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

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

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

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

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

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

[1262] Bourgeois, op. cit., p. 94.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1281] La Propriété sociale et la Démocratie.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1293] Œuvres, vol. i, p. 59 (Fédéralisme, Socialisme, et Antithéologisme).

[1294] Adler in his article Anarchismus in the Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften, and in his Geschichte des Sozialismus und Kommunismus (1899), shows the indebtedness of the anarchist ideal to Greek philosophy.

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

[1296] Some may perhaps wonder why Nietzsche is not included, especially as he was a successor of Stirner’s. But Nietzsche’s interests were always exclusively philosophical and ethical. Stirner’s work, on the other hand, is mainly social and political. We have already pointed out that even Stirner’s book has only a rather remote connection with economics, and a detailed study of it would be more in keeping with a history of political ideas. Nietzsche’s work would lead us still farther afield, and would force us to examine every individualistic doctrine as it cropped up.

[1297] Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum (ed. Reklam), p. 164.

[1298] Ibid., p. 225.

[1299] “This man has a body, and so has this man, and that man, right through society, so that you have a collection of bodies and not one collective body. Society has several bodies at its disposal, but has no body of its own. Just like the parallel notion of a nation, this corporate body is a mere phantom—an idea with no corporeal existence.” (Ibid., p. 135.) To make the possession of a body the test of reality is surely gross materialism. At this rate, law, custom, and language would have to be considered unreal. A historical fact such as a battle or a revolution has no body, but its real consequences are often palpable enough.

[1300] Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum, p. 222.

[1301] Ibid., p. 223.

[1302] Ibid., p. 164.

[1303] In a pamphlet called Les Nouveaux Aspects du Socialisme (Paris, 1908), written by a syndicalist of the name of Berth, syndicalism and anarchism are contrasted, Proudhon’s emphasis upon the reality of society being adopted as the crucial test. Unfortunately, however, Berth confines his examination to Stirner’s system. Had he applied the test to Bakunin or Kropotkin he would have discovered that the emphasis laid by them upon the reality of society constitutes the most original feature in their theory. We are thus driven to the exactly opposite conclusion, and feel bound to admit—M. Berth notwithstanding—that anarchism and syndicalism in many respects closely resemble one another. Jean Grave, however, as we shall see later, seems more favourably inclined towards the naïve individualism of Stirner.

[1304] See Bakunin’s Life, written by his friend James Guillaume, included in the two-volume edition of his works; or the notice of him prefaced by Dragomanov to his volume Michail Bakunin’s sozial-politischer Briefwechsel mit Herzen und Ogareff (Stuttgart, 1895). A fairly full biography—not yet published—has been written by Nettlau, and a copy of the MS. may be seen in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris. See also M. Lagardelle’s article on Bakunin in the Revue politique et parlementaire (1909). Bakunin’s works have been published in French in four volumes, the first of which was issued in 1895, and the other three in 1907, 1908, and 1909 respectively (Paris, Stork). Some of his writings, however, are not included among these, e.g. the Statutes of the International Alliance for Social Democracy.

[1305] “I returned from that journey with very definite sociological theories in my mind which I have ever since cherished, and I have done everything I can to give them a more clear and a more concrete expression.” Kropotkin’s principal works are: Paroles d’un Revolté (1884); In Russian and French Prisons (1887); La Conquéte du Pain (1888; Engl. trans. 1906); The State, its Part in History (1898); Fields, Factories, and Workshops (1899); Memoirs of a Revolutionist (1900); Mutual Aid (1902). He has also published a large number of pamphlets, among them L’Anarchie: sa Philosophie, son Idéal (1896). Our quotations are taken from Eltzbacher’s Der Anarchismus, a work that consists almost entirely of quotations from the various anarchist authors, grouped under a few headings. [The references are to the French translation, 1902.—Tr.] These writers, and Kropotkin among them, have readily recognised the impartiality of the work.

[1306] Cf. L’Évolution, la Révolution, et l’Idéal anarchique, by Élisée Reclus (Paris, 1898), and La Société future, by Jean Grave (1895).

[1307] On the present position of anarchist ideas in France see R. de Marmande, Les Forces révolutionnaires en France, in the Grande Revue, August 10, 1911.

[1308] L’Évolution, la Révolution, et l’Idéal anarchique, p. 88; and he adds: “Our ideal implies the fullest and most absolute liberty of expression of opinion on all matters whatsoever. It further involves complete freedom to follow one’s own inclinations or to do as one likes” (p. 143), with this single proviso: “that the individual is thereby developing a healthy moral life” (p. 141).

[1309] Extract from Carnets, published in the Figaro, January 16, 1909.

[1310] Œuvres, vol. i, p. 281.

[1311] Jean Grave, La Société future, p. 157. Cf. also p. 199: “No individual must accept any restriction that will check his development, nor must he submit to the yoke of authority under any pretence whatsoever.”

