Book Iii, Chap. 5, § 4.) for the Position With Regard to Mines See the

same chapter, § 3.

In this case Stuart Mill seems to compare rent to a monopoly revenue: “A thing which is limited in quantity, even though its possessors do not act in concert, is still a monopolised article.” (Ibid., Book II, chap. 16, § 2.) The expression, though adopted by several other writers, is not quite accurate. In the case of a monopoly the owners fix the quantity which they will produce beforehand with a view to getting a maximum of profit. But this cannot apply to landowners. At any rate, if there is any monopoly it must be an incomplete one.

Stuart Mill, Principles, Book III, chap. 5, § 1.

Such was the argument employed by J. B. Say in the course of a controversy with Ricardo. “It is perfectly obvious that if the needs of society raise the price of corn to such a level as to permit of the cultivation of inferior lands which yield nothing beyond wages for the workmen and profits on the capital, then that demand on the part of society, coupled with the price which it can afford to pay for the corn, allows of a profit on the most fertile or best situated lands.” (Traité, 6th edition, p. 410.) Continuing, he remarks: “David Ricardo in the same chapter clearly shows that the profit from land is not the cause but the effect of the demand for corn, and the reasons which he adduces in support of this view may be turned against him to prove that other items in cost of production, notably the wages of labour, are not the cause but the effect of the current price of goods.” Ricardo himself seemed on the point of being converted to this view. See p. 554, note 2.

The theory of economic equilibrium enables us to give a still better demonstration of the general nature of this theory of rent. On this point we may refer to Pareto’s Cours and Sensi’s La Teoria della Rendita (Rome, 1912).

Cf. supra, p. 555, note 2.

Hermann, Staatswirtschaftliche Untersuchungen, Part V: Vom Gewinn. Even in the preface he declares that the doctrine of the rent of land must be regarded as a particular instance in the exposition of the law governing the returns from fixed capital in general.

Mangoldt, Die Lehre vom Unternehmergewinn (Leipzig, 1855), pp. 109 et seq.

Die nationalökonomische Theorie der ausschliessenden Absatzverhältnisse (Tübingen)—a work in which he attempts a justification of rents in general and of the rent of land in particular. Rent he regards as the reward offered to anyone who knows how to utilise either his personal capacity or his capital or land in a way that is particularly advantageous to society. It supplies an allurement that acts as the source of all progress and of all economic activity, a sort of natural right of ownership which society spontaneously confers upon those individuals who know how to serve society, and which competition causes to disappear at the opportune moment. The rent of land can be justified on this ground wherever legislation has not made an abuse of it. This new claim on behalf of rent is very interesting, and those who regard rent as exclusively unearned increment may ponder over this new characteristic of unearned incomes.

P. 148.

“The sum paid for the use of land differs in no material respect from the sum paid for the use of other kinds of capital—a machine, for example. Although the land or the machine has to be returned to its rightful owner in the same condition as it was received, one ought to pay something just because such capitals are economically scarce; in other words, the amount existing at any one time or place is not greater than the demand. What differentiates land from machinery is that savings might easily be employed in turning out new machinery, but cannot very well increase the quantity of land in existence, or at any rate cannot transform existing soils in a manner that is profitable.” (Pareto, Cours d’Économie politique, vol. ii, § 759.) Marshall makes use of analogous terms: “If the supply of any factor of production is limited, and incapable of much increase by man’s effort in any given period of time, then the income to be derived from it is to be regarded as of the nature of rent rather than profits in inquiries as to the action of economic causes during that period; although for longer periods it may rightly be regarded as profits which are required to cover part of the expenses of production and which therefore directly enter into those expenses.” (Principles, 1st ed., Book VI, chap. 3, § 1.)

Ibid., Book VI, chap. 3, § 7.

Did space permit, this would be the place to refer to the latest glorification of the doctrine of rent, which is to be found in Clark’s Distribution of Wealth, published in 1899. In that work, upon the strength of which the author enjoys a well-deserved reputation, revenues of various kinds are successively treated as rents. Imagine a fixed amount of capital applied along with successive doses of labour: each new dose of labour will produce less than the preceding one, while the production of the last dose regulates the remuneration of all the rest. But the product of the preceding doses is greater than that of the last, and a surplus value will be produced which will represent the product of capital and which will be exactly analogous to rent. Or suppose, on the other hand, that the quantity of labour is fixed and applied along with successive doses of capital; the productivity of the latter will in this case go on decreasing, and since the revenue of each dose will be proportionate to its productivity, any surplus left over will be of the nature of rent due to labour. There are other ingenious discussions which cannot be referred to in a note of this kind. But in our opinion the theory of economic equilibrium affords a simpler explanation of distribution, and the kind of optimism to which Clark’s theory gives rise seems hardly justified. His attempt to combine the idea of marginal productivity with the law of diminishing returns is a further proof of the persistent influence exerted by Ricardian ideas upon English-speaking economists.

Proudhon, Qu’est-ce que la Propriété, p. 74.

Pollock, The Land Laws, p. 12.

Agrarian Justice opposed to Agrarian Law and Agrarian Monopoly.

The Theory of Human Progression and Natural Probability of a Reign of Justice. For further information concerning Spence, Ogilvie, Dove, Paine, etc., see Escarra’s Nationalisation du Sol et Socialisme (Paris, 1904). We have drawn upon his book for the views here put forward, the works of these writers not being easily accessible.

Justice, p. 92.

“The land is the original heritage of the whole human race,” says Mill in his Dissertations and Discussions. In the Principles, Book II, chap. 2, § 5, he expresses his views thus: “The essential principle of property being to assure to all persons what they have produced by their labour and accumulated by their abstinence, this principle cannot apply to what is not the produce of labour, the raw material of the earth.” Walras, in his Théorie de la Propriété, in the Études d’Économie sociale, p. 218, says that the land by a kind of natural right is the property of the State. Henry George, in Progress and Poverty, Book VII, chap. 1, maintains that “the equal right of all men to the use of the land is as clear as their equal right to breathe the air—it is a right proclaimed by the fact of their existence.”

Principles, Book V, chap. 2, § 5.

“This continual increase arising from the circumstances of the community and from nothing in which the landholders themselves have any peculiar share, does seem a fund no less peculiarly fitted for appropriation to the purposes of the State than the whole of the rent in a country where land has never been appropriated.” (Elements of Political Economy, chap. 4, § 5.)

Cf. supra, chapter on Saint-Simon.

Principles, Book V, chap. 2, § 5. Cf. also chap. 3, §§ 2 and 6. For the programme of the League see Dissertations and Discussions, vol. iv.

Mill thought it impossible to distinguish in individual cases between the surplus value which is due to general circumstances and the surplus that results from the expenditure undertaken by the proprietor. Hence his conclusion that a general tax was the most equitable method of procedure with a view to effecting confiscation.

Dissertations and Discussions, vol. iv, p. 256.

Progress and Poverty was not his first effort, however. In 1871 Our Land and Land Policy had appeared, and in 1874 The Land Question. Later still he published Protection or Free Trade (1886), in which he puts forward a strong case for Free Trade, and in 1891 An Open Letter to Pope Leo XIII on the condition of the workers.

Clark in his Distribution of Wealth states that the method by which he tries to determine the exact productivity of each factor of production is one that he borrowed from Henry George.

“Twenty men working together will, where nature is niggardly, produce more than twenty times the wealth that one man can produce where nature is most bountiful.” Cf. also the whole of Book II, which is a disproof of the Malthusian theory.

“Labour and capital are but different forms of the same thing—human exertion. Capital is produced by labour; it is, in fact, but labour impressed upon matter.… The use of capital in production is, therefore, but a mode of labour.… Hence the principle that, under circumstances which permit free competition, operates to bring wages to a common standard and profits to a substantial equality—the principle that men will seek to gratify their desires with the least exertion—operates to establish and maintain this equilibrium between wages and interest.… And this relation fixed, it is evident that interest and wages must rise and fall together, and that interest cannot be increased without increasing wages, nor wages be lowered without depressing interest.” (Progress and Poverty, Book III, chap. 5.) It is hardly necessary to point out how very much simplified this doctrine concerning the relation between wages and interest really is.

A résumé of this theory of distribution, whose very simplicity must make it suspect, may be found in Book V, chap. 2: “In every direction, the direct tendency of advancing civilisation is to increase the power of human labour to satisfy human desires—to extirpate poverty and to banish want and the fear of want.… But labour cannot reap the benefits which advancing civilisation thus brings, because they are intercepted. Land being necessary to labour, and being reduced to private ownership, every increase in the productive power of labour but increases rent—the price that labour must pay for the opportunity to utilise its power; and thus all the advantages gained by the march of progress go to the owners of land, and wages do not increase.” George, however, does not claim that real wages have fallen because technical improvements enable production to be carried on where it was formerly impossible. At most this will only enable capital and labour to preserve their old scale of remuneration; it will not give them any share in the progress that has been made, so that, relatively speaking, it is true to say that wages and interest have both fallen in comparison with rent. “When I say that wages fall as rent rises, I do not mean that the quantity of wealth obtained by labourers as wages is necessarily less, but that the proportion which it bears to the whole produce is necessarily less. The proportion may diminish while the quantity remains the same, or even increases.” (Book VI, chap. 6. Cf. also Book IV, chap. 3.) George, like Ricardo and a good many socialists, confuses two different problems, namely, the price of productive services and the proportional distribution of the product between the different agents of production (Book V). He adds, however, that scientific discovery, by pushing the margin of cultivation back to that point where the law of diminishing returns is more than counterbalanced by increased productive efficiency, may even sometimes reduce the worker’s real wages, and so impair his position not only relatively, but also absolutely. (Book IV, chap. 4.)

Ibid., Book V, chap. 2.

That portion of their revenue which represented the capital sunk in the land would still be the property of the landowners.

Mill points out that the answer to this objection is that the right of selling the land at a price which depends upon two contrary conditions (gain or loss) establishes a kind of equilibrium. The State would not lose anything by this, for a fall in value in one place, unless it be accompanied by a general want of prosperity, implies a corresponding increase somewhere else, of which the State will get the benefit. (Dissertations and Discussions, vol. iv.)

M. Einaudi, however, in his excellent Studi sugli effetti delle imposte, p. 125 (Turin, 1902), remarks that this principle of indemnifying losses leads directly to a State guarantee of values—the expediency of which is at least problematic. He makes the further observation that the compensation would often be paid to a person other than the one who paid the tax when it was levied—the property in the meantime having changed hands.

For the distinction between the legality of movable and immovable property see Mill, Principles, Book II, chap. 2, § 1, and Henry George, Progress and Poverty, Book VII, chap. 1. “The institution of private property,” says Mill in the above passage, “when limited to its essential elements, consists in the recognition, in each person, of a right to the exclusive disposal of what he or she have produced by their own efforts, or received either by gift or by fair agreement without force or fraud from those who produced it.” Such a definition at least implies that landed property is illegal. A house is distinguished from the land upon which it is built; whereas the former is legally held the latter is not.

Mill, Dissertations and Discussions, vol. iv, p. 298.

Especially in England, where various schemes have been propounded and investigated by Royal Commissions in the course of the last ten years. Such schemes are discussed in a very thorough fashion in Einaudi’s book already mentioned, and in an article entitled Recent Schemes for Rating Urban Land Values contributed by Edgeworth to the Economic Journal in 1906.

Article 30 of the Act of September 16, 1807, runs as follows: “If as the result of the improvements already mentioned in this Act—through the making of new roads or the laying out of new squares, through the construction of quays or other public works—any private property acquires a notable increase in value, such property shall be made to pay an indemnity which may be equal to half the value of the advantage which has thus accrued to it.” The principle was rarely applied, however. M. Berthélemy (Traité élémentaire de Droit administratif, 1908, p. 624) states that he can only find twenty occasions on which the law was brought into operation in the whole course of the nineteenth century.

Professor Seligman (Essays in Taxation, 5th ed., p. 341) quotes an English law of 1672 relating to the widening of certain streets in Westminster in which the principle is neatly stated. But when it was proposed to apply it to certain public works undertaken in London in 1890 it was energetically opposed. It was admitted afresh in the Tower Bridge Act of 1895. A similar system is frequently adopted in America under the name of “special assessment” or “betterment.”

No notice whatever was taken of it then, and even in the second edition of the great Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften, published in 1900, no mention is made of Gossen’s name, although the third edition of that work has made ample reparation. The book was reprinted in 1889. On the relation between the ideas of Gossen and those of Jevons and Walras see Walras’s interesting article, Un Économiste inconnu, Hermann Henri Gossen, published in the Journal des Économistes in 1885 and reproduced in his Études d’Économie sociale, pp. 351 et seq.

Entwickelung der Gesetze, p. 250.

Gossen sees other advantages that would follow such reform. He enumerates them thus: (1) The confiscation of rent would reduce the possibility of living without working, and this would increase the industrial activity of the class under consideration. (2) The legal transference of property would be greatly simplified. (3) Producers would be exempted from buying land and from keeping capital for this purpose. (4) Rent would take the place of taxation to a very considerable extent, and would free the collection of it from every trace of vexation or injustice. (Ibid., p. 273.)

Cf. the fragment entitled Méthode de Conciliation ou de Synthèse, in the Études d’Économie sociale. Henry George in his preface to Progress and Poverty writes thus: “What I have done in this book … is to unite the truth perceived by the school of Smith and Ricardo to the truth perceived by the school of Proudhon and Lassalle; to show that laissez-faire (in its full, true meaning) opens the way to a realisation of the noble dream of socialism.”

Études d’Économie sociale, p. 239.

See the charming sixth lesson of the Théorie générale de la Société in the Études d’Économie sociale.

“In order to justify a measure involving a slight diminution in the rent of landed proprietors, it is hardly necessary to invoke the fact that rents have a faculty of growing continuously without the co-operation of the proprietor. We need scarcely point out that this increase in rent over a certain period cannot enter into the price of land simply because it cannot be calculated. Consequently, when a buyer buys under the system of guarantee afforded by the State he has at the same time undoubtedly bought a claim to all the variations of rent which may ensue.… Even if the landed proprietor is indemnified by being paid a perpetual rent equal to the rent of his land at the time of confiscation, as is done to-day in the case of compulsory purchase, the injustice will not be as great as it otherwise would be, but it will not be removed altogether.” (Gossen, Entwickelung der Gesetze, pp. 257-258.)

Gossen gives reasons for thinking that the State, owing to its superior position as compared with individuals, might offer better terms to the proprietors than ordinary buyers could—among others, that the State can borrow cheaply and could consequently offer a better price.

