only made apparent to the investigating and reflective mind.

Without pretending to bring forward any proof of the matter here, I may be allowed, perhaps, to point out the basis on which it rests.

Two products, A and B, have an original value in France, which I may denominate 50 and 40 respectively. Let us admit that A is not worth more than 40 in Belgium. This being supposed, if France is subjected to the protective system, she will have the enjoyment of A and B in the whole as the result of her efforts, a quantity equal to 90, for she will, on the above supposition, be compelled to produce A directly. If she is free, the result of her efforts, equal to 90, will be equal: 1st, to the production of B, which she will take to Belgium, in order to obtain A; 2ndly, to the production of another B for herself; 3rdly, to the production of C.

It is that portion of disposable labour applied to the production of C in the second case, that is to say, creating new wealth equal to 10, without France being deprived either of A or of B, which makes all the difficulty. In the place of A put iron; in the place of B, wine, silk, and Parisian articles; in the place of C put some new product not now existing. You will always find that restriction is injurious to national prosperity.

Do you wish to leave this dull algebra? So do I. To speak of facts, therefore, you will not deny that if the prohibitory system has contrived to do some good to the coal trade, it is only in raising the price of the coal. You will not, moreover, deny that this excess of price from 1822 to the present time has only occasioned a greater expense to all those who use this fuel – in other words, that it represents a loss. Can it be said that the producers of coal have received, besides the interest of their capital and the ordinary profits of trade, in consequence of the protection afforded them, an extra gain equivalent to that loss? It would be necessary that Protection, without losing those unjust and Communistic qualities which characterize it, should at least be neuter in the purely economic point of view. It would be necessary that it should at least have the merit of resembling simple robbery, which displaces wealth without destroying it. But you yourself affirm, at page 236, 'that the mines of Aveyron, Alais, Saint-Etienne, Creuzot, Anzin, the most celebrated of all, have not produced a revenue of four per cent, on the capital embarked in them.' It does not require Protection that capital in France should yield four per cent. Where, then, in this instance, is the profit to counterbalance the above-mentioned loss?

This is not all. There is another national loss. Since by the relative rising of the price of fuel, all the consumers of coal have lost, they have been obliged to limit their expenses in proportion, and the whole of national labour has been necessarily discouraged to this extent. It is this loss which they never take into their calculation, because it does not strike their senses.

Permit me to make another observation, which I am surprised has not struck people more. It is that Protection applied to agricultural produce shows itself in all its odious iniquity with regard to farmers, and injurious in the end to the landed proprietors themselves.

Let us imagine an island in the South Seas where the soil has become the private property of a certain number of inhabitants.

Let us imagine upon this appropriated and limited territory an agricultural population always increasing or having a tendency to increase.

This last class will not be able to produce anything directly of what is indispensable to life. They will be compelled to give up their labour to those who have it in their power to offer in exchange maintenance, and also the materials for labour, corn, fruit, vegetables, meat, wool, flax, leather, wood, &c.

The interest of this class evidently is, that the market where these things are sold should be as extensive as possible. The more it finds itself surrounded by the greatest quantity of agricultural produce, the more of this it will receive for any given quantity of its own labour.

Under a free system, a multitude of vessels would be seen seeking food and materials among the neighbouring islands and continents, in exchange for manufactured articles. The cultivators of the land will enjoy all the prosperity to which they have a right to pretend; a just balance will be maintained between the value of manufacturing labour and that of agricultural labour.

But, in this situation, the landed proprietors of the island make this calculation – If we prevent the workmen labouring for the foreigners, and receiving from them in exchange subsistence and raw materials, they will be forced to turn to us. As their number continually increases, and as the competition which exists between them is always active, they will compete for that share of food and materials which we can dispose of, after deducting what we require for ourselves, and we cannot fail to sell our produce at a very high price. In other words, the balance in the relative value of their labour and of ours will be disturbed. We shall be able to command a greater share in the result of their labour. Let us, then, impose restrictions on that commerce which inconveniences us; and to enforce these restrictions, let us constitute a body of functionaries, which the workmen shall aid in paying.

I ask you, would not this be the height of oppression, a flagrant violation of all liberty, of the first and the most sacred principles of property?

However, observe well, that it would not perhaps be difficult for the landed proprietors to make this law received as a benefit by the labourer. They would say to the latter:

'It is not for us, honest people, that we have made it, but for you. Our own interests touch us little; we only think of yours. Thanks to this wise measure, agriculture prospers; we proprietors shall become rich, which will, at the same time, put it in our power to support a great deal of labour, and to pay you good wages; without it, we shall be reduced to misery – and what will become of you? The island will be inundated with provisions and importations from abroad; your vessels will be always afloat – what a national calamity! Abundance, it is true, will reign all round you, but will you share in it? Do not imagine that your wages will keep up and be raised, because the foreigner will only augment the number of those who overwhelm you with their competition. Who can say that they will not take it into their heads to give you their produce for nothing? In this case, having neither labour nor wages, you will perish of want in the midst of abundance. Believe us; accept our regulations with gratitude. Increase and multiply. The produce which will remain in the island, over and above what is necessary for our own consumption, will be given to you in exchange for your labour, which by this means you will be always secure of. Above all, do not believe that the question now in debate is between you and us, or one in which your liberty and your property are at stake. Never listen to those who tell you so. Consider it as certain that the question is between you and the foreigner – this barbarous foreigner – and who evidently wishes to speculate upon you; making you perfidious proffers of intercourse, which you are free either to accept or to refuse.'