[1312] Justice dans la Révolution, vol. i, p. 185.

[1313] Bakunin, Œuvres, vol. i, p. 105.

[1314] Quoted by Eltzbacher, loc. cit., p. 199.

[1315] Bakunin, Œuvres, vol. i, p. 281. “I can be really free when those around me, both men and women, are also free. The liberty of others, far from limiting or negating my own, is, on the contrary, its necessary condition and guarantee.”

[1316] Ibid., vol. i, p. 277.

[1317] The idea of respecting man’s humanity is vigorously criticised by Stirner. Proudhon is expressly mentioned as the chief representative of that view. The principle was also regarded with some favour by Feuerbach, who wanted to substitute emphasis upon the human in man for the stress generally laid upon the divine in his nature.

[1318] Proudhon is the model here. “To be governed,” says he (Idée générale de la Révolution) “is to have every deed of ours, every action and movement, noted, registered, reviewed, docketed, measured, filed, assessed, guaranteed, licensed, authorised, recommended, prohibited, checked, reformed, redressed, corrected; under pretence of public policy, to be taxed, dragooned, imprisoned, exploited, cajoled, forced, cheated, robbed; at the least sign of resistance or complaint to be repressed, convicted, vilified, vexed, hunted, mauled, murdered, stripped, garrotted, imprisoned, shot, slaughtered, judged, condemned, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed, and finally mocked, flouted, outraged and dishonoured. That is government, such its justification and morality.”

[1319] Bakunin, Œuvres, vol. i, pp. 143, 227, 151.

[1320] Ibid., vol. i, p. 228.

[1321] Ibid., vol. i, p. 176; vol. iii, p. 53.

[1322] L’Évolution, la Révolution, et l’Idéal anarchiste, p. 164.

[1323] Bakunin, Œuvres, vol. i, p. 280.

[1324] Wealth of Nations, vol. ii, p. 207. Cf. supra, p. 79, footnote. Adam Smith, it is true, did write that “civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property,” etc.; but that does not imply that the great economist regarded this as the only object of government, although it certainly is one of its chief aims.

[1325] “The million and one laws that govern humanity naturally fall into one or other of three categories: laws for the protection of property, of government, or of individuals. If we take these three divisions and analyse them we are inevitably forced to realise how futile and even injurious all legislation is.” (Memoirs of a Revolutionist, p. 236.)

[1326] “Society itself is every day creating beings imbued with anti-social feelings and incapable of leading honest, industrious lives.” (Kropotkin, quoted by Eltzbacher, loc. cit., p. 221.) “Seeing that the organisation of society is always and everywhere the one cause of all the crimes committed by men, its conduct in punishing criminals is clearly absurd or obviously insincere. Every punishment implies guilt, but the criminals in this case are never guilty. We deny the so-called right of society to bestow punishment in this arbitrary fashion. A human being is simply the unwilling product of the natural or social environment in which he was born and reared and under whose influence he still remains. The three great causes of human immorality are inequality, whether political, economic, or social; ignorance, which is its natural result; and slavery, its inevitable consequence.” (Bakunin, Programme de l’Alliance internationale de la Démocratie socialiste, in Sozial-politischer Briefwechsel, pp. 332-333.)

“Property and want are the great incentives to crime. But if defective society organisation is the cause of crime, an improvement in organisation should cause a disappearance of crime.” (Jean Grave, La Société future, pp. 137-138.)

[1327] “Is it necessary,” asks Bakunin, “to repeat the arguments of socialism, which are still unanswerable and which no bourgeois economist has ever attempted to disprove? What are we to make of property and capital as they exist at the present moment? In both cases it practically means a right or a power guaranteed and protected by society to live without working; and since property and capital produce absolutely nothing unless fertilised by labour, it means power and the right to live upon the labour of others and to exploit the labour of those who have neither property nor capital and are compelled to sell their productive force to the fortunate owner of the one or other of these.” Cf. Kropotkin’s Conquest of Bread, p. 56: “Multiply examples, choose them where you will, consider the origin of all fortunes, large or small, whether arising out of commerce, finance, manufactures, or the land. Everywhere you will find that the wealth of the wealthy springs from the poverty of the poor.” In this sentence he sums up a long demonstration which he gives in proof of this contention.

[1328] Bakunin, Œuvres, vol. i, p. 324.

[1329] Idée générale de la Révolution, p. 119.

[1330] “Law is simply an instrument invented for the maintenance of exploitation and the domination of the idle rich over the toiling masses. Its sole mission is the perpetuation of exploitation.” (Kropotkin, Memoirs of a Revolutionist, p. 235.)

[1331] Bakunin, Programme de l’Alliance, in Sozial-politischer Briefwechsel, p. 339.

[1332] Kropotkin, Conquest of Bread, pp. 61-62.