A similar idea underlies Gide’s proposal in an article contributed to the Journal des Économistes for July 1883. “The State would offer to buy the land and pay for it on the basis of ninety-nine years’ purchase. There is reason to think that hardly a buyer would be found who would refuse such an offer coupled with a slight compensation, for ninety-nine years is the equivalent of perpetuity as far as the individual is concerned. There would be nothing mean about such a price; really it would be more of a gift to the proprietor.”

Walras, Études d’Économie sociale, p. 368. A mathematical discussion of the theory is contained in the Théorie mathématique du Prix des Terres. The same argument expressed in ordinary language may be found in the article entitled Un Économiste inconnu (Études d’Économie sociale, pp. 365 et seq.), and it is still more simply summed up in the Problème fiscal, pp. 446-449.

“The same considerations would apply in the case of mines, railways, monopolies of every kind, natural and otherwise, where the principle of free competition is in operation or where any surplus value exists.” (Études d’Économie sociale, p. 347, note. Cf. also pp. 237 et seq.)

Cf. Escarra, loc. cit., p. 224. See also Laveleye, Le Socialisme contemporain, 8th ed., Appendix I.

Métin, Le Socialisme en Angleterre, p. 179 (1897).

“The possession of a piece of land frees the workman from dependence upon the masters, which is one cause of poverty. The worker who possesses land is free. He has always something he can turn his hand to when out of work.” Elsewhere: “If a certain quantity of land is given to the workers their wages will surely rise, for no one will work for another unless he can get more than he gets when working for himself.” (Quoted by Escarra, p. 224, note.) The same idea occurs in Henry George, but not as a part of the general argument.

If we had not decided against the inclusion of the Italian economists, this would have been the place to devote a few words to the writings of Achille Loria. No one excels him as a writer on political economy. An elaborate superstructure of great economic, political, social, and even religious significance has been built upon the foundation of free land, which at least denotes a powerful imagination. A résumé of this thesis is contained in La Terra ed il Sistema sociale, translated for the Revue d’Économie politique in 1892. We cannot examine Loria’s system here. Suffice it to say that in his Costituzione economica odierna (1900) he demands that the law should recognise each man’s right to the land: either to a unit of land (i.e. a quantity of land such as would enable a man to live and set up as an independent producer) or, failing that, to a fraction of such a unit.

Such is the theoretical solution, but the practical suggestion is somewhat milder, a kind of territorial wage being suggested. Every master would be obliged to give to his workmen, in addition to a minimum wage, a certain amount of land at the end of a given number of years. If during that period the workman has been employed by several masters, each master should contribute in proportion to the length of time he has been in his service.

At the end of a certain period every worker would thus become a proprietor. These would thus be in the same position as their primitive ancestors were as far as natural economy is concerned, and would be able to join with the older proprietors in a kind of association of capital and labour on a footing of absolute equality, which Signor Loria thought would be a most fruitful type of organisation. During the intervening years a certain amount of pressure would have to be put upon the proprietors.

The Social Democratic Federation was founded by Hyndman in 1881. See Métin, Le Socialisme en Angleterre, chap. 6 (1897).

Bernard Shaw, The Fabian Society, what it has done and how it has done it (1892; Fabian Tract, No. 41).

Report on Fabian Policy (Fabian Tract, No. 70).

“For it was at this period that we contracted the invaluable habit of freely laughing at ourselves which has always distinguished us, and which has saved us from becoming hampered by the gushing enthusiasts who mistake their own emotions for public movements.” (Bernard Shaw, loc. cit.)

Report on Fabian Policy.

Socialism, as understood by the Fabian Society, means the organisation and conduct of the necessary industries of the country, and the appropriation of all forms of economic rent of land and capital by the nation as a whole, through the most suitable public authorities, municipal, provincial, or central. The socialism advocated by the Fabian Society is State socialism exclusively (the term is used to distinguish it from anarchist socialism). On the other hand, it “steadfastly discountenances all schemes for securing to any person, or any group of persons, the entire product of their labour. It recognises that wealth is social in its origin and must be social in its distribution, since the evolution of industry has made it impossible to distinguish the particular contribution that each person makes to the common product, or to ascertain its value.” (Report on Fabian Policy.)

Ibid.

In addition to the Fabian Essays, the principal publications containing an exposition of Fabian ideas are the Fabian Tracts, a collection containing a great number of pamphlets on various subjects; The History of Trade Unionism, by Mr. and Mrs. Webb; Industrial Democracy, particularly chaps. 1 and 2 of the third part, by the same authors; and, finally, Problems of Modern Industry (1898), a collection of lectures and articles, also by Mr. and Mrs. Webb.

Mr. and Mrs. Webb in their History of Trade Unionism reject “that confident sciolism and prejudice which has led generations of socialists to borrow from Adam Smith and the ‘classic’ economists the erroneous theory that labour is by itself the creator of value without going on to master that impregnable and more difficult law of economic rent which is the very corner-stone of collectivist economy.”

“The interest with which we are concerned must clearly be a definable quantity of produce.” (The National Dividend and its Distribution, in Problems of Modern Industry, p. 227. We are indebted to this article for the exposition which we have given of the Fabian doctrine.)

An exposition of the same theory is given in Tract No. 15, English Progress towards Social Democracy: “The individuals or classes who possess social power have at all times, consciously or unconsciously, made use of that power in such a way as to leave to the great majority of their fellows practically nothing beyond the means of subsistence according to the current local standard. The additional product, determined by the relative differences in productive efficiency of the different sites, soils, capitals, and forms of skill above the margin of cultivation, has gone to those exercising control over these valuable but scarce productive factors. This struggle to secure the surplus or ‘economic rent’ is the key to the confused history of European progress, and an underlying, unconscious motive of all revolutions.” Cf. also The Difficulties of Individualism, in Problems of Modern Industry, pp. 237-239.

Bernard Shaw in his Economic Basis of Socialism, published in the Fabian Essays, makes a very neat distinction between interest properly so called and economic rent.

Fabian Essays, p. 35.

Socialism True and False (Tract No. 51).

What Socialism is (Tract No. 13).

In his preface to Kurella’s German book, Sozialismus in England (1898), he mentions the fact that the English working class is divided into a number of corporations who are either jealous of or misunderstand one another, but have not what we may properly call a class consciousness (p. 10).

Report on Fabian Policy, p. 7.

Fabian Essays, pp. 47-49.

Ibid., p. 31.

Sidney Webb, The Difficulties of Individualism, in Problems of Modern Industry, p. 231. Also in the Fabian Essays, p. 35, he declares: “Socialists as well as individualists realise that important organic changes can only be (1) democratic …; (2) gradual …; (3) not regarded as immoral by the mass of the people; and (4) in this country, at any rate, constitutional and peaceful.”

B. Potter (Mrs. Sidney Webb), The Co-operative Movement, p. 16.

Etymologically “solidarity” is a corruption of solidum, which was employed by the Roman jurists to signify the obligation incurred by debtors who were each held responsible for the whole amount of a debt. One would naturally expect the French derivative to be solidité, which was the term used by the jurists under the old régime, especially by Pothier. Solidarité was substituted for it by the editors of the Civil Code.

We should never come to an end if we began to quote passages in which the merits of solidarity are set forth. We must content ourselves with the following, chosen at random:

M. Millerand, at the time Minister of Commerce, in a speech delivered at the opening of the Exposition Universelle in 1900, said: “Science teaches men the true secret of material greatness and of social morality; and all its teaching, in a word, points to solidarity.”

M. Deherme, the founder of the People’s University movement, says: “The folly of solidarity should be the source of our inspiration, just as the martyrs of old were inspired by the folly of the Cross. The thing that wants doing is to organise democracy.” (La Co-operation des Idées, June 16, 1900.)

“For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office; so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.” (Romans xii, 4 and 5.)

“As in physical organisms the unity is made up of separate limbs, so among reasoning things the reason is distributed among individuals constituted for unity of co-operation.” (Marcus Aurelius, vii, 13; Rendall’s translation.)

Discours sur l’Esprit positif. In the Cours de Philosophie he frankly pays it this well-deserved compliment: “It is a truly capital idea, and thoroughly modern too.”

Social biology dates from the publication of Professor Schäffle’s great work Bau und Leben des sozialen Körpers (1875-78); possibly from the publication of Rodbertus’s work—at any rate, Rodbertus accuses Schäffle of plagiarism. See also Spencer’s Principles of Sociology. Aristotle had already ventured to say that “an animal is just like a well-ordered city,” a proposition that might well be inverted.

There are still a few adherents left. See M. Worms’s book, Organisme et Société, and Lilienfeld’s Pathologie sociale.

Herbert Spencer, who was the pioneer of the analogy, had abandoned it; and Auguste Comte, the godfather of sociology, took good care to put sociologists on their guard against the method, which he considered irrational.

“The enormous development of steam communication and the spread of the telegraph over the whole globe have caused modern industry to develop from a gigantic starfish, any of whose members might be destroyed without affecting the rest, into a μέγα ζῶον which is convulsed in agony by a slight injury in one part.” (Nicholson, Effects of Machinery on Wages, p. 117.)

It was in 1889, if we mistake not, that the term “solidarity” was proposed as the title of a new economic school in a lecture entitled L’École nouvelle. This lecture was published, along with others, in a small volume entitled Quatre Écoles d’Économie sociale (1890, Geneva) (L’École libérale, by Frédéric Passy; L’École catholique, by Claudio Jannet; L’École socialiste by M. Stiegler; and L’École nouvelle, by M. Gide). The characteristics of the various schools are summed up as follows: The one is the school of liberty, the other of authority, while the third is the school of equality. Gide then proceeds: “Were I asked to define what I understand by the New School in a single word, I should call it the Solidarity School. Unlike liberty, equality, and fraternity, solidarity is not a very high-sounding word, nor is it a mere ideal. It is just a fact, one of the best-established facts of history and experience, and the most important discovery of our time, and this fact of solidarity is becoming better established every day.”

It would have been better, perhaps, to have spoken of a new movement rather than of a new school, seeing the variety of schools, some of them actually opposed to one another, such as the school of Biological Naturalism and the Christian school, the Anarchist school and the State Socialist school, that have adopted solidarity as a part of their creed.

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.

“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.)

“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.)

“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.)

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!

Bourgeois, op. cit., p. 94.

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.

“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?

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.

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

“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.)

“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.)

“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.)

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.)

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.

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

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.

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.

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.)

“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.

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.”

“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.)

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.

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.

La Propriété sociale et la Démocratie.

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.

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.

“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.

“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.)

“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.

“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.)

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Ibid., p. 225.

“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.

Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum, p. 222.

Ibid., p. 223.

Ibid., p. 164.

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.

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.

“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.

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

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.

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).

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

Œuvres, vol. i, p. 281.

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.”

Justice dans la Révolution, vol. i, p. 185.

Bakunin, Œuvres, vol. i, p. 105.

Quoted by Eltzbacher, loc. cit., p. 199.

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.”

Ibid., vol. i, p. 277.

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.

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.”

Bakunin, Œuvres, vol. i, pp. 143, 227, 151.

Ibid., vol. i, p. 228.

Ibid., vol. i, p. 176; vol. iii, p. 53.

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

Bakunin, Œuvres, vol. i, p. 280.

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.

“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.)

“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.)

“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.

Bakunin, Œuvres, vol. i, p. 324.

Idée générale de la Révolution, p. 119.

“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.)

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

Kropotkin, Conquest of Bread, pp. 61-62.

“The anarchists want to see free unions established, resting upon mutual affection and based upon respect for one’s self and for the dignity of others. And in that sense, in their desire to show respect and affection for all the members of the association, they are inimical to the family,” (Élisée Reclus, loc. cit., pp. 145-146.)

Der Einzige, p. 229.

Cf. Idée générale de la Révolution, p. 281, and p. 342: “Revolution follows revelation. Reason aided by experience reveals to us the nature of the laws which govern society as well as nature, and which in both cases are simply the laws of necessity. They are neither made by man nor imposed by his authority. They have only been discovered step by step, which is a proof of their independent existence. By obeying them a man becomes just and noble. Violation of them constitutes injustice and sin. I can suggest no other motive for human actions.”

Bakunin, Œuvres, vol. iii, p. 51.

Bakunin, Œuvres, vol. iii, p. 55.

“In general we may say that man’s general life is almost entirely governed by what we call good sense.” (Ibid., vol. iii, p. 50.)

Ibid., vol. iii, p. 51.

La Société future, p. 303.

Bakunin, Œuvres, vol. i, pp. 286, 298, 277.

Bakunin on his death-bed confessed to his friend Reichel that “all his philosophy had been built upon a false foundation. All was vitiated because he had begun by taking man as an individual, whereas he is really a member of a collective whole” (quoted by Guillaume, Œuvres, preface to vol. ii, p. 60). In his Philosophie du Progrès (Œuvres, vol. xx, pp. 36-38) Proudhon writes as follows: “All that reason knows and maintains is that the individual, like an idea, is really a group. All existence is in groups, and whatever forms a group also forms a unit, and consequently becomes perceptible and is then said to exist. In accordance with this general conception of being, I think it possible to prove the existence of positive reality and up to a certain point to demonstrate the laws of the social being or of the humanitarian group, and to establish a proof of the existence of an individuality superior to collective man and still quite other and different from his individual self.” The same idea frequently comes up in different connections, e.g., in the Petit Catéchisme politique at the end of vol. i of La Justice dans la Révolution, and in Idée générale de la Révolution.

Kropotkin thinks that man has always lived in society of one kind or another. “As far back as we can go in the palæo-ethnology of mankind, we find men living in societies, in tribes similar to those of the highest mammals.” (Mutual Aid, p. 80). “Man did not create society; society is older than man.” (The State, its Historic Rôle, p. 6; London, 1898.) Jean Grave, on the other hand, thinks that “the individual was prior to society. Destroy the individual, and there will be nothing left of society. Let the association be dissolved and the individuals scattered, they will fare badly and will possibly return to savagery, their faculties will decay and not progress, but still they will continue to exist.” (La Societé future, pp. 160-162.) Grave’s view is essentially his own and does not square with those of either Kropotkin, Bakunin, or Proudhon, the real founders of anarchy. It is, moreover, quite obvious that their theories are really much nearer the truth, for it is as impossible to conceive of society without the individual as it is to conceive of the individual without society. The individual, as Bakunin emphatically declares, is a fiction, or an abstraction, as Walras would say. Many people find it difficult to accept this doctrine. But it seems the only one that tallies with the facts, whether of nature or of history. We can no more imagine the individual without society than we can a fish without water. Deprived of water, it is not only less of a fish, but it is no longer a fish at all—except a dead one.

