The post you are reporting:
If...equality...
"The isolated man can supply but a very small portion of his
wants; all his power lies in association, and in the intelligent
combination of universal effort. The division and co-operation
of labour multiply the quantity and the variety of products; the
individuality of functions improves their quality.
There is not a man, then, but lives upon the products of several
thousand different industries; not a labourer but receives from
society at large the things which he consumes, and, with these,
the power to reproduce. Who, indeed, would venture the
assertion, "I produce, by my own effort, all that I consume; I
need the aid of no one else"? The farmer, whom the early
economists regarded as the only real producer--the farmer,
housed, furnished, clothed, fed, and assisted by the mason, the
carpenter, the tailor, the miller, the baker, the butcher, the
grocer, the blacksmith, &c.,--the farmer, I say, can he boast
that he produces by his own unaided effort?
The various articles of consumption are given to each by
all; consequently, the production of each involves the
production of all. One product cannot exist without another; an
isolated industry is an impossible thing. What would be the
harvest of the farmer, if others did not manufacture for him
barns, wagons, ploughs, clothes, &c.? Where would be the
savant without the publisher; the printer without the
typecaster and the machinist; and these, in their turn, without a
multitude of other industries? . . . Let us not prolong this
catalogue--so easy to extend--lest we be accused of uttering
commonplaces. All industries are united by mutual relations in a
single group; all productions do reciprocal service as means and
end; all varieties of talent are but a series of changes from the
inferior to the superior.
Now, this undisputed and indisputable fact of the general
participation in every species of product makes all individual
productions common; so that every product, coming from the hands
of the producer, is mortgaged in advance by society. The
producer himself is entitled to only that portion of his product,
which is expressed by a fraction whose denominator is equal to
the number of individuals of which society is composed. It is
true that in return this same producer has a share in all the
products of others, so that he has a claim upon all, just as all
have a claim upon him; but is it not clear that this reciprocity
of mortgages, far from authorizing property, destroys even
possession? The labourer is not even possessor of his product;
scarcely has he finished it, when society claims it.
"But," it will be answered, "even if that is so--even if the
product does not belong to the producer--still society gives each
labourer an equivalent for his product; and this equivalent, this
salary, this reward, this allowance, becomes his property. Do
you deny that this property is legitimate? And if the
labourer, instead of consuming his entire wages, chooses to
economize,--who dare question his right to do so?"
The labourer is not even proprietor of the price of his labour, and
cannot absolutely control its disposition. Let us not be blinded
by a spurious justice. That which is given the labourer in
exchange for his product is not given him as a reward for past
labour, but to provide for and secure future labour. We consume
before we produce. The labourer may say at the end of the day, "I
have paid yesterday's expenses; to-morrow I shall pay those of
today." At every moment of his life, the member of society is in
debt; he dies with the debt unpaid:--how is it possible for him
to accumulate?
They talk of economy--it is the proprietor's hobby. Under a
system of equality, all economy which does not aim at subsequent
reproduction or enjoyment is impossible--why? Because the thing
saved, since it cannot be converted into capital, has no object,
and is without a FINAL CAUSE."
From; What Is Property? By P-J Proudhon (1809-Dec.19th 1864)
This book is freely available from archive.org