It is not improbable that such a discourse, suitably seasoned with sophisms upon cash, the balance of trade, national labour, agriculture encouraged by the state, the prospect of a war, &c., &c., would obtain the greatest success, and that the oppressive decree would' obtain the sanction of the oppressed themselves, if they were consulted. This has been, and will be so again.10

However, the true position of the case is now, we hope, firmly established in England, and this is chiefly due to the recent able, full, and free discussions which have resulted in our existing Free-trade system. And we confidently anticipate the day when the people of the Continent, and of America, will, through the same processes of reasoning and reflection, and influenced by our example, arrive at the same result as ourselves.

But the prejudices of proprietors and labourers do not change the nature of things. The result will be, a population miserable, destitute, ignorant, ill-conditioned, thinned by want, illness, and vice. The result will then be, the melancholy shipwreck, in the public mind, of all correct notions of right, of property, of liberty, and of the true functions of the state.

And what I should like much to be able to show here is, that the mischief will soon ascend to the proprietors themselves, who will have led the way to their own ruin by the ruin of the general consumer, for in that island they will see the population, more and more debased, resort to the inferior species of food. Here it will feed on chesnuts, there upon maize, or again upon millet, buckwheat, oats, potatoes. It will no longer know the taste of corn or of meat. The proprietors will be surprised to see agriculture decline. They will in vain exert themselves and ring in the ears of all, – 'Let us raise produce; with produce, there will be cattle; with cattle, manure; with manure, corn.' They will in vain create new taxes, in order to distribute premiums to the producers of grass and lucern; they will always encounter this obstacle – a miserable population, without the power of paying for food, and, consequently, of giving the first impulse to this succession of causes and effects. They will end by learning, to their cost, that it is better to have competition in a rich community, than to possess a monopoly in a poor one.

This is why I say, not only is Protection Communism, but it is Communism of the worst kind. It commences by placing the faculties and the labour of the poor, their only property, at the mercy of the rich; it inflicts a pure loss on the mass, and ends by involving the rich themselves in the common ruin. It invests the state with the extraordinary right of taking from those who have little, to give to those who have much; and when, under the sanction of this principle, the dispossessed call for the intervention of the state to make an adjustment in the opposite direction, I really do not see what answer can be given. In all cases, the first reply and the best would be, to abandon the wrongful act.

But I hasten to come to an end with these calculations. After all, what is the position of the question? What do we say, and what do you say? There is one point, and it is the chief, upon which we are agreed: it is, that the intervention of the legislature in order to equalize fortunes, by taking from some for the benefit of others, is Communism– it is the destruction of all labour, saving, and prosperity; of all justice; of all social order.

You perceive that this fatal doctrine taints, under every variety of form, both journals and books: in a word, that it influences the speculations and the doctrines of men, and here you attack it with vigour.

For myself, I believe that it had previously affected, with your assent and with your assistance, legislation and practical statesmanship, and it is there that I endeavour to counteract it.

Afterwards, I made you remark the inconsistency into which you would fall, if, while resisting Communism when speculated on, you spare, or much more encourage, Communism when acted on.

If you reply to me, 'I act thus because Communism, as existing through tariffs, although opposed to liberty, property, justice, promotes, nevertheless, the public good, and this consideration makes me overlook all others' – if this is your answer, do you not feel that you ruin beforehand all the success of your book, that you defeat its object, that you deprive it of its force, and give your sanction, at least upon the philosophical and moral part of the question, to Communism of every shade?

And then, sir, can so clear a mind as yours admit the hypothesis of a fundamental antagonism between what is useful and what is just? Shall I speak frankly? Rather than hazard an assertion so improbable, so impious, I would rather say, 'Here is a particular question in which, at the first glance, it seems to me that utility and justice conflict. I rejoice that all those who have passed their lives in investigating the subject think otherwise. Doubtless I have not sufficiently studied it.' I have not sufficiently studied it! Is it, then, so painful a confession, that, not to make it, you would willingly run into the inconsistency even of denying the wisdom of those providential laws which govern the development of human societies? For what more formal denial of the Divine wisdom can there be, than to pronounce that justice and utility are essentially incompatible! It has always appeared to me, that the most painful dilemma in which an intelligent and conscientious mind can be placed, is when it conceives such a distinction to exist. In short, which side to espouse – what part to take in such an alternative? To declare for utility – it is that to which men incline who call themselves practical. But unless they cannot connect two ideas, they will unquestionably be alarmed at the consequences of robbery and iniquity reduced to a system. Shall we embrace resolutely, come what may, the cause of justice, saying – Let us do what is our duty, in spite of everything. It is to this that honest men incline; but who would take the responsibility of plunging his country and mankind into misery, desolation and destruction? I defy any one, if he is convinced of this antagonism, to come to a decision.