Bastiat speaks of this error of confusing government and society as being the worst that has ever befallen the science. The State problem he defines as follows: “How to inscribe within the great circle which we call society that other circle called government.” Dunoyer in so many words expresses the same idea.

Memoirs of a Revolutionist, p. 414. Cf. also Paroles d’une Révolté, p. 221.

This idea finds frequent expression both with Reclus and Kropotkin. “The fact that we have instituted, regulated, codified, and encompassed with constraints and penalties, with gendarmes and jailers, the larger part of our more or less incoherent collection of political, religious, moral and social conceptions of to-day in order to enforce them upon the citizens of to-morrow is in itself sufficiently absurd, and it is bound to have contradictory results. Life, which is always improving and renewing itself, can never submit to regulations which have been drawn up in some period now past.” (Reclus, loc. cit., pp. 108-9.) “Anarchist society,” writes Kropotkin, “is one to which any pre-established, crystallised form of law will always be repugnant. It is also one which looks for harmony, which can only be temporary and fugitive perhaps, in the equilibrium between the mass of different forces and influences of every kind which pursue their course without the slightest deflection, and which because they are quite untrammelled beget reaction and arouse those activities which are favourable to them when they move in the direction of progress.” (L’Anarchie, pp. 17, 18.)

Memoirs of a Revolutionist.

Proudhon had already set the problem as follows: “Can we find a method of transacting business that will unite divergent interests and identify individuals with the general well-being, replace the inequality of nature by equality of education, and remove all political and economic contradictions; when each individual will be at once both producer and consumer, citizen and sovereign, ruler and ruled; when liberty will always expand without involving any counter-loss; when the well being of each will grow indefinitely without involving any damage to the property, the labour, or the revenue of any of his fellow-citizens, or of the State itself, without weakening the interests he has in common with his fellow-men, without alienating their good opinion or destroying their affection for him?” (Idée générale, p. 145.) Says Jean Grave: “Were society established on natural bases, individual and general interests would never conflict.” (Société future, p. 156.)

La Société future, p. 16. “We cannot disguise the fact,” says Kropotkin, “that if complete liberty of thought and action were once given to the individual we should see some exaggerations, possibly extravagant exaggerations, of our principles.” (Memoirs of a Revolutionist, p. 413.)

“The only great and all-powerful authority at once rational and natural that we can respect is the public spirit of a collective society founded upon equality and solidarity, upon liberty and respect for the human qualities of all its members. It will be a thousand times more powerful than all your authorities, whether divine, theological, metaphysical, political, or juridical, whether instituted by Church or by State; more powerful than all your criminal codes, all your jailers and hangmen.” (Bakunin, Œuvres, vol. iii, p. 79.)

Memoirs of a Revolutionist, p. 414. This is also one of the favourite doctrines of the Liberals.

Kropotkin, Conquest of Bread, p. 206.

Grave, op. cit., p. 297. Proudhon is even more severe. “By making a contract you become a member of the fraternity of free men. In case of infringement, either on their side or on yours, you are responsible to one another, and the responsibility might even involve excommunication and death.” (Idée générale, p. 343.)

Kropotkin, Mutual Aid, p. 17.

“In our opinion, and speaking strictly, there is no such thing as a really idle person. There are a few individuals, perhaps, who have not developed as they might have done and whose activity has never found a proper outlet under existing conditions. In a society where everyone would be allowed to choose his own sphere of work the idlest people would be found doing something.” (J. Grave, La Société future, pp. 277-278.) Kropotkin writes in the same strain (Conquest of Bread, chapter on Objections).

Kropotkin, Memoirs of a Revolutionist, p. 414; Conquest of Bread, p. 156. The anarchists show no desire to expand the Phalanstère, but prefer the family life.

Conquest of Bread, p. 204.

Conquest of Bread, p. 130.

Ibid., p. 133.

Élisée Reclus, L’Évolution, etc., pp. 136-137.

Conquest of Bread, p. 83.

Cf. Grave, La Société future, ch. 14, La Valeur. The anarchists frequently complain that their ideas are generally mutilated by the economists. To read this chapter is to realise the amount of intelligence which they display when interpreting their adversaries’ doctrines!

L’Évolution, p. 154. Kropotkin says: “Those who wish the triumph of justice, who really want to put the new ideas into practice, understand the necessity for a terrible revolution which would sweep away this canker and revive the degenerate hearts with its invigorating rush, bringing back habits of devotion, of self-negation, and of heroism, without which society becomes vile, degraded, and rotten.” (Paroles d’un Révolté, p. 280.)

Bakunin, in Sozial-politischer, p. 297.

Memoirs of a Revolutionist, p. 297.

Kropotkin, quoted by Eltzbacher, p. 236. “Revolution, once it becomes socialistic, will cease to be sanguinary and cruel. The people are not cruel. It is the privileged classes that are cruel. People are ordinarily kind and humane, and will suffer long rather than cause others any suffering.” (Bakunin, Œuvres, vol. iii, pp. 184-185.) The same idea runs through Sorel’s Réflexions sur la Violence.

Bakunin, Sozial-politischer, pp. 335 and 353.

Sozial-politischer, p. 361. The proclamation was addressed to Young Russia just after the Tsar Alexander II had accepted the challenge of Liberalism by emancipating the serfs. But he immediately proceeded to revive the cruel system of espionage and repression carried out by his father Nicholas I, and so roused the indignation of the more advanced leaders, who thought that they had in him a hero who would open the golden gates of liberty. Bakunin at the time was under the influence of an unscrupulous fanatic of the name of Netchaieff, whose savage and revolting passion for the execution of criminal deeds in the name of revolution had completely captivated him. Later on he vigorously reproved such acts, and declared that they ought to be suppressed.

Ibid.

Bakunin, Sozial-politischer, p. 332.

Réflexions sur la Violence, p. 253.

Paroles d’un Révolté, pp. 17-18.

Réflexions sur la Violence, p. 218.

Berth, Les Nouveaux Aspects du Socialisme, p. 3.

Réflexions sur la Violence, introduction.

Ibid., p. 237.

INDEX

In the longer paragraphs a number standing alone, and separated by a semicolon from the preceding sentence, indicates a reference of smaller importance. Such numbers are, of course, not connected with the sentence preceding them.

“Abbots’ Party,” 508

Ability, rent of, 549-552, 582, 583

“Abstinence,” 350

“Abuse of rights,” 606

Act of Union of 1707, Adam Smith on, 266

Act of Union of 1800, 104

Adamson, Professor, 529 n.

Adler, G., 615 n.

Aftalion, A., 184 n.

Agneta Park, 255

Agoult, Mme. d’, 292 n.

Agriculture, the sole source of the “net product,” 12, 14; the Physiocratic influence upon the conception of, 17; the inherent distinction between industry and, 17-18; workers in, ignored by the Physiocrats, 22 n.; Condillac on, 49 n.; viewed by Quesnay as the source of all wealth, 56; Smith and the superior productivity of, 64, 90, 112; Smith’s admiration for, 67-68; Buchanan on, 143; the future of, 155-157; List and Protection and, 276 and n.; Carey and Protection and, 283

Agriculturist, the, predominant importance of, in the Physiocratic hierarchy of classes, 61

Aix-la-Chapelle, 281 n.

Alexander II, Tsar, 639 n.

Algeria, 339 n.

Allgemeiner deutscher Arbeiterverein, 432

Allix, M., 117 n., 207 n.

Alton Locke, 504

America—see United States

Anarchism, vii, xv; the development of, 516; a fusion of Liberal and socialist doctrines, 614; and the State, 615, 623-624, 625, 626, 627; Proudhon the father of, 615; indebtedness of, to Greek philosophy, 615 n.; philosophical and literary anarchism, 615, 619; Stirner and the cult of the individual, 615-619; and syndicalism, 619 n.; Bakunin, 619-620; Kropotkin, 621-622; the principles of social and political anarchism, 622-629; and the individual, 622-623; and humanity, 623; and government, 624-627; and property, 626-627; and marriage, 627; and free contract, 627-628; and reason and science, 628-629, 641; the anarchist conception of society, 629-636; criticism of the social ideal, 634-636; and revolution, 637-640, 641; its influence, 640-642; and individualism and socialism, 640; and syndicalism, 641; the moral element in the doctrine, 641

Anarchists, and the cult of the “noble savage,” 7

Anarchy, Proudhon and, 311 n.

Anderson, J., 148 n.-149 n.

Andler, C., 321 n., 416 n., 435 n.

Antoine, Father, 499 n.

Antonelli, É., 251 n., 537 n.

Argenson, Marquis d’, 11 n.

Aristotle, 401; on value, 451 n.; 590 n.

Arkwright, R., 65

Ashley, W. J., v, vi, xi, 385 n., 387, 391 n., 406

Association, 231, 233; Robert Owen and, 237; Blanc and, 256, 257, 260, 263; Buchez and, 258; Leroux and, 263; Cabet and, 263-264; Proudhon and, 297 and nn., 315 n.; 300; the French Liberal school and, 325; Stuart Mill and, 370; Le Play and, 491 n.; the Christian Socialists and, 504-506, 507 n.; Kingsley on, 505 n.; solidarity and, 602, 613-614; and exchange, 613 n.

Associative socialists, 227, 231-235; and the Physiocrats, 232-233; and competition, 233-234; Blanc and, 263

Auburtin, F., 487 n.

Aucuy, M., 316 n.

Aulard, F., 200 n.

Aupetit, J. J., 529 n., 530 n., 537 n., 539 n., 543 n.

Auspitz, Herr, 529 n.

Austria, and the Zollverein, 268; Social Catholicism in, 499 n.; anarchism in, 640

Austrian school, xv, 48, 397 n., 521, 522 n., 541, 544 and n., 581

Avances foncières, 22, 23 n., 25

Avances souveraines, 38 n.

Avenel, M. d’, 546

Babeuf, F., 200 and nn., 256, 436 n.

“Back to the land,” in Fourier’s system, 251-252; Tolstoy and, 513

Baden, 268 n.

Baden, the Margrave of (Abbé Roubaud), and the Physiocrats, 4 n., 5; the Physiocratic experiment of, 44

Bakunin, M., 449 n., 459 n., 615, 616, 619-620, 621, 622, 623, 624, 626 and nn., 627, 628, 630, 631 n., 634 n., 637-640, 641

“Balance of trade” theory, Mercier de la Rivière on, 31; David Hume and, 53; Adam Smith and, 98; Ricardo and, 163-165; 285; List and, 285 n.

Bank Act, English, of 1822, 166; of 1844, 166

Bank of Amsterdam, 85

Bank, Bonnard’s, 316 n.-317 n.

Bank of England, 166

Bank of Exchange—see Exchange Bank

Bank of France, 305, 311, 312, 314, 638

Bank-notes, Adam Smith and, 85, 96; Ricardo and, 165-167; and Proudhon’s exchange notes, 311-312

Banks, Adam Smith and, 85, 96; Ricardo and, 138, 139 n., 163, 167; in the Saint-Simonians’ system, 218-219 and n., 226; Fourier’s co-operative, 251 n.; influence on crises in the money market, 285 n.; Count Mollien and, 314; the Raiffeisen agricultural credit banks, 503 n.

Barone, Signor M., 529 n.

Barrès, A. M., 254 n.

Bastiat, F., xv, 92, 93, 115, 117, 118 n., 146 n., 156, 160, 163 n., 223 n., 277 n.; and the Classical school, 322; and Protection, 323, 328 n., 329; 324; and liberty, 324 n.; and State intervention, 325 n., 408-409; and the Liberal school, 327; Carey and, 327-328; his career, 328 n.; and socialism, 328 n., 329; criticism of, 329; estimate of his work, 329 and n.; and individualism, 330; his theory of universal harmony, 330-346; and the Providential order, 331; his theory of service-value, 332-335; and Proudhon, 333 n.-334 n.; his law of free utility, 335-337; and the proprietor, 336; and rent, 337-340, 425, 545, 546; and the relation of profits to wages, 340-342, 427; on the subordination of producer to consumer, 342-343; and solidarity, 344-345; 363 n.; and international exchange, 365; and Optimism, 377; and the State, 438 n., 439; 459 n., 516, 572, 589; his fable, The Blind and the Paralytic, 608; 617, 624; and government and society, 631 n.

Baudeau, the Abbé, on the Physiocrats, 3 n.; a member of the Physiocratic school, 4 n.; on the “natural order,” 10; on the productivity of agriculture, 13 n.; on industry and commerce, 13; on the Tableau économique, 18 n., 20 n.; on the dependence of the productive classes on the landed proprietors, 22 n.; on the landed proprietors as nobility, 22 n.; and the origin and justification of private property, 22; on the avances foncières, 23 n., 25 n.; on the duties of landed proprietors, 25; on the regard to be paid to the peasants, 26; on useless laws, 33 n.; on the Greek states, 34 n.; on the sovereignty of the people, 36 n.; on the supreme will, 36 n.; on education, 37; on international antagonism, 37 n.; on the three errors of States, 37 n.-38 n.; on avances souveraines, 38 n.; on the revenue from land, 40 n.; on the sovereign, 41 n.; on the gross and net revenue, 43 n.; 118 n.

Bauer, Bruno, 616

Bauer, Professor S., 19 nn.

Bavaria, Tariff Union between Würtemberg and, 268

Bazard, St. A., 201 n., 211, 212, 213

Bebel, F. A., 437

Bentham, J., 96 n., 586

Béranger, J. P. de, 331

Berens, E., 547 n.

Bergson, H., 403 n.

Bernstein, E., 473, 474 n., 475 and n., 479, 480 n.

Berth, É., 479 n., 619 n., 642 n.

Berthélemy, H., 569 n.

Biological method, 544 n.

Biological Naturalism, the school of, 593 n.

Bismarck, Prince, and Lassalle, 414; 436; and State Socialism, 445

Blanc, Louis, 169, 198, 227, 235; quality of his work, 255-256; and competition, 256-257, 260; and association, 257-261, 263; and interest, 259-260; a pioneer of State Socialism, 261, 262, 414; and State intervention, 262, 414; 290; Proudhon and, 296 n.; 300; and the Revolution of 1848, 300-306; Lassalle and, 434; 599, 607 n.

