menu_book Chapter 7

X. Algeria. Here are four orators, disputing for the platform. First, all the four speak at once. Then they speak one after the other. What have they said?

Some very fine things, certainly, about the power and the grandeur of France. About the necessity of sowing, if we would reap. About the brilliant future of our gigantic colony. About the advantage of diverting to a distance the surplus of our population, etc., etc. magnificent pieces of eloquence and always adorned with this conclusion vote fifty millions more or less for making ports and roads in algeria for sending emigrants thither for building houses and breaking up land

by doing so you will relieve the french workmen encourage african labor and give a stimulus to the commerce of marseilles it would be profitable every way yes it is all very true if you take no account of the fifty millions until the moment when the state begins to spend them if you only see where they go and not whence they come if you look only at the good they are to do when they come out of the tax gatherers bag and not at the harm which has been done, and the good which has been prevented, by putting them into it. Yes, at this very limited point of view, all is profit. The house which is built in Barbary is that which is seen.

The harbour made in Barbary is that which is seen. The work caused in Barbary is what is seen. A few less hands in France is what is seen. A great stir with goods at Marseilles is still that which is seen. But, besides all this, there is something which is not seen.

The fifty millions expended by the State cannot be spent, as they otherwise would have been, by the taxpayers. It is necessary to deduct, from all the good attributed to the public expenditure which has been affected, all the harm caused by the prevention of private expense, unless we say that James B. would have done nothing with the crown that he had gained, and of which the tax had deprived him. An absurd assertion, for if he took the trouble to earn it, it was because he expected the satisfaction of

using it. He would have repaired the palings in his garden, which he cannot now do, and this is that which is not seen. He would have minored his field, which now he cannot do, and this is what is not seen. He would have added another story to his cottage, which he cannot do now, and this is what is not seen. He might have increased the number of his tools, which he cannot do now, and this is what is not seen. He would have been better fed,

better clothed, have given a better education to his children, and increased his daughter's marriage portion. This is what is not seen. He would have become a member of the Mutual Assistance Society. But now he cannot. This is what is not seen. On one hand are the enjoyments of which he has been deprived, and the means of action which have been destroyed in his hands. On the other are the labour of the drainer, the carpenter, the smith, the tailor, the village

schoolmaster, which he would have encouraged, and which are now prevented. All this is what is not seen. Much is hoped from the future prosperity of Algeria, be it so. But the drain to which France is being subjected ought not to be kept entirely out of sight. The commerce of Marseilles is pointed out to me. But if this is to be brought about by means of taxation, I shall always show that an equal commerce is destroyed thereby in other parts of the country. It is said,

there is an emigrant transported into Barbary. There is a relief to the population which remains in the country. I answer, how can that be, if, in transporting this emigrant to Algiers, you also transport two or three times the capital which would have served to maintain him in france the only object i have in view is to make it evident to the reader that in every public expense behind the apparent benefit there is an evil which it is not so easy to discern as far as in me lies i would make him form a habit of seeing both and taking account of both when a public expense is proposed it ought to be examined in itself separately from the pretended encouragement of labor which results from it for tin's encouragement is a delusion whatever is done in this way at the public expense private expense would have done all the same therefore the interest of labour is always out of the question

it is not the object of this treatise to criticise the intrinsic merit of the public expenditure as applied to algeria but i cannot withhold a general observation it is that the presumption is always unfavourable to collective expenses by way of tax why for this reason first justice always suffers from it in some degree since james b had laboured to gain his crown in the hope of receiving a gratification from it it is to be regretted that the exchequer should interpose and take from james b this gratification to bestow it upon another certainly it behooves the exchequer or those who regulate it to give good reasons for this it has been shown that the state gives a very provoking one when it says with this crown i shall employ workmen for james b as soon as he sees it will be sure to answer it is all very fine but with this crown i might employ them myself apart from this reason others present themselves without disguise by which the debate between the exchequer and poor james becomes much simplified

if the state says to him i take your crown to pay the gendarme who saves you the trouble of providing for your own personal safety for paving the street which you are passing through every day for paying the magistrate who causes your property and your liberty to be respected to maintain the soldier who maintains our frontiers james b unless i am much mistaken will pay for all this without hesitation but if the state were to say to him i take this crown that i may give you a little prize in case you cultivate your field well or that i may teach your son something that you have no wish that he should learn or that the minister may add another to his score of dishes at dinner i take it to build a cottage in algeria in which case i must take another crown every year to keep an emigrant at it and another hundred to maintain a soldier to guard this emigrant and another crown to maintain a general to guard this soldier c c i think i hear poor james exclaim this system of law is very much like a system of cheat the state foresees the objection and what does it do it jumbles all things together and brings forward just that provoking reason which ought to have nothing whatever to do with the question