I deceive myself – they will come to a decision; and the human heart is so formed, that it will place interest before conscience. Facts prove this; since, wherever they have believed the system of Protection to be favourable to the well-being of the people, they have adopted it, in spite of all considerations of justice; but then the consequences have followed. Faith in property has vanished. They have said, like M. Billault, since property has been violated by Protection, why should it not be by the right of labour? Some, following M. Billault, will take a further step; and others, one still more extreme, until Communism is established.

Good and sound minds like yours are terrified by the rapidity of the descent They feel compelled to draw back – they do, in fact, draw back, as you have done in your book, as regards the protective system, which is the first start, and the sole practical start, of society upon the fatal declivity; but in the face of this strong denial of the right of property, if, instead of this maxim of your book, 'Rights either exist, or they do not; if they do, they involve some absolute consequences' – you substitute this, 'Here is a particular case where the national good calls for the sacrifice of right;' immediately, all that you believe you have put with force and reason in this work, is nothing but weakness and inconsistency.

This is why, Sir, if you wish to complete your work, it will be necessary that you should declare yourself upon the protective system; and for that purpose it is indispensable to commence by solving the economical problem; it will be necessary to be clear upon the pretended utility of this system. For, to suppose even that I extract from you its sentence of condemnation, on the ground of justice, that will not suffice to put an end to it. I repeat it – men are so formed, that when they believe themselves placed between substantial good and abstract Justice, the cause of justice runs a great risk. Do you wish for a palpable proof of this? It is that which has befallen myself.

When I arrived in Paris, I found myself in the presence of schools called Democratical and Socialist, where, as you know, they make great use of the words, principle, devotion, sacrifice, fraternity, right, union. Wealth is there treated de haut en bas, as a thing, if not contemptible at least secondary, so far, that because we consider it to be of much importance, they treat us as cold economists, egotists, selfish, shopkeepers, men without compassion, ungrateful to God for anything save vile pelf. Good! you say to me; these are noble hearts, with whom I have no need to discuss the economical question, which is very subtle, and requires more attention than the Parisian newspaper-writers and their readers can in general bestow on a study of this description. But with them the question of wealth will not be an obstacle; either they will take it on trust, on the faith of Divine wisdom, as in harmony with justice, or they will sacrifice it willingly without a thought, for they have a passion for self-abandonment. If, then, they once acknowledge that Free-trade is, in the abstract, right, they will resolutely enrol themselves under its banner. Consequently, I address my appeal to them. Can you guess their reply? Here it is: —

'Your Free-trade is a beautiful theory. It is founded on right and justice; it realizes liberty; it consecrates property; it would be followed by the union of nations – the reign of peace and of good-will amongst men. You have reason and principle on your side; but we will resist you to the utmost, and with all our strength, because foreign competition would be fatal to our national industry.'

I take the liberty of addressing this reply to them: —

'I deny that foreign competition would be fatal to national industry. If it was so, you would be placed in every instance between your interest – which, according to you, is on the side of the restriction – and justice, which, by your confession, is on the side of freedom of intercourse! Now when I, the worshipper of the golden calf, warn you that the time has arrived to make your own choice, whence comes it that you, the men of self-denial, cling to self-interest, and trample principle under foot? Do not, then, inveigh so much against a motive, which governs you as it governs other men? Such is the experience which warns me that it is incumbent on us, in the first place, to solve this alarming problem: Is there harmony or antagonism between justice and utility? and, in consequence, to investigate the economical side of the protective system; for since they whose watchword is Fraternity, themselves yield before an apprehended adversity, it is clear that this proceeds from no doubt in the truth of the cause of universal justice, but that it is an acknowledgment of the existence and of the necessity of self-interest, as an all-powerful spring of action, however unworthy, abject, contemptible, and despised it may be deemed.

It is this which has given rise to a work, in two small volumes, which I take the liberty of sending you with the present one, well convinced, Sir, that if, like other political economists, you judge severely of the system of Protection on the ground of morality, and if we only differ as far as concerns its utility, you will not refuse to inquire, with some care, if these two great elements of substantial progress agree or disagree.

This harmony exists – or, at least, it is as clear to me as the light of the sun that it does. May it reveal itself to you! It is, then, by applying your talents, which have so remarkable an influence on others, to counteract Communism in its most dangerous shape, that you will give it a mortal blow.

See what passes in England. It would seem that if Communism could have found a land favourable to it, it ought to have been the soil of Britain. There, the feudal institutions, placing everywhere in juxtaposition extreme misery and extreme opulence, should have prepared the minds of men for the reception of false doctrines. But notwithstanding this, what do we see? Whilst the Continent is agitated, not even the surface of English society is disturbed. Chartism has been able to take no root there. Do you know why? Because the league or association which, for ten years discussed the system of Protection, only triumphed by placing the right of property on its true principles, and by pointing out and defining the proper functions of the state.11