Blanqui, A., 197, 295

Blind and the Paralytic, The, Bastiat’s fable, 608

Block, M., 375

Böhm-Bawerk, E. von, on capital, 71 n.; on Adam Smith’s conception of the determinant of value, 78 n.-79 n.; 150; and Bastiat, 329; 474 n., 516; on the Classical school, 518 n.; on wages, 520; 522 n.; on final utility, 523 n.; his theory of interest, 530, 540; 541 n., 583

Boisguillebert, P., 29 n., 33 n., 54

Bon prix, the, 15-16, 29, 45

Bonar, J., 52 n., 121

Bonnard’s Bank, 316 n.-317 n.

Booth, C., 388

Bortkevitch, V., 529 n.

Bouglé, C., 594 n.

Bourgeois, L., 593-599, 603 nn., 605 n.

Bourgin, H., 201 n., 246 n., 265 n.

Bourguin, M., 231 n., 320 n., 449 n.

Bournville, 255, 513 n.

Bouvier, M., 538 n.

Boyve, M. de, 508 n.

Brandes, G., 432 n.

Brants, V., xi

Braun, K., 368

Bray, J. F., 315, 316

“Brazen law of wages,” the, 361, 426, 433, 453 n., 541

Brentano, L., 386, 389 n.

Briand, M., 251 n.

Bright, John, 366

Brissot de Warville, J. P., 200 n., 292 n.

Brodnitz, Herr, 445 n.

Brook Farm, 255 n.

Brunetière, F., 485 n.

Brunhes, Mme., 510 n.

Brunswick, 268 n.

Buccleuch, Duke of, and Adam Smith, 51 n.

Buchanan, J., 52 n., 143

Bücher, K., 252 n., 271 n., 386, 397

Bucher, L., 414

Buchez, P., 258, 259, 306, 496 and n., 505

Buffon, the Comte de, 121, 523 n.

Buisson, M., 249 n., 603 n.

Buonarotti, F., 256 and n.

Bureau, P., 493 n., 495 n.

Buret, A. E., 197

Burgin, M., 95 n.

Cabet, É., 233, 235, 246, 263-264, 290, 296 n., 297

Cairnes, J. E., 329, 374-375, 387

Calvin, John, 503 n.

Cameralists, 110, 383

Campanella, T., 200 n., 246

Cannan, Dr. E., v, 52 n., 56 n., 71 n., 79 n., 145 and n., 427 n., 549 n.

Canonists, the, 110

Cantillon, R., 46

Capital, Adam Smith and, 56, 71-73, 89-91; Ricardo and the identification of, with labour, 149-150; the law of the concentration of, 187; Saint-Simon and, 206, 214; the Saint-Simonians and, 214; Proudhon and, 293, 308-309, 310, 313-314; Bastiat and, 340-342; Colson and, 342 n.; Dunoyer on, 347 n.; Senior and, 350; Marx and, 455-465; Marx’s law of the concentration of, 459-465, 475-476; the socialist’s conception of, 459-460; the Marxian school and, 467 n.; the productivity theory of, 502; final utility and, 528; the rent of, 548-549 n., 558 n.; the rent of fixed, 556, 583; Henry George on the relation of labour to, 564-565; co-operators and, 605 n.

Capitalism, Marx and, 461-462

Carey, H. C., and trade, 28; and rent, 115, 338-340, 425, 545, 546; 156, 278; and Protection, 282-284; and Free Trade, 282-283; and List, 284; 289 n.; and the Optimistic school, 327; and Bastiat, 327-328, 340; and the Ricardian theory of value, 332; 333 n.; and Bastiat’s profits theory, 342 n.; and solidarity, 345; his population theory, 346; 549, 572

Carey, M., 278

Carlyle, T., 196, 511, 512 n.

Carnot, H., 212, 213 n.

Carnot, S., 367 n.

Carrel, A., 212

Cartwright, E., 65

Carver, J. N., 522 n.

Catherine, Empress of Russia, and the Physiocrats, 5; and Mercier de la Rivière, 34

Catholic Church, Roman, 485

Catholic Socialism, 495

Catholicism, and the economic order, 483 n., 484 n.; Social Catholicism, 495-503

Cauwès, P., 285 n.

Cazamian, L., 510 n.

Chambre consultative des Associations de Production, 257 n.

Channing, W. E., 255 n., 504 n.

Chapelier, Le, decree of, 233 n.

Chaptal, J. A., 112, 277 n., 278 n., 281 n.

Charity, solidarism distinguished from, 614 n.

Charléty, S., 226 n.

Charmont, M., 607 n.

Charter of 1814, 205

Chartist movement, the, 235

Chatelain, M., 50 n., 369 n., 415 n., 427 n.

Cherbuliez, A. É., 376, 541 n.

Chevalier, M., 212, 213, 226, 289 n., 366, 375, 411-412, 444

Child, Sir J., 54

Chrematistic school, 178-179

Christian Social Union, 506 n.

Christian Socialism (Social Protestantism), xv, 378, 495, 503-509; origin of the movement, 503-504; and association, 504-506; and moral reform, 505, 509; and private property, 506; the movement in America, 506; in Germany and in Switzerland, 507; in France, 508; and solidarity, 508; and individualism, 509

Christian Socialists, 111, 196, 370, 483; and socialism, 483-485; and Classical Liberalism, 484; and the “natural order,” 484; and Marx’s collectivism, 485; and State Socialism, 485; their doctrines, and their influence, 486; and economic theory, 515

Christianity, economic doctrines inspired by, 483-514

Christliche Gewerkvereine, 501

Civitas Solis, 246

Clark, J. B., 522 n., 527, 542 n., 552, 564 n.

“Class war,” 465 n., 471, 478, 479, 481-482

Classical school, doctrine of, xv; the Physiocratic doctrine and, 10; List and, 169; and the critical school, 170; Sismondi and, 174, 177, 179, 195-196; and machinery, 180, 182; and over-production, 181; resemblance of doctrines of, to those of Marx, 181; and competition, 182; and the beneficence of the spontaneous economic forces, 230; and Free Trade, 264; List and, 289, 290; severance of, into English and French schools, 322; apogee and decline of, 348-376; Senior and, 349-350; spread of the doctrines of, 351-352; Stuart Mill and, 352, 353, 354, 368, 374; and natural laws, 354-366; called the Individualist school, 355; and individualism, 355-356; and liberty, 356; definition of, 356 n., 357 n.; and laissez-faire, 357; and international exchange, 363; doctrines of, in the middle of the nineteenth century, 366-367; and peasant proprietorship, 371 n.; decline of the Classical doctrine, 378; Roscher and Hildebrand and, 383-385; Knies and, 384; the Historical school’s criticism of, 385, 389-398, 517; and self-interest, 393-394; and the deductive method, 395-396; 407; Hermann and, 410-411; and distribution, 422; State Socialism and, 438; and Marxism, 467, 472; Carlyle and, 511; the Hedonists and, 518-521, 539, 541 n., 544; and rent, 520, 547; and price, 520; and value, 530 n., 558

Clavières, É., 107

Cobden, R., 280, 323, 328 n., 360, 366, 375

Colbert, J. B., 11 n., 280

Colbertian system, Physiocracy antagonistic to, 29; and agriculture and industry, 30 n.; 97, 178

Colins, Baron, 155, 560

Collectivism, xv; the Saint-Simonians and, 201, 202, 211, 218-221, 231; of Marx, 250, 459 n., 485; development of, 378; origin of the term, 459 n.; and property, 464 and n.; and Christian Socialism, 509; the working-class ideal, 516, 579; the Fabian, 581; Kropotkin and, 627

Collinsists, 465 n.

Colson, L. C., 342 n., 427 n., 537 n.

Combination Laws, 361

Commerce, regarded as unproductive by the Physiocrats, 13

Communism, Sismondi and, 194; Marx and, 221, 459 n., 464; Cabet and, 264; Proudhon and, 298, 300; Bastiat and, 337; Stuart Mill and, 353, 367; Ruskin and, 513; Tolstoy and, 513; Kropotkin and, 627

Communists, the, Proudhon and, 296 and n.

Competition, Sismondi and, 182-184, 186, 193 n., 198; Adam Smith and, 182; the Associationists and, 233-234; Robert Owen and, 240; Blanc and, 256-257, 260; Ollivier on, 325; Stuart Mill on, 353, 358; free, the Classical school and, 358, 544; Cairnes and, 375; the State Socialists and, 440; F. D. Maurice and, 504 n.; free, the Hedonists and, 518, 541-542, 605 n.; free, Walras and, 541-542; 543

Composite rent, 552

Comptabilisme sociale, 242

Comte, A., 36 n., 201 n., 203 and n., 211; and Saint-Simon, 222; and the spontaneity of the “natural order,” 331; 335, 352, 367, 374 n.; and the Historical method, 404-405; and the equality of men, 486 n.; and solidarity, 589, 601 n.; and the sociological analogy, 590 n.; 595

Comte, C., 207

Condé-sur-Vesgres, Fourier colony at, 255 n.

Condillac, É. B. de, xiii, 46, 47, 48-50, 74, 75, 109 and n., 117, 118 n., 523 n.

Condorcet, M. C., 122, 224

Confédération général du Travail, 480, 502, 640

Congress of Catholic Circles, 498 n.

Considérant, V., 234 n., 255, 264, 296 n., 301, 303, 304, 599, 607 n.

Consumer, Bastiat and the subordination of producer to, 342-343

Consumer’s rent, 527 n.

Consumers and social reorganisation, 605 n.

Consumption, the Psychological school and, 526-527; the Mathematical school and, 530

Continental Blockade, the, 266, 279

Cooper, W., 244

Co-operation, Fourier and Owen and, 234, 257; in Fourier’s Phalanstère, 246-252, 257; Blanc and, 257-263, 306; Buchez and, 258; Proudhon and, 315; Stuart Mill and, 353, 370; the Social Catholics and, 496-500; F. D. Maurice and, 504 n.; the Christian Socialists and, 505, 506; Tomy Fallot and, 508 n.; solidarity and, 588, 604; the École de Nîmes and, 605 n.; co-operators and capital, 605 n.

Co-operative societies, beginnings of, 243; Robert Owen and, 243-244, 504; character of, 250 n., 504-505

Co-partnership, 251 n.

Corn, high price of, in England, in the early nineteenth century, 145-146

Corn Laws, English, Sismondi and, 175; 269, 277, 280, 354, 361, 366

Corporative associations, the Social Catholics and, 496-500, 501 and n.

Cossa, L., xi, 367, 376

Cost of production theory, Adam Smith’s, 78-79, 80

Courcelle-Seneuil, J. G., 118 n., 316 n., 317 n., 375, 541 n.

Cournot, A., x, 265 n., 349, 360 n., 412-413, 420 n., 444, 519, 520, 529 n., 531 nn.

Coux, de, 483 n.

Credit, Enfantin on, 213 n., 226 n.; the Saint-Simonians and, 226; Proudhon and, 313 n., 314

Crémieux, H. J., 303

Crises, J. B. Say and, 115-117; industrial, in England, 172; Sismondi and, 173, 190-192, 426; Robert Owen and, 239; Rodbertus and, 426; Marx and, 462-463, 478-479; Henry George and, 566

Croce, B., 474 n.

Crompton, S., 65

Cunningham, W., v, vi, 387

Curmond, M., 13 n.

Darimon, A., 316 n.

Darwin, Charles, his debt to Malthus, 121; the French Liberal school and his doctrine of the survival of the fittest, 326; Kidd and the Darwinian theory, 485 n.; Kropotkin and, 621

Dechesne, M., 498 n.

Declaration of the Rights of Man, 233

Deductive method, the, 387, 395-398

Deherme, G., 587 n.

Demand and supply, Adam Smith and, 73-74, 80-85, 89; the law of, of the Classical school, 359-360; the Hedonists and, 519-520

Demand, price and, 519-520

Demography, 121, 645

Demolins, E., 494 and n., 495, 608 n.

Denis, Professor H., xi; on Physiocracy, 2 n., 8 n.; on the Tableau économique, 19 and n.; 140 n., 141 n., 164 n., 184 n., 404

Denis, M., 242 n.

Descartes, 629

Deschamps, M., x n., xi n.

Despotism, the Physiocrats and, 35-37

Destutt de Tracy, 118 n.

Dictionnaire d’Économie politique, 354, 358

Diehl, K., 317 n.

Differential rents, 546-558

Discount, in Proudhon’s Exchange Bank scheme, 310 n., 313; normal, 312

Distribution, the Physiocrats and, 18, 21, 113, 114; Adam Smith and, 55, 80, 93, 113, 114, 228; J. B. Say and, 93, 113-114, 228; Ricardo and, 114, 139-140, 162-163, 228; Sismondi and, 177-178, 185, 186, 198; the Saint-Simonians and, 229; Fourier and, 245; Vidal and, 259; Stuart Mill and, 368, 369; Rodbertus and, 421-429, 430-431; State Socialism and, 443-444; the Hedonists and, 527, 529-530, 541; Henry George and, 565 n.-566 n.; Mr. and Mrs. Webb and, 583; the anarchists and, 636; development of the theory, 645

Distributive societies, 604

Dolléans, É., 236 n., 239 n., 244 n.

Dollfus, J. H., 490

Doubleday, T., 137 n.

Dove, P. E., 560 and n.

Dragomanov, M. P., 619 n.

Drôme, M. de la, 303

Droz, N., 197 and n.

Drysdale, Dr., 134 n.

Dubois, J. B., xi

Duguit, L., 607 n.

Dühring, E., 117, 208 n., 289 n., 420 n.

Dumas, G., 202 n.

Dumont, M., 137

Dumoulin, C., 503 n.

Dumping, 275

Dunoyer, C., 207, 325 n., 326 n., 327, 346-348 and n., 363, 439, 614-615, 631 n.

Dupin, C., 277

Dupont de Nemours, P. S., on Quesnay’s “rural economy,” 2; as a member of the Physiocratic school, 3 n.-4 n.; originator of the term “Physiocracy,” 4 n.; his definition of Physiocracy, 5; on natural society, 6 n.; on the “natural order,” 7 n., 8 n., 9 n.; on the “net product,” 12 n.; on the productive and non-productive classes, 14 n.; on the need for the security of property, 24 n.; on representation in the State, and on the parliamentary régime, 34 n.; on despotism, 35 n.; on the duty of the sovereign, 37; on taxation, 38 n., 40 n.; on the landowner, 39 and n.; on the relation of expenditure to production, 41 n.-42 n.; on regulating national expenditure, 44 n.; on the amount of the tax, 44 n.; and “proportionality,” 45 n.; on natural law, 354 n.