it talks of the effect of this crown upon labor it points to the cook and purveyor of the minister it shows an emigrant a soldier and a general living upon the crown it shows in fact what is seen and if james b has not learned to take into the account what is not seen james b will be duped and this is why i want to do all i can to impress it upon his mind by repeating it over and over again as the public expenses displace labour without increasing it a second serious presumption presents itself against them to displace labour is to displace labourers and to disturb the natural laws which regulate the distribution of the population over the country if fifty million francs are allowed to remain in the possession of the taxpayers since the taxpayers are everywhere they encourage labor in the forty thousand parishes in france they act like a natural tie which keeps every one upon his native soil they distribute themselves amongst all imaginable laborers and trades

if the state by drawing off these sixty million francs from the citizens accumulates them and expends them on some given point it attracts to this point a proportional quantity of displaced labor a corresponding number of laborers belonging to other parts a fluctuating population which is out of its place and i venture to say dangerous when the fund is exhausted now here is the consequence and this confirms all i have said this feverish activity is as it were forced into a narrow space it attracts the attention of all it is what is seen the people applaud they are astonished at the beauty and facility of the plan and expect to have it continued and extended that which they do not see is that an equal quantity of labor which would probably be more valuable has been paralyzed over the rest of france eleven frugality and luxury it is not only in the public expenditure that what is seen eclipses what is not seen

setting aside what relates to political economy this phenomenon leads to false reasoning it causes nations to consider their moral and their material interests as contradictory to each other what can be more discouraging or more dismal for instance there is not a father of a family who does not think it his duty to teach his children order system the habits of carefulness of economy and of moderation in spending money there is no religion which does not thunder against pomp and luxury this is as it should be but on the other hand how frequently do we hear the following remarks to hoard is to drain the veins of the people the luxury of the great is the comfort of the little prodigals ruin themselves but they enrich the state it is the superfluity of the rich which makes bread for the poor here certainly is a striking contradiction between the moral and the social idea how many eminent spirits after having made the assertion repose in peace

it is a thing i never could understand for it seems to me that nothing can be more distressing than to discover two opposite tendencies in mankind why it comes to degradation at each of the extremes economy brings it to misery prodigality plunges it into moral degradation happily these vulgar maxims exhibit economy and luxury in a false light taking account as they do of those immediate consequences which are seen and not of the remote ones which are not seen let us see if we can rectify this incomplete view of the case mondor and his brother aristus after dividing the parental inheritance have each an income of fifty thousand francs Mondor practices the fashionable philanthropy. He is what is called a squanderer of money.

He renews his furniture several times a year, changes his equipages every month. People talk of his ingenious contrivances to bring them sooner to an end. In short, he surpasses the fast livers of Balzac and Alexander Dumas. Thus everybody is singing his praises. It is, Tell us about Mondor, Mondor forever. He is the benefactor of the workmen, a blessing to the people. It is true, he revels in dissipation, he splashes the passers-by. His own dignity,

and that of human nature, are lowered a little, but what of that? He does good with his fortune, if not with himself. He causes money to circulate. He always sends the tradespeople away satisfied. Is not money made round that it may roll? Aristos has adopted a very different plan of life. If he is not an egotist, he is, at any rate, an individualist. For he considers expense, seeks only moderate and reasonable enjoyments, thinks of his children's prospects, and, in fact,

he economizes. And what do people say of him? What is the good of a rich fellow like him? He is a skinflint. There is something imposing, perhaps, in the simplicity of his life. N.T. is humane, too, and benevolent, and generous, but he calculates. He does not spend his income. His house is neither brilliant nor bustling. What good does he do to the paper-hangers, the carriage-makers, the horse-dealers, and the confectioners? These opinions,

which are fatal to morality, are founded upon what strikes the eye, the expenditure of the prodigal, and another which is out of sight, the equal and even superior expenditure of the economist. But things have been so admirably arranged by the divine inventor of social order, that in this, as in everything else, political economy and morality, far from clashing, agree, and the wisdom of Aristos is not only more dignified, but still more profitable, than the

folly of Mondur. And when I say profitable, I do not mean only profitable to Aristos, or even to society in general, but more profitable to the workmen themselves, to the trade of the time. To prove it, it is only necessary to turn the mind's eye to those hidden consequences of human actions, which the bodily eye does not see. Yes, the prodigality of Mandor has visible effects in every point of view. Everybody can see his