Dupont-White, C., 221, 304; on the State, 408 n., 409, 440, 441; on the State and the individual, 440; and individualism, 443 n.; and distribution, 443-444

Dupuit, A. J., 521 n., 531 n.

Durand Union, 606 n.

Durkheim, É., 61, 388 n.; and solidarity, 599-600

Duverger, 213

East India Company, 96

École de Nîmes, 605 n.

“Economic chivalry,” 335

Economic equilibrium, theory of, 474, 521 n., 555 n., 558 n.

Economic forces, Proudhon and, 296-297, 315

“Economic law,” 69, 70

Economic liberty, Adam Smith and, 93-98; the consummation of, 326-327

“Economic rent,” 582 n., 583 n.

Economics, Senior and, 349-350; Stuart Mill’s influence upon, 367; theory of the universality of the laws of, 390; relativity of the laws of, 390-395; the deductive method in, 395-398; the Historical school and, 398-407; the varied scope of, 399; environment a principal factor in, 400; the place of history in, 400-407; and statistics, 407 n.; as a science, 543 n., 644; the separation between pure and descriptive, 645

Economics, pure, 392-393, 515, 517, 541 and n., 645

Economie sociale, 178

“Economistes,” 4 n.

Eden, Lord, 105 n.

Eden, Treaty of, 105, 269

Edgeworth, Maria, 119 n.

Edgeworth, Professor, 529 n., 536 n.

Education, Adam Smith on compulsory, 60, 96; Robert Owen and, 238 n.; Fourier and, 253

Effertz, O., 420 n.

Eheberg, K. T., 266 n.

Eichthal, G. d’, 374, 594 n.

Einaudi, L., 546 n., 567

Eisenach, Congress of, 354, 417, 436, 437, 438

Eltzbacher, P., 621 n., 625 n., 638 n.

Ely, R. T., 351 n., 507 n.

Enclosure Acts, in England, 145

Enfantin, B. P., 201 n., 203 n., 211, 212 and n., 213, 216 n., 226 and n., 229, 230 n., 231

Engels, F., 208 n., 209, 228, 449 n., 450 n., 464 n., 616

Ensor, R. C., 449 n.

Entrepreneur, the, J. B. Say and, 65 n., 113-114; Sismondi and, 183; the Saint-Simonians and, 215, 216; French and English economists’ conception of the income of, 373 n., 550; and production, 426; in Walras’s system, 533-534; and Walker’s conception of profit, 550; distinguished from the capitalist, 550 and n.; a “captain of industry,” 550

Environment, Robert Owen and, 238, 239; Fourier and, 247; the Associationists and, 259; Le Play and, 494

Equalitarians, 200

Equilibrium, the Mathematical school and, 533-536, 539

Erfurt, Congress of, 507

“Ergonomy,” 375

Escarra, É., 560 n., 577 nn.

Esmein, A., 34 n., 35 n.

Espinas, A., xi

Etiology, Robert Owen regarded as the father of, 238

Evolution, and solidarity, 609

Exchange, the Physiocratic view of, 27, 46, 49, 114; Condillac on, 50; Proudhon and, 299-300, 309-314; Dunoyer and, 348; Marx and, 450; the final utility theory and, 523-524, 525, 526; the Mathematical school and, 528-530; and solidarity, 607, 613-614; and association, 613 n.

Exchange Bank, Proudhon’s, 242, 243, 291, 293 n., 308-320, 334 n., 627

Exchange banks, 316

Exchange notes, Proudhon’s, 309-314, 316, 317 n.

Exchange value, profit dependent on, 90

“Exploitation,” the Saint-Simonians and, 214, 215, 216; Sismondi and, 215, 216; Marx and, 215, 216; Bakunin and, 626; Kropotkin and, 627 n.

Fabian socialists, 221, 465 n., 475, 579-587

Fabian Society, vii, 579-581

Fable of the Bees, The, 54, 70 n.

Factory legislation, beginnings of, in England, 171; Act of 1819, 171, 237

Faguet, M., 251 n.

Fallot, Pastor Tomy, 508 and n., 509

Familistère, 255

Faucher, J., 616

February Revolution—see Revolution of 1848

Ferrara, F., 333 n.

Ferrier, F., 278 n.

Festy, O., 258 n.

Fetter, Professor F. A., 522 n.

Feuerbach, L. A., 616, 623 n.

Fichte, J. G., 435-436 n.

Final utility theory, 474, 521-528, 539, 583

Finance, the science of, 645

Fiscal reform, and solidarity, 602

Fisher, Irving, 71 n., 522 n., 529 n., 541 n., 583

Fix, T., 197

Fleurant, M., 594 n.

Fontenay, R. de, 146 n., 156, 338 n.

Fouillée, A., 560, 600 n., 606

Fourier, C., 137 n., 169, 194; and the Saint-Simonians, 201 n.; 231; on association, 232 n.; 233; and Robert Owen, 234-235, 245; his work and ideas, 245-246; his Phalanstère, 246-251, 257; “Back to the land,” 251-252; and the attractiveness of labour, 252-253; and education, 253; and the sex question, 253-254; and anti-militarism, 254; his influence and following, 254-255; Stuart Mill on Fourierism, 255; and interest, 259; 261, 264; and Free Trade, 265 n.; 290; Proudhon and, 296, 297 n.; 300; and “the right to work,” 301; 323, 378, 465, 470, 486, 544, 589; and guarantism, 599, 604; claimed as an anarchist, 615

Fournière, E., 465 n., 469 n.

Foville, M. de, 156 nn.

Foxwell, Professor, 231 n., 244 n., 316 n., 607 n.

France, population in, 125, 136 n., 137; economic unity of, achieved, 266; and tariffs, 269, 280; List on Protection and, 276 n.; the classic land of socialism, 323; Protection in, 323; the Classical doctrines in, 352; Stuart Mill on the growth of population in, 359; Christian Socialism in, 508; anarchism and, 640

Frankfort, 268 n.

Franklin, B., 329; Bastiat and, 329 n.

Free contract, the anarchists and, 627-628

“Free credit,” 307, 319, 320

Free Trade, the Physiocrats and, 17, 29-31, 98, 153; the Physiocrats the founders of, 29; Adam Smith and, 98-102, 153; J. B. Say and, 115; Ricardo and, 153, 154, 163; the theory in the middle of the nineteenth century, 264-265; Fourier and, 265 n.; Cournot and, 265 n.; and agriculture, List on, 276; Carey and, 282-283; List and, 287-288; 298; follows the interest of the consumer, 343; Dunoyer and, 347; Stuart Mill and, 365, 411 n.; and the Corn Laws, 366; Prince Smith and, 376

Free utility theory, Bastiat’s, 335-340

Frézouls, P., 547 n., 554 n.

Froebel, F., a disciple of Fourier, 253

Galiani, the Abbé, his criticism of the Physiocratic doctrine, 32; 46, 47

Garantisme, Fourier’s, 254. See Guarantism

Garçon, M., 44 n.

Garden cities, 251, 513

Garnier, G., 103, 106, 108, 115, 295, 379 n.

Garnier, J., 379

Gendre, F. Le, 11 n.

George, Henry, and the Physiocrats, 45 n.; and rent, 141, 565-568, 575; and land nationalisation, 141, 155, 577 n.; 376, 465 n., 506; and man’s right to the land, 561; his career and his works, 563-564; 569, 573; and laissez-faire, 573 n.

Germany, political and economic condition of, in the nineteenth century, 265, 266; tariffs in, 266, 280, 281; the movement for economic unity in, 267-268; List and the claim of, to Holland and Denmark, 272; the English Corn Laws and, 276-277; and Protection, 281 n., 289; the Classical doctrines in, 352; State Socialism in, 445-446; Christian Socialism in, 507

Gervinus, G. G., 383 n.

Gibbon, E., 105

Gide, C., 245 n., 246 n., 334 n., 342 n., 522 n., 576 n., 592 n., 605 n.

Godin, A., 255

Godwin, Wm., 122, 131, 136 n., 200 and n., 579, 615

Goehre, Pastor, 507

Goethe, 400

“Good price”—see Bon prix

Gossen, H. H., 155, 349, 474 n., 522 n., 529 n.; and land nationalisation, 571-577; and the confiscation of rent, 574-575

Gounelle, E., 506 n., 508 nn., 509

Gournay, V. de, 4 n.; and the origin of the term laissez-faire, 11 n.

Gouth, Pastor, 508

Government, in Saint-Simon’s system, 207-209; Adam Smith on, 217, 625; Proudhon and, 310-311, 624 n.; Chevalier and, 412; the State Socialists and, 439-440, 441; the anarchists and, 624-627; and society, 631; and the social instinct, 632

Grand, G., 482 n.

Grave, J., 615, 619 n., 622, 626 n., 628, 629, 630, 631 n., 633 n., 634, 635 n., 636 n.

Great Britain, growth of wealth and population in, 131

Grün, K., 298 n., 323 n.

Guarantism, 599, 604. See Garantisme

Guesde, J., 453 n., 465 n.

Guillaume, J., 459 n., 619 n., 631 n.

Guillaumin, U. G., 295

Gustavus III, of Sweden, and the Physiocrats, 5

Guyau, J. M., 598 n.

Guyot, Y., 343 n., 358 n., 608 n.

Halévy, É., 104 n., 119 n., 141 n., 207 n., 230 n.

Hall, C., 579

Hamilton, A., 277

Hanover, 268 n.

Hardie, J. Keir, 506

Hargreaves, J., 65

Harmel, L., 499 n.

Harmony, Bastiat’s doctrine of, 330-346

Harmony, Fourier’s ideal city, 249 and n., 254

Hasbach, W., 69 n.

Hawthorne, N., 255 n.

Hedonism, xv, 10; Adam Smith’s Optimism distinct from that of, 93; 355; Ruskin and Tolstoy and, 510; definition of, 518

Hedonistic school, and free competition, 91, 240, 373 n., 518, 543, 605 n.; 335, 395, 407; its doctrines, 518-544; and the Classical school, 518-521, 539, 541 n., 544; and wages, 520-521, 541; and interest and rent, 520-521; France and, 529, 537; criticism of its doctrines, 537-544; and distribution, 541

Heeren, A. H. L., 383 n.

Hegel, 435 and n., 619

“Hegelian school, left,” 616 n.

Hegelian terminology, Proudhon and, 298 n.

Held, A., 386

Heredity, and solidarity, 588

Hermann, F., 410-411, 548 n., 551, 556

Herron, G. D., 507 n.

Hesse-Darmstadt, Tariff Union between Prussia and, 268

Higgs, H., 5 n.

Hildebrand, Bruno, 196, 271 n., 380 n., 381 n., 383-384, 385, 389 and n., 390, 394, 400 and n., 404, 405

Hirst, Miss M. E., 275 n., 277 n., 278 nn.

Historical school, vi-vii, xv, 111; and political economy, 175, 222; Sismondi and, 196; List and, 287; 368, 374, 377; origin and development of, 379, 380-388; the newer school, 385-386; influence of, in England, and in France, 387-388; critical ideas of, 388-398; the positive ideas of, 398-407; A. Comte and, 404-405; and Le Play’s school, 493-494; and economic theory, 515; and the Classical school, 517; 648

History, the consideration of economic reforms based upon, 221, 222; the philosophy of, in economics, 221, 224; the place of, in economics, 400-403

Hitze, the Abbé, 496

Hobbes, T., 630

Holyoake, G. J., 244 n.

Homo œconomicus, Adam Smith and, 86; 399; Carlyle and, 511; the Hedonists and, 518, 543

Howarth, C., 244

Huet, F., 495, 560

Hughes, T., 504

Humanity, in the anarchist doctrine, 623

Hume, David, Adam Smith and, 50 n., 53, 64 n., 105, 106, 273 n.; and money, 85; 120 n., 149 n., 165

Huskisson, W., 265, 267

Hutcheson, F., 50 n., 53

Hyndman, H. M., 579 n.

Ibsen, H., 511

Icaria, Cabet’s ideal State, 246, 263, 264 n.

Identity of interests, Adam Smith and, 185, 410; Sismondi and, 185-186, 410, 413; Malthus and Ricardo and, 410; Hermann and, 410-411; Stuart Mill and, 411; Cournot and, 413

Immortale Dei, Encyclical, 501

Impôt unique, 45, 61, 567

Indirect and direct taxation, the Physiocrats and, 44-45

Individual, the State and, 442-443; Walras on the State and, 573-574; in philosophical anarchism, 615; Stirner and the cult of the, 617-619, 622-623; Proudhon and the anarchists and, 622-623, 630; and society, the anarchists and, 629-631; Bakunin on, 630, 631 n.; Jean Grave and, 631 n.

Individualism, xi, 263; List and, 270; the Classical school and, 322, 355, 356; Bastiat and, 330; Stuart Mill and, 355, 356 and n.; Ricardo and Malthus and, 355; Herbert Spencer and, 356; and solidarity, 356 n.; and liberty, 356; the Liberal school and, 357 n.; Dupont-White and, 443 n.; Wagner and, 443 n.; Christian Socialism and, 509; modern development of, 516; anarchism and, 640, 642; syndicalism and, 642

Individualist school, 355; known also as the Liberal school, 356; definition of, 356 n.; and inheritance, 372 n.

Individuality, solidarity and, 612-613

Induction, 395, 397-398

Industrial and Provident Societies Acts of 1852-62, 505

Industrial Revolution, 65, 104, 111

Industrialism, of Saint-Simon, 202-211, 224; Fourier and, 251

Industry, regarded as sterile by the Physiocrats, 13; the inherent distinction between agriculture and, 17-18; the Physiocrats’ erroneous view of, 46; Sismondi and, 194; Saint-Simon and, 204, 205 and n., 206; List and, 274, 286, 287

Ingersoll, C., 278

Ingram, J. K., v, xi, 385 n., 404

Inheritance, the Saint-Simonians and 217-218, 223, 224; the State to be sole inheritor of property, 223; the French Revolution and, 223; the Phalanstère and, 246; Dunoyer and, 347 n.; Senior and, 351 and n., 372; Stuart Mill and, 372

Institutional Church, 506

Interest, the Physiocrats and, 32-33; Condillac and, 50; Adam Smith and, 65 n., 92, 96; Bentham and, 96 n.; Sismondi and, 176 n., 192-193 n.; Marx and, 184-185; the Saint-Simonians and, 213 n., 214; downward trend of the rate of, 223; Robert Owen and, 240 n.; Blanc and, 259-260; Fourier and, 259; Proudhon’s Exchange Bank and, 298 n., 308-310, 312, 313, 314, 319; Solway’s scheme and, 319; the People’s Bank and, 319; Bastiat and Proudhon’s controversy as to the legitimacy of, 333 n.-334 n.; Bastiat and, 340-342; Senior and, 350; the term as used by the French economists, 373 n.; final utility and, 528; Böhm-Bawerk and, 530, 540; and wages, Henry George on, 565; the proposed confiscation of, 568; “the remuneration of sacrifice,” 568; the Fabian school and the confiscation of, 582

Interests, the spontaneous harmony of, 633. See Identity of Interests

International trade, Adam Smith and, 98-100; Stuart Mill and, 98-100; Ricardo and, 98, 138, 163, 363 and n.-364 and n.; List and, 290; Bastiat and, 330; Dunoyer and, 363

International Working Men’s Association (the “International”), 321, 449 n., 620

Internationalism, Marx’s, 465 n.

Interventionism, 407

Interventionists, Sismondi the first of the, 192, 196; 601

Ireland, 104

“Iron law,” the, 42, 342 n.

Italy, xii; anarchism and, 640

Janet, P., 254

Jannet, C., 490 n., 592 n.

Jaurès, J., 469 n.

“Jeunes Abbés, Les,” 502

Jevons, Stanley, 46 n., 48, 75, 78, 117; on the Ricardian school, 118 n.; and the law of indifference, 148, 525 n.; his economic method, 380; 406, 474 n.; on the purpose of economics, 518 n.; and the final utility theory, 521 n., 522 n.; and Cournot, 529 n.; a member of the Mathematical school, 529 n.; and value, 530 n.; 537 n., 541, 572 n., 581

Joint-stock companies, Marxism and, 463, 476

Joint-stock principle, 248

Joseph II, Emperor of Austria, and the Physiocrats, 5

“Juridical socialism,” 606, 607 n.

Jurisprudence, solidarity and, 606-607

Justice, Proudhon on, 298-299

Kapital, Marx’s, 354, 386, 449 n.; Labriola on, 467

Kautsky, K., 480 n.

Ketteler, Monseigneur von, 496

Kidd, B., 485 n.

King, G., 54

Kingsley, C., 504 and n., 505 n.

Knies, K., 89, 196 and n., 380 n., 381 n., 382 n., 384-385, 389, 390-391, 392, 393, 400 n., 402, 403 n., 404, 405

Kohler, C., 277 n.

Kraus, Professor, 106 n.

Kropotkin, Prince, 459 n., 615, 616, 619 and n., 621-622, 623, 625, 627 and n., 628, 630, 631 n., 632, 633, 634 and n., 635, 636, 637-638, 641

Kurella, Herr, 584 n.

Kutter, Pastor, 507

Labour, regarded by Adam Smith as the true source of wealth, 56-57; regarded as the measure of value, 77, 149; regarded by Marx as the cause of value, 77, 151 n., 184-185; regarded by Ricardo as the cause and measure of value, 140, 144 n., 149, 201 n., 332; Ricardo and the territorial division of, 164; Sismondi and, 176 n.; Saint-Simon on, 206 n.; Fourier and the attractiveness of, 252-253; Proudhon on the organisation of, 291 n.; Proudhon and the productiveness of, 293 and nn.; regarded by Bastiat as the determinant of value, 332; Carey on, as the measure of value, 332; and value, Ferrara and, 333 n.; Dunoyer on, 347-348 and n.; Rodbertus and, 423; Marx’s theory of surplus labour, 450-459; rent of, 558 n.; Henry George and the relation of capital to, 564-565

Labour, division of, Adam Smith and, 56-62, 91; the outcome of personal interest, 70-71; dependent upon capital, 90; Ricardo and the territorial division of labour, 164; Tolstoy and, 514; solidarity and, 607

Labour notes, Robert Owen’s, 315, 316

Labour-value theory, Marx’s, 474-475, 581

Labriola, A., 36 n., 449 n., 462 n., 464 n., 465 and n., 467, 469 n., 470 n., 473 n., 474 n.

Lacordaire, J., 262

Lafargue, P., 465 n.

Lafayette, G., 267

Lagardelle, H., 482 n., 619 n.

Laissez-faire, in the Physiocratic doctrine, 11; the origin of the formula, 11 n.; 170, 173, 197; List and, 277; the Classical school and, 322, 357, 390; the right interpretation of, 324; Stuart Mill and, 357; Cairnes and, 374; the Christian schools and, 377; the Historical school and, 389; Adam Smith and, 408, 410; Carlyle and, 511; the Hedonists and, 541; Henry George and 573 n.

Lalande, A., 600 n.

Lamartine, A., 302 n., 303

Lammenais, the Abbé de, 496

Land, the Physiocratic conception of, as an agent in production, 12; and rent, in Ricardo’s view, 143-149; nationalisation of, 155, 570-578; the Saint-Simonians and, 214; Carey’s theory of the order of cultivation of rich and poor land, 338-339; growth in value of, 546; a gift of nature, 559; confiscation of, 559-562; and the theory of rent, 561

Land Tenure Reform Association, 562

Landez, A., 540 n.

Landowners, the Physiocrats’ esteem for, 39-40

Landrecht, the Prussian, 445

Landry, A., 420 n., 470 n., 537 n., 544 n.

Langlois, C. V., 405 n.

Laskine, M., 208 n.

Lassalle, F., 73 n., 159, 261, 294, 329, 376; and the “brazen law,” 321, 426; and State Socialism, 414; and Rodbertus, 414-415, 416, 417; and Bismarck, 414; his career, 432; his political and economic programme, 433-435; and Marx, 433 n., 434 n.; and State intervention, 434-435; 436, 437, 449 n., 453 n., 496 n., 607 n.

Lauderdale, Earl of, 109 n.

Launay, M. de, 609 n.

Launhardt, Herr, 529 n.

Laveleye, É. de, 222, 376, 577 n.

Lavergne, L. G. de, 371 n.

Lavoisier, A. L., 15, 125

Law, Kropotkin on, 627 n., 632 n.; Reclus on, 632 n.

Law of capillarity, 137

Law of concentration of capital, Marx’s, 450, 475-476

Law of demand and supply, 359-360

Law of diminishing returns, 118, 126, 146-147, 148, 153, 157, 340, 341, 373, 558 and n.

Law of free competition, 356-358

Law of indifference, 148, 525, 527 n.

Law of international exchange, 362-366

Law of population, Malthus’s, 120, 121-137; of the Classical school, 358-359, 373

Law of rent, 362

Law of sale, Cournot’s, 531 n.

Law of self-interest, 355-356

Law of substitution, 525, 526, 528, 537 n.

Law of variation of intensity of need, 543 n.

Law of wages, 360-362

Lazare, B., 620

Ledru-Rollin, A. A., 303

Legrand, D., 486

Leo XII, Pope, 500 n.

Leo XIII, Pope, 501

Leopold, Grand Duke, of Tuscany, and the Physiocrats, 5

Leroux, P., 235 and n., 263, 344 n., 589

Leroy-Beaulieu, P., 137, 254 n., 342 n., 375 n.; and the Mathematical method, 537 n.; 546

Leslie, Cliffe, 196, 387

Lesseps, F. de, 212

Letchworth, 513 n.

Levasseur, É., 326 n., 388 n.

Lévy de Lyon, E., 607 n.

Lévy-Brühl, L., 435 n.

Lexis, Professor, 448 n.

Liberal individualists, and co-operation, 343

Liberal Optimists, 322-348

Liberal school, xv; the Physiocratic doctrine and, 46; Adam Smith a member of, 53; beginnings of, 54; and Adam Smith’s theory of value, 75; 205; Saint-Simon and, 210 n.; the Associationists and, 231; 233; severance of, into French and English sections, 322; and Protection and socialism, 323, 326, 354; and Optimism, 324-326; and liberty, 324, 325-326; origin of the name, 324; and association, 325; and Darwin’s doctrine of the survival of the fittest, 326; and the Physiocrats, 327; Bastiat and, 327; and Bastiat’s theory of profits, 342 n.; synonymous with the Individualist school, 356; definition of, 356 n., 357 n.; and the repeal of the Corn Laws, 366; Le Play and, 486-487; and solidarity, 607-608; 629; and government and society, 631; 648

Liberal Socialism, 573

Liberalism, economic, vii, xv, 170; Sismondi and, 173, 185; 209; 311 n.; the Classical school and, 322; and Optimism, 377; the reaction against, 377-378; effect of Bismarck’s policy upon, 436; and measures of social reform in Germany, 436 n.; growth of, in Germany, 439; State Socialism and, 447; the Christian schools and, 484; 493; modern revival of, 516; 586; political economy and, 646, 647

Liberalism of Adam Smith, 207; of the Liberal school, 326

Liberalism, political, the Saint-Simonians and, 211

Liberty, the French Revolution and, 104; Blanc on, 262; Sismondi on, 262 n.; Proudhon and, 293, 297, 315; the French Liberal school and, 324, 325-327; Dunoyer and, 327; Stuart Mill and, 353, 358, 413; and the natural laws, 355; the Classical school and, 356; and State intervention, 413; Cournot and, 413; the State Socialists and, 440; the anarchists and, 622-623, 624, 629; Kropotkin on liberty as the corrective for the excesses of liberty, 634

Liberty, individual, the Physiocratic doctrine and, 10 n., 11; Proudhon and, 315; Ricardo and Malthus and, 410; Stuart Mill and, 411 n.; Rodbertus and, 429

Lichtenberger, A., 200 n.

Lieben, R., 529 n.

Liebknecht, W., 437

Lilienfeld, von, 590 n.

List, F., 111; and the Classical school, 169, 289, 290; his National System, and Protection, 265, 268; and the German tariffs, 266, 267-268; and nationality, 270-272; and productive power, 270; and Germany’s claim to Holland and Denmark, 272; and Adam Smith and his school, 273; and manufactures, 273-274; and agriculture, 274, 276-277; his Protectionism, 275-276, 281-282; origin of his Protectionist ideas, 277-280; his influence, 280-287; and history, 282, 381; and Carey, 282-284; and Stuart Mill, 284-285; his originality, 287-289; and the Historical school, 287, 360 n.; and free exchange, 287-288; and the individual and the nation, 288, 411; and the duty of Governments, 288; and economic reforms in Germany, 288-289; his aim and achievement, 290; 323, 378; his economic method, 380; the Historical school and, 380 n.; 439

Littré, M., 222 n.

Lloyd, S., 266 n.

Locke, J., 559

Loesewitz, J., 502

Longe, F. D., 361

Loria, A., 469 n.; and land nationalisation, 578 n.

Lorin, H., 499 n.

Louis Bonaparte, 320

Louis Philippe, 301

Ludlow, J. M. F., 504, 505

Luxembourg Commission, the, 302, 304-306, 319 n.

Mably, the Abbé de, 200 and n.

McCulloch, J. R., 52 n., 109 n., 139 n., 140 n., 141 n., 150, 168, 175, 177, 349 n., 379

Mackay, J. H., 615 n.

McVickar, J., 349

Machinery, Adam Smith and, 112; J. B. Say on, 112; Sismondi and, 180-182; the Classical school and, 180-182; Ricardo and, 180 n., 181

Maitland, F. W., vi

Malon, Benoît, 465 n.

Malthus, T. R., xiv, 108, 109 n., 110, 116 and n., 117; one of the Pessimists, vi, 119-120, 192; regarded as an Optimist, 119 n.; his career, 120 n.; his law of population, 120, 121-137, 157, 345; and moral restraint, 127-129; and the Neo-Malthusians, 134; on charity, 135 n.-136 n.; correspondence with Ricardo, 139 n., 141 n.; and rent, 142, 152, 164; and the law of diminishing returns, 146-147 and n.; 149 n., 150 n., 155, 156 n.; and wages and population, 158-159, 189; 163 n.; and Protection, 164; Sismondi and, 175; Sismondi and the theory of population of, 189 n.; the Saint-Simonians and, 227; 264, 322, 324, 326, 348, 353; and individualism, 355; 358, 359, 371; and the identity of public and private interests, 410; 416, 564

Malthusian League, the, 134 n.

Manchester school, xi, 436, 437, 438, 539

“Manchesterism,” 357, 447

“Manchesterthum,” 357, 438

Mandeville, B. de, 54, 70 n.

Mangoldt, H. von, 548 n., 551, 556

Manifesto, Communist, 449 n., 450 n.

Mantoux, P., 66 n., 97 n., 103, 104

Manu, the laws of, Malthus and, 132 n.

Manufactures, List on, 273-274, 276 and n.

Marat, J. P., 199 n.

Marcet, Mrs., 119 n., 349

Marcus Aurelius, 588

“Marginal utility,” 521 n., 539

Marie, A. T., 301, 302 n.

Markets, Say’s theory of, 115

Marmande, R. de, 622 n.

Maroussem, P. du, 495 n.

Marrast, A., 303

Marriage, effect of, upon population, 136 n.; the anarchists and, 627

Marshall, Professor A., 329 n., 335, 386, 390 n., 391, 392, 394, 396, 397 n., 401, 402 n.; compared with Marx, 474 n.; 513 n., 516, 527 n., 529 n., 531, 544 nn., 546 n., 551 n., 552; and rent, 557 and n.; 581

Martineau, Miss, 119 n., 349

Marx, Karl, x; on Adam Smith, 66 n.; his labour-value theory, 77, 151 n., 184-185, 201 n., 216, 293 n., 474-475, 581; intellectually a scion of the Ricardian family, 120; his theory of surplus value and Ricardo’s theory, 140; resemblance of doctrines of, to those of the Classical school, 181; similarities between Sismondi and, 184; his theory of surplus value, 184, 198, 228, 294; and profit and interest, 185, 216; debt to Sismondi, 198; 209 n.; and “exploitation,” 215, 216; his system and communism, 221; his system compared with the Saint-Simonians’, 225; 227; and List, 278 n.; and his “Utopian” predecessors, 301; and Bray’s scheme, 315 n.; and Proudhon, 320-321; and distribution, 368 n.; 386; his socialism, 416, 433, 449-450, 470; the object of his system, 423; and the “brazen law,” 426; 429; and Rodbertus, 429 n.; Lassalle and, 433 n., 434 n.; 437, 448 n.; his career, his works and influence, 449 n.-450 n.; his theory of surplus labour and surplus value, 450-459, 474-475; and capital, 455-458; his law of concentration of capital, 459-465, 475-476; the Marxian school, 465-473; his following, 465 n.; and Ricardo, 466; his obscurity of style, 466; and value, 466 and n., 474; on production, 468 n.-469 n.; the French socialists and, 469; quality of his economic theories, 473; compared with Marshall, 474 n.; and syndicalism, 480-481, 641; 483; the Christian schools and his collectivism, 485; Herron on, 507 n.; 579; the Fabians and his theories, 583-584, 586; and the anarchists, 616; influenced by Hegel, 619; and Bakunin, 620; anarchy and his socialism, 640

Marxian school, characteristics of, 465-472; and production, 468; 515; beginnings of, 579; and Marx’s theory of value, 583; 647, 648

Marxism, vii, xv, 447, 449-483; and the Classical school, 467, 472; Sorel on, 467 n.; and capitalism, 467; a working-class socialism, 470-471, 480; the evolution of, 473 n.; and syndicalism, 479-483; its contempt for intellectualism, 480; traced in the doctrines of Le Play’s school, 495; the Fabians and, 583-584, 586; the rupture with anarchism, 620

Mathematical school, the, x; Quesnay a pioneer of, 19 n.; and the abstract method, 138; 335; and the Mathematical method, 392 n., 537 n., 538-539; and the Psychological school, 521; principal adherents of, 528 n.; doctrines of, 528-537; and exchange, 528-530; and distribution, 529-530; and consumption, 530; and value, 530 n.; and production, 536; and free competition, 543; influence of, 544; and solidarity, 613

Maurice, F. D., 504 and n., 505, 508 n.