landals, his phaetons, his berlins, his delicate paintings on his sailings, his rich carpets, the brilliant effects of his house. Every one knows that his horses run upon the turf. The dinners which he gives at the Hotel de Paris attract the attention of the crowds on the boulevards, and it is said, that is a generous man, far from saving his income, he is very likely breaking into his capital. That is what is seen. It is not so easy to see, with regard to the interest of workers, what becomes of the income of Aristus. If we were to trace it carefully, however, we should see that the whole of it,

down to the last farthing, affords work to the labourers, as certainly as the fortune of Mondor. Only there is this difference. The wanton extravagance of Mondor is doomed to be constantly decreasing, and to come to an end without fail, whilst the wise expenditure of Aristus will go on increasing from year to year, and if this is the case, then most assuredly the public interest will be in unison with morality. Aristus spends upon himself and his household twenty thousand

francs a year. If that is not sufficient to content him, he does not deserve to be called a wise man. He is touched by the miseries which oppress the poorer classes. He thinks he is bound in conscience to afford them some relief, and therefore he devotes ten thousand francs to acts of benevolence. Amongst the merchants, the manufacturers, and the agriculturalists, he has friends who are suffering under temporary difficulties. He makes himself acquainted with

their situation, that he may assist them with prudence and efficiency, and to this work he devotes 10,000 francs more. Then he does not forget that he has daughters to portion, and sons for whose prospects it is his duty to provide, and therefore he considers it a duty to lay by and put out to interest 10,000 francs every year. The following is a list of his expenses. First, personal expenses, 20,000 francs.

Second, benevolent objects, 10,000 francs. Third, offices of friendship, 10,000 francs. Fourth, saving, 10,000 francs. Let us examine each of these items, and we shall see that not a single farthing escapes the national labor. First, personal expenses.

These, as far as workpeople and tradesmen are concerned, have precisely the same effect as an equal sum spent by Monder. This is self-evident, therefore we shall say no more about it. Second, benevolent objects. The ten thousand francs devoted to this purpose benefit trade in an equal degree.

They reach the butcher, the baker, the tailor, and the carpenter. The only thing is that the bread, the meat, and the clothing are not used by Aristos, but by those whom he has made his substitutes. Now this simple substitution of one consumer for another in no way affects trade in general. It is all one, whether Aristos spends a crown, or desires some unfortunate person to spend it instead.

third offices of friendship the friend to whom aristus lends or gives ten thousand francs does not receive them to bury them that would be against the hypothesis he uses them to pay for goods or to discharge debts in the first case trade is encouraged will any one pretend to say that it gains more by maunder's purchase of a thoroughbred horse for ten thousand francs than by the purchase of ten thousand francs worth of stuffs by Aristus or his friend. For if this sum serves to pay a debt, a third person appears, viz. the creditor, who will certainly employ them upon something in his trade, his household, or his farm. He forms another medium between Aristus and the workmen. The names only are changed. The expense remains, and also the encouragement to trade.

4. Saving. There remains now the ten thousand francs saved, and it is here, as regards the encouragement to the arts, to trade, labor, and the workmen, that Mondor appears far superior to Aristus, although, in a moral point of view, Aristus shows himself, in some degree, superior to Mondor. I can never look at these apparent contradictions between the great laws of nature without a feeling of physical uneasiness, which amounts to suffering. Were mankind reduced to

the necessity of choosing between two parties, one of whom injures his interest, and the other his conscience, we should have nothing to hope from the future. Happily this is not the case, and to see Aristus regain his economical superiority, as well as his moral superiority, it is sufficient to understand this consoling maxim, which is no less true from having a paradoxical experience. To save is to spend. What is Aristus's object in saving ten thousand

francs? Is it to bury them in his garden? No, certainly. He intends to increase his capital and his income. Consequently, this money, instead of being employed upon his own personal gratification, is used for buying land, a house, etc., or it is placed in the hands of a merchant or a banker. Follow the progress of this money in any one of these cases, and you will be convinced that, through the medium of vendors or lenders, it is encouraging labor quite as certainly as if

Aristus, following the example of his brother, had exchanged it for furniture, jewels, and horses. For when Aristos buys lands or rents for 10,000 francs, he is determined by the consideration that he does not want to spend this money. This is why you complain of him. But at the same time, the man who sells the land or the rent is determined by the consideration that he does want to spend the 10,000 francs in some way, so that the money is spent, in any case,

either by Aristus or by others in his stead. With respect to the working class, to the encouragement of labor, there is only one difference between the conduct of Aristus and that of Mondor. Mondor spends the money himself, and around him, and therefore the effect is seen. Aristus, spending it partly through intermediate parties and at a distance, the effect is not seen but in fact those who know how to attribute effects to their proper causes

will perceive that what is not seen is as certain as what is seen this is proved by the fact that in both cases the money circulates and does not lie in the iron chest of the wise man any more than it does in that of the spendthrift. It is, therefore, false to say that economy does actual harm to trade. As described above, it is equally beneficial with luxury. But how far superior is it if, instead of confining our thoughts to the present moment, we let

them embrace a longer period? Ten years pass away. What is become of Maunder, and his fortune, and his great popularity. Mander is ruined. Instead of spending 60,000 francs every year in the social body, he is, perhaps, a burden to it. In any case, he is no longer the delight of shopkeepers. He is no longer the patron of the arts and of trade. He is no longer of any use to the workmen, nor are his successors, whom he has brought to want. At the end of the same

ten years, Aristus not only continues to throw his income into circulation, but he adds an increasing sum from year to year to his expenses. He enlarges the national capital, that is, the fund which supplies wages, and as it is upon the extent of this fund that the demand for hands depends, he assists in progressively increasing the remuneration of the working class, and if he dies, he leaves children, whom he has taught, to succeed him in this work of progress and

civilization. In a moral point of view, the superiority of frugality over luxury is indisputable. It is consoling to think that it is so in political economy, to everyone who, not confining his views to the immediate effects of phenomena, knows how to extend his investigations to their final effects. 12. He who has a right to work has a right to profit.

Brethren, you must club together to find me work at your own price. This is the right to work, i.e., elementary socialism of the first degree. Brethren, you must club together to find me work at my own price. this is the right to profit i.e. refined socialism or socialism of the second degree both of these live upon such of their effects as are seen they will die by means of those effects

which are not seen that which is seen is the labor and the profit excited by social combination that which is not seen is the labor and the profit to which the same combination would give rise if it were left to the taxpayers in 1848 the right to labor for a moment showed two faces this was sufficient to ruin it in public opinion one of these faces was called national workshops the other forty-five centimes millions of francs went daily from the rue rivoli to the national workshops this was the fair side of the metal and this is the reverse if millions are taken out of a cash box they must first have been put into it this is why the organizers of the right to public labor apply to the taxpayers

now the peasants said i must pay forty-five centimes then i must deprive myself of some clothing i cannot manure my field i cannot repair my house and the country workman said as our townsman deprives himself of some clothing there will be less work for the tailor as he does not improve his field there will be less work for the drainer as he does not repair his house there will be less work for the carpenter and mason it was then proved that two kinds of meal cannot come out of one sack and that the work furnished by the government was done at the expense of labor paid for by the taxpayer this was the death of the right to labor which showed itself as much a chimera as an injustice and yet the right to profit which is only an exaggeration of the right to labor is still alive and flourishing ought not the projectionist to blush at the part he would make society play he says to it you must give me work and more than that lucrative work i have foolishly fixed upon a trade by which i lose ten per cent

if you impose a tax of twenty francs upon my countrymen and give it to me i shall be a gainer instead of a loser now profit is my right you owe it to me now any society which would listen to this sophist burden itself with taxes to satisfy him and not perceive that the loss to which any trade is exposed is no less a loss when others are forced to make up for it such a society i say would deserve the burden inflicted upon it thus we learn by the numerous subjects which i have treated that to be ignorant of political economy is to allow ourselves to be dazzled by the immediate effect of a phenomenon to be acquainted with it is to embrace in thought and in forethought the whole compass of effects i might subject a host of other questions to the same test but i shrink from the monotony of a constantly uniform demonstration and i conclude by applying to political economy what chateaubriand says of history there are he says two consequences in history an immediate one which is instantly recognized and one in the distance which is not at first perceived

these two consequences often contradict each other the former are the results of our own limited wisdom the latter those of that wisdom which endures the providential effect appears after the human event god rises up behind men deny if you will the supreme council disown its action dispute about words designate by the term force of circumstances or reason what the vulgar call providence but look to the end of an accomplished fact and you will see that it has always produced the contrary of what was expected from it if it was not established at first upon morality and justice chateaubriand's posthumous memoirs and of section seven recording by katy riley february two thousand ten