Mazel, F., 316, 317

Mecklenburg, 268 n.

Mehring, F., 434 n.

Méline, M., 17 n.

Melouga family, 489, 493

Menenius Agrippa, 588

Menger, A., 209, 212, 231 n., 316 n.; and the origin of Rodbertus’s ideas, 415 n.; and Marx, 416 n., 450 n.; and Fichte, 436 n.; and private and public rights, 607 n.

Menger, K., 76, 380; and the historical method 382, 383 n., 402 n.; and the Historical school, 389, 390, 395, 517; and the deductive method, 396 nn.; and the final utility theory, 522 n.; and the theory of rent, 557

Mercanti di tenute, 190

Mercantilism, the “net product” theory and, 17; influence of Physiocratic ideas upon, 27; Physiocracy antagonistic to, 29; and agriculture and industry, 30 n.; Adam Smith and, 83, 97, 98, 100, 101, 169; List and, 279

Mercantilist school, 1; and the increase of wealth, 17; their view of the State, 27; Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations and, 83; and money, 83, 314; List and, 280, 285 n.

Meredith, George, 432 n.

Meslier, the Curé, 200 n.

Method, the relative importance of, 397, 645

Métin, A., 577 n., 579 n.

Meyer, Ed., 402 n., 405 n.

Meyer, R., 416 and n., 417 nn., 423 n., 428 n.

Mieux value, 184

Milcent, M., 502 n.

Mill, James, and rent, 155, 168, 562; and land nationalisation, 155, 168; a disciple of Ricardo, 168, 349 n.; 352 n.

Mill, John Stuart, xv; and productive and unproductive works, 62; “industry is limited by capital,” 72 n.; and Adam Smith’s conception of utility, 75 n.; and international trade, 98, 100, 330 n.; and “products,” 109 n.; 138; and Ricardo’s theory of rent, 141; and the stationary state, 162, 373-374, 605 n.; 222 n.; on Saint-Simonism and Fourierism, 255; 280; and Protection, 283, 284-285, 365; and List, 285 n.; and the Classical school, 322, 352-353, 368; 349; his career and works, 352 n., 353; and socialism, 352 n., 353, 358, 367, 368; and communism, 353, 367; and competition, 353, 358; and co-operation, 353; and individualism, 355, 356 and n.; and laissez-faire, 357; and the law of population, 358-359; and the law of demand and supply, 359-360, 519; and value, 360; and the law of wages, 360-362; and trade unionism, 360, 362 n.; and Malthus, 362 n.; and rent, 362, 370-372, 548, 551, 553, 554-555; and international exchange, 364-365; and Free Trade, 365, 411 n.; influence upon economics, 367; French influence upon, 367, 579; and natural law, 368; his programme of social reform, 369-374; and wages, 369-370; and association, 370, 505; and inheritance, 372; his successors, 374-376; 377, 379; and relativity, 392; and self-interest, 394, 411; 404; and the identity of general and personal interests, 411; and State intervention, 411, 413; and individual liberty, 411 n., 413; Chevalier and, 411; and the State and the individual, 442, 443, 444; on Le Play’s theory of the salvation of the working-classes by the upper, 491; on the rent of ability, 549; and man’s right to the land, 561; and the confiscation of rent, 562-563, 566, 567, 568, 569, 570-571, 575; 564; and private property, 568 n.; and the abolition of profit, 605 n.

Millerand, A., 587 n.

Mines and the “net product,” 14

Mirabeau, Marquis de, one of the Physiocrats, 3 n.; and Rousseau and Physiocracy, 6 n.; and the origin of the term laissez-faire, 11 n.; on the Tableau économique, 18 n.; and interest, 32-33; Cantillon’s influence upon, 46 n.; on population, 121

Molinari, M. de, 248, 329 n., 358 n.

Mollien, the Comte, 314

Money, Adam Smith and, 71, 82-85, 89, 106, 115; the Physiocrats and, 115; Ricardo and the quantity theory of, 164-165; Ricardo and paper money, 165-167; Robert Owen and, 240-241, 243; Proudhon and, 308-310, 313, 316; Solvay’s scheme, 318-319; the Classical school and, 360; Ruskin and Tolstoy and, 510

Monod, W., 508 n., 509 n.

Monopoly, x; Adam Smith and, 95, 96; Stuart Mill and, 554 n.; and the rent of land, 554 n.

Monopoly price, Adam Smith on, 81 n.

Montagne, La, 200 n.

Montalembert, the Comte de, 487 n.

Montchrétien, A. de, 1

Montesquieu, C. de S., 121

More, Sir Thomas, 200 and n., 246

Morellet, the Abbé, 46

Morelly, 200 and n.

Morris, Wm., 251

Moufang, Canon, 496

Mulhouse, the Industrial Society of, 172

Müller, Adam, 278 n.

Mun, the Comte de, 484 n., 497, 502

Mutual aid, the anarchists and, 629-636

Mutual credit, 314, 315; solidarity and, 606

Mutualists, and solidarity, 602, 603-604

Mutuality, Proudhon and, 297 n., 299, 300

Napoleon I, 107

Napoleon III, 280, 323, 366, 375, 490 n.

Nassau, 268 n.

National Equitable Labour Exchange, 236 n., 241-242, 244 n.

National workshops of the 1848 Revolution, 301-303

Nationalisation of the land, 570-578

Nationality, List and, 270-272

Natural laws, 354-366, 368, 385 n.; the anarchists and, 628, 629

“Natural order,” the, xiv, 5-12; meaning of the term, 5-8; the Physiocrats’ conception of, 8, 9-10, 109; Turgot on the universality and immutability of, 10; and the old régime, 10; the aim of, 10-11; and the right of private property and individual liberty, 10 n., 11; comprehensiveness of, 12; the bon prix and, 15; property the “foundation-stone” of, 21; and trade, 29; the conception of, constitutes the foundation of political economy, 46; Adam Smith and, 109; Ricardo’s theory of rent and, 152; the French Classical school and, 322, 323; the Christian schools and, 484

“Naturalism,” Adam Smith’s, 68-88

Naumann, Pastor, 507

Navigation Laws, 101 n.

Neale, Vansittart, 504

Necessity, the laws of, Kropotkin on, 628 n.

Necker, J., and free trade in corn, 32; 157

“Negative rent,” 558

Neill, C. P., 277 n.

Neo-Classical school, 10, 397

Neo-Malthusians, 130, 134

Neo-Marxism, 473-483; and the labour-value theory, 474; and surplus labour and surplus value, 475; and syndicalism, 479-483

“Net product,” the, 12-18; agriculture the sole source of, 12, 14; mines doubtful yielders of, 14 and n.; disappears when prices are low, 15; the illusion of, 16; rent and, 16; value of the theory of, 17; and Mercantilism, 17; non-existent, 24; interest a symbol of, 32; taxation should be drawn from, 38-40, 41; adaptation of, to the impôt unique, 43; 453 n.

Netchaieff, 639 and n.

Nettlau, M., 619 n.

New Harmony, Owen’s colony, 236 n., 241 n., 246, 257

New Moral World. 236 n.

Nicholas I, Tsar, 639 n.

Nicholson, Professor J. S., 52 n., 266 n., 592 n.

Nietzsche, 511, 616 and n.

Nitti, F. S., 503 n.

“Noble savage,” the cult of the, 7

“Normal,” the term, 271

North, Dudley, 54

North, Lord, 105

Oberlin, Pastor, 486

Office du Travail, 257 n.

Ogilvie, W., 560 and n.

Oldenburg, 268 n.

Olivier, P., 611 n.

Ollivier, E., 324

Oncken, H., 11 n., 17, 19 n., 30, 383 n., 414 n., 432 n.

Ophelimity, 75, 91, 99, 522 n., 541 n., 572

Optimism, xv; Adam Smith’s, 68-69, 88-93; the French Liberal school and, 324-327; Bastiat and, 327, 377; Carey and, 327, 493

Optimist school, definition of, 356 n., 357 n.

Optimists, the, 118, 322-348, 354, 356, 368, 438

Orbiston, Robert Owen’s colony at, 236 n.

Organic sociologists, the Physiocrats the forerunners of, 7

“Organisation of labour,” 300, 303-305, 319

Orthodox school, 169, 176, 326

Ott, A., 317 n., 420 n.

Over-production, J. B. Say and, 115-117; 171; Sismondi and, 176, 178-182; the Classical school and, 181; Marx and, 461

Owen, Robert, 169, 171; Sismondi and, 173 n., 184, 194; 201 n.; and association, 232 n., 233; and Fourier, 234-235, 245; and the Chartist movement, 235; and socialism, 235; his career, 235 n.; his industrial reforms, 236-237; and association, 237; and the social milieu, 237-239; and profit, 239-244; and money, 240-241; and the National Equitable Labour Exchange 241-242; and co-operative societies, 243-244, 504; founded no school, 244; 246, 255, 261, 264, 290, 293, 315, 316, 323, 370, 378, 470, 579

Paepe, C. de, 459 n.

Paillottet, P., 343 n.

Paine, Tom, 560 and n.

Pantaleoni, M., 36 n., 530, 538 n., 542, 551 nn.

Parable, Saint-Simon’s, 204-205

Pareto, V., 71 n.; on prices, 76 n.-77 n.; 99, 231 n.; and Free Trade, 288 n.; on method, 397; and maximum utility and maximum ophelimity, 412; 421, 448, 516, 521 n., 522 n., 529 n., 533 n., 534 n., 536 and n., 537 n., 540 n., 541 n.; and the Hedonists, 542; 544 n., 555 n.; and the relative duration of rents, 557; and negative rent, 558; on solidarity, 608 n.

Passy, F., 509 n., 592 n.

Passy, H., 371 n.

Patten, Professor, 285 n., 522 n., 542 n.

Pearson, K., 407 n.

Peasant proprietorship, 371-372

Pecqueur, C., 304-305, 449 n.

Peel, Sir Robert, 280, 366

Pellarin, C., 245 n.

People’s Bank, 308 n., 317 n., 319-320

Péreire, E. and I., 212, 226

Périn, C., 502 n.

Personal interest—see Self-interest

Pervinquière, M., 14

Pessimism, the French Liberal school and, 324

Pessimists, the, 118-120; and rent, 118; and the law of diminishing returns, 118; Mill and, 372

Petty, W., 54

Pflüger, Pastor, 507

Phalange, 248-250

Phalanstère, 245 n., 246-252, 255, 257, 297 n., 604, 635

Physiocracy, 4 n.; a popular craze, 5; Adam Smith and, 63; J. B. Say and, 108-109

Physiocrats, the, xi n., 1-50; and the conception of political economy, 2; the first school of economists, 3; the Abbé Baudeau on, 3 n.; bibliography of the system, 4 n.-5 n.; and the “natural order,” 5-12; Rousseau and, 6 n.; and the civilised state as opposed to a state of nature, 7; forerunners of the organic sociologists, 7; their conception of the “natural order,” and man’s duty with regard to it, 8, 9-10, 87-88; and the rights of private property and individual liberty, 10 n., 11; and the “net product,” 12-18, 141; and land as an agent in production, 12; on industry and commerce, 12-13; and the “sterile classes,” 14, 21; and mines and the “net product,” 14 and n.; and agricultural and industrial production, 15; their influence upon practical politics, 17; and the circulation of wealth, 18-26; their regard for private property, 21-26, 199 n.-200 n., 217; and the duties incumbent upon landed proprietors, 25-26; and the abolition of corporations, 26 n.-27 n.; and trade, 27-33; and Mercantilism, 27, 29, 169, 314; the founders of Free Trade, 29; and reciprocity, 31; Galiani’s criticism of, 32; and the question of interest, 32-33; and the functions of the State, 33-37; and legislation, 33-34; and political liberty, 34 n.; and the sovereign authority, 35-37, 41; and education, 37; and internationalism, 37; and taxation, 38-45; and the fiscal system of the French Revolution, 44, 104; résumé of their doctrine, 45-50; Adam Smith and, 51 n., 55, 56, 62, 63, 64, 65, 69, 80, 88, 93, 98, 100; 89, 97; J. B. Say and, 108-109; Germain Garnier and, 108; and money, 115; and population, 122; and rent, 142; and Free Trade, 98, 153, 163; and the natural identity of individual and general interests, 185; 201 n.; the Associationists and, 232-233; 322, 323; and their successors, 327; 331, 338 n., 347, 348, 354, 371, 572, 629, 644

Pitt, William, 104, 105

Place, F., 159 n.

Plato, 200 and n.

Play, F. Le, 137, 196, 238, 304; his school, 486-495; his career, 486 n.-487 n.; his family system, 488-493; and the State, 488; his method, 492; and the Historical school, 493-494; the division in his school, 494-495; 497, 502

“Plutology,” 375

Podmore, F., 236 n.

Political economy, origin of the term, 1; Quesnay and his school the virtual founders of the science, 2; Adam Smith as founder of, 50-51, 103; the scope of, in Adam Smith’s system, 55-56; Quesnay’s conception of, 88; Adam Smith’s conception of, 88, 89, 110; J. B. Say’s influence upon, 107, 111; influence of Malthus and Ricardo upon, 108; the Physiocrats and, 109; J. B. Say’s conception of, 110-111; Say’s treatment of, 117, 175; a fashionable craze, 119 n., 349; Ricardo and, 138, 139 n., 175; the new, the attack upon, 169; Sismondi and, 173-178, 184, 196, 198, 380; the Historical school and, 175, 222, 380, 381; the Classical school and, 177; A. Comte and, 201 n.; Saint-Simon on, 209 n.; List and, 270, 380-381; and politics, 288; significance of the advent of, 327; McVickar on, 349; Senior and, 350; Stuart Mill and, 353; not a “dismal science,” 354; the reaction against Liberalism, 377; development of the abstract method in, 379-380; the socialists and, 381; Roscher and, 383-384; Hildebrand and, 383-384; Knies and, 384-385; the newer Historical school and, 386; Toynbee and, 386 n.; development of, in France, 388; influence of the Historical method upon, 388; Menger and, 389; Ashley and, 391 n.; and sociology, 404; Ruskin and, 510 n.; Carlyle on, 511 and n.; modern claims for, 517; Pareto and, 536 n.; recognised as independent of parties and ideals, 583; development and future of, 643-648; simplicity of Adam Smith’s system, 644; divergency of objects and methods among economists, 646-647; Liberalism and, 646, 647

Political Economy Club, 139 n.

Pollock, Sir F., 559

Poor Law, English, Malthus and, 135 n., 136 n.; Sismondi and, 195

Population, Adam Smith’s supply and demand theory applied to, 82, 89, 188; dependent upon capital, 90; Malthus’s law of, 120, 121-137, 142, 157, 345; the “repressive checks,” 126-127; the “preventive checks,” 127-129, 137; the reproductive capacity and intellectual activity, 137 n.-138 n.; Sismondi on the regulation of, by revenue, 188; wages and, 189; Sismondi and Malthus’s theory, 189 n.; Carey’s theory of, 346; development of the theory of, 645

Port Sunlight, 255, 513 n.

Positivism, Saint-Simon the father of, 203; 213

Pothier, R. J., 587 n.

Potter, B. (Mrs. Sidney Webb), 587 n.

Price, demand and supply and, 519-520; cost of production and, 520; and rent, 520

Prices, Adam Smith’s theory of, 74-81; Walras and, 114; the recent theory of, 515; development of the theory of, 645

Principles of Revolution, The, 639

Producer, subordination of, to consumer, 342-343

Producer’s rent, 527 n.

Producers, and social reorganisation, 605 n.

Producers’ associations, 604

Production, the accretion of value is, 16; labour as the cause of, 24; the Physiocratic conception of, 46, 49; the three factors of, 56 n.; Adam Smith and, 80, 419; adaptation of supply to demand the basis of our theory of, 82; J. B. Say and, 109; Sismondi and, 177, 178-182, 193, 419; the Classical school and, 177; net and gross, Sismondi and, 189-190; the Christian Socialists and, 196; the Saint-Simonians and, 199, 226-227; Dunoyer and, 347-348; Senior on agricultural and industrial production, 362 n.; Stuart Mill and, 368-369; Rodbertus and, 419-421, 430; State Socialism and, 444; Marx on, 468 n.-469 n.; cost of, and value, 520, 526; cost of, and price, 520, 534 n.; the Hedonists and, 533; the expansion of, under the influence of applied science, 635-636

Productive power, List and, 270, 272-274

Productivity theory of capital, 502, 583; of wages, 527-528

Profit, Adam Smith on the relation of, to rent, 64 n.; Adam Smith’s conception of, 65 n., 80, 114; Smith on high profits, 67, 74 n.; dependent on exchange value, 90; Ricardo and, 114, 160-163, 373; the Pessimists and, 118; Marx and, 185, 457-458 and n.; Robert Owen and the abolition of, 239-243; Bastiat and the relation of, to wages, 340-342, 550-551; Stuart Mill and, 373 n.; the term as understood by English and French economists, 373 n.; the Classical school and, 520; Walras and, 534 n.-535 n.; rent and, 545; Walker and, 550-551; Pantaleoni on, 551 n.; Stuart Mill and the abolition of, 605 n.

Profit-sharing, the Saint-Simonians and, 227

Property, private, the Physiocratic doctrine and, 10 n., 11, 21, 24-25; respect for, during the French Revolution, 25; Turgot’s views upon, 25; Ricardo’s theory of rent and, 154, 558-559; Sismondi and, 198; the Saint-Simonians and, 199-201, 213-225, 294 n.; considered from the point of view of ethics, 200; Saint-Simon and, 210; exploitation and, 215; Fourier’s Phalanstère and, 248-249; the Radical Socialists and, 251; Proudhon and, 290-300, 315; Brissot and, 292 n.; Bastiat and, 337; Marx and, 463-464; the Christian Socialists and, 506; Tolstoy and, 513; the Hedonists and, 540 n.; considered to be unjust, 559; Stuart Mill and, 568 n.; Gossen and, 572-573; solidarity and, 606-607; the anarchists and, 626-627, 641; syndicalism and, 641; socialism and, 642

Proprietor, the, in Ricardo’s, Proudhon’s, and Bastiat’s view, 336

Protection, the probable attitude of the Physiocrats to, 17; influence of, on agriculture and on industry, 30 n.; Adam Smith’s criticism of, 98-99; Ricardo and, 163 n.; Malthus and, 164; Sismondi and, 264 n.-265 n.; Saint-Simon and, 265 n.; the Saint-Simonians and, 265 n.; List and, 265, 268-290; and agriculture, List on, 276 and n.; in the United States, 279; in Germany, 279, 280, 281; in France, 280, 281, 323, 354; Carey and, 282-284; Dühring and, 289 n.; in England, 323, 354; Bastiat and, 329-330; follows the interest of the producer, 343; the Liberal school and, 354; Stuart Mill and, 365; the Social Catholics and, 501 n.; and solidarity, 602

Proudhon, J. J., 169; and government, 209, 310, 311, 624 n., 627; his Exchange Bank, 242, 291, 293 n., 308-319; and private property, 290-300; his works, 291 n.-292 n.; his career and his character, 291-292; and interest, 293 n.; and labour, 293; and socialism, 296-300; and Fourier, 296, 297 n.; and the communists and communism, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300; and the economic forces, 296-297; on liberty, 297, 315; and association, 297 and n.; on justice, 298-299; and exchange, 299-300; and the Revolution of 1848, 300-308; and “the right to work,” 301; and money, 308-310, 313-314; and co-operation, 315; and solidarity, 317; and the People’s Bank, 319-320; influence after 1848, 320-321; Marx and, 320-321, 449 n. 462; new interest in his ideas, 321; 323, 329; and Bastiat, 333 n.-334 n., 343; and the proprietor, 336; 378, 415 n., 429 n., 450, 486; on land, 559; and the confiscation of land, 560; 607 n., 613; the and anarchists, 615, 641; 616, 619 and n.; and Bakunin, 620; 622; and the individual, 622-623; and the idea of humanity, 623; and reason, 628; and society, 630, 631 n.; on the harmony of individual and general interests, 633 n.; 634; and revolution, 637; and syndicalism, 641

Providential order, Bastiat and, 331

Prudhommeaux, M., 264 n.

Prussia, the tariff of 1821 of, and Adam Smith’s doctrines, 106 n.; tariffs in, in the early nineteenth century, 266; and the Zollverein, 268; industry in, 281 n.

Psychological school, the, 397 n., 521-528

Puech, M., 321 n., 323 n.

“Pure” school, the, 353, 392

Quantity theory of money, 360

Quasi-contract theory, 595-599, 603 n., 606

Quesnay, F., 2-5; virtually the founder of political economy, 2; his works, 3 n.; on natural right, 7 nn.; and the analogy between social and animal economy, 7; and the “natural order,” 9, 10 and n.; and the “net product,” 15; his theory of the circulation of wealth, and the Tableau économique, 18-20; on the productive and sterile classes, 21 n.; on the landed proprietors, 21 n.; on the security residing in property, 24 n.; on the safety of property as the basis of economic order, 25; on the poor, 26 n.; on foreign trade, 28; on Free Trade, 29 nn.; on the “good price,” 29; on American competition, 30 n.; on Protection, 31 n.; and interest, 33; on laws, 34; on the sovereign authority, 35; on despotism, 36 n.; on education, 37; on Government expenditure, 38 n.; and the “iron law,” 42-43; and wages, 43 n.; and value, 47 n.; 54; and Adam Smith, 55; and agriculture as the source of all wealth, 56; his conception of political economy, 88; Adam Smith’s criticism of his theory, 88; 201 n., 232, 298

Quetelet, L., 407 n.

Quod Apostolici, Encyclical, 500 n.

Radical party, English, 372

Radical-Socialist party, 592, 601

Rae, J., 52 n., 64 n., 66 n., 96 n., 103 n., 106 n.

Ragaz, Professor, 507

Raiffeisen, F. W., 496, 503 n.

Rambaud, J., xi, 277 n., 503 n.

Rau, K. H., 352, 379

Rauschenbusch, W., 507 n.

Raymond, D., 277 n.

Reason, the anarchists and, 628, 641

Reciprocity, Mercier de la Rivière on, 31; Proudhon on, 310 n.

Reclus, É., 615, 619, 622, 624, 627 n., 628, 632 n., 636, 637

Reichel, 631 n.

Reid, T., 560

Religion, Robert Owen and, 238-239

Renard, G., 465 n., 469 n.

Renouvier, C. B., 403 n., 560

Rent, the theory of, xv; Ricardo’s conception of the nature of, 16, 114; and the “net product,” 17; Adam Smith and, 64, 80, 92; relation of wages and profit to, 64 n.; J. B. Say and, 114-115, 556; the Pessimists and, 118; Ricardo’s theory of, 138, 140-157, 164, 335, 338, 339, 370, 545-546, 547, 548 and n., 552-553, 544 n., 555 n., 558-559, 561, 581-583, 587; differential rent, 142, 546-558; Malthus and, 142, 152, 164; James Mill and, 155, 562; the Saint-Simonians and, 213 n., 214, 562; Carey and, 327, 338-340, 425, 545, 546; Bastiat and, 335-338, 340, 425, 545, 546; Fontenay and, 338 n.; Senior and, 350-351, 362; the Classical school and, 362, 520, 547; Stuart Mill and, 362, 370-372, 548, 554, 555, 562-563, 566, 567-568, 569; Rodbertus and, 424, 425; modern economists and, 516; and price, 520; an “unearned increment,” 545; growth in, 546; of land, 546-548, 554-555, 556-557; of capital, 548-549 n.; 558 n., 583; of ability, 549, 551, 582, 583; Walker’s theory, 549-552; and profit, 550-552; and the Classical theory of distribution, 553; a consequence of the laws of value, 555; of land, a species of the income of fixed capital, 556; a scarcity price, 556; Schäffle and, 556-557; K. Menger and, 557; relative permanence of rents, 557; negative rent, 558; J. B. Clark and, 558 n.; and private property, 558-559; man’s right to the land and the theory of rent, 561; of land, spontaneous character of, 561; the confiscation of, 562-570; Henry George and, 563-568, 569; the relation of wages to the increase in, 566 and n.; Gossen and Walras and the confiscation of, 574-575; Sidney Webb and Ricardo’s theory of, 581-583; interest regarded as, 582; “economic rent,” 582 n., 583 n.; the Fabian doctrine and Ricardo’s theory of, 587

Rerum Novarum, Encyclical, 501 n.

Revolution, Proudhon on, 320 n.; Marxism and, 471-472; Neo-Marxism and, 481-482; Buchez on Christianity and, 496; the anarchists and, 637-640, 641

Revolution, French, the Physiocratic system and, 44, 104; socialism and, 199 n.; the leaders of, and private property, 199 n.-200 n.; 205, 214, 223

Revolution, the Industrial, 65, 104, 111

Revolution of 1848, Blanc and, 256; Proudhon and, 300-308, 311 n.; and socialism, 300; 436-437

Revolutionary Catechism, Netchaieff’s, 639

Reybaud, M., 300-301, 306, 354

Ribbes, M. de, 492 n.

Ricardo, D., x, xiv; against the idea that nature is the only source of value, 16; his conception of what rent is, 16; and Adam Smith’s reference to utility, 75 n.; and international trade, 98, 99, 100, 163-164, 363 and n.-364 and n.; influence on political economy, 108, 138, 175; and distribution, 114, 139-140; and wages and profits, 114, 157-163, 373; and crises, 117, 177, 192; compared with J. B. Say, 118; regarded as an Optimist, 119 n.; one of the Pessimists, vi, 119-120, 192; his place in economics, his work and literary style, 138-139; his career, 139 n.; his theory of rent, 138, 140, 141-157, 164, 335, 338, 339, 370, 545-546, 547-548 and n., 552-553, 554 n., 555 n., 558-559, 576; his theory of value, 138, 140-141, 149-151, 240; and labour and value, 140, 144 n., 332; and the law of diminishing returns, 146-147, 373, 576; and the balance of trade theory and the quantity theory of money, 164-165; and paper money, 165, 168; Sismondi and, 174-175, 177 and n., 380; and machinery, 180 n., 181 and n.; and wages and population, 189; the Saint-Simonians and, 227; 228; and property, 228; 264; List and, 269; 287, 322, 324; and the proprietor, 336; 348, 349; and the income of capital, 350; 353; and individualism, 355; 362, 371, 379, 386 n., 390; and the identity of public and private interests, 410; Rodbertus on his theory of value, 415 n.; 416, 453 n.; the Marxian school and, 466; his method, 466; man’s right to the land, and his theory of rent, 561; 564, 566 n.; Sidney Webb and his theory of rent, 581-583; the Fabian doctrine and his theory of rent, 587

Richelot, H., 265 n.

“Right to exist, the,” 607 n.

“Right to the whole produce of labour, the,” 607 n.

“Right to work, the,” 300, 301, 303, 319, 599, 607 n.

Rist, C., 172, 342 n., 423 n., 539 n.

Rivière, Mercier de la, one of the Physiocrats, 3 n., 5; on the social order, 7; on the “natural order,” 8 n.-9 n., 9, 10 n., 11; and the origin of the term laissez-faire, 11 n.; on the creation of value, 13 and n.; on property as a “divine” institution, 21; on the landed proprietor, 23 n.; on property as the parent of social institutions, 25; on the regard to be paid to the peasants, 26 n.; on the fallacy that wealth grows from foreign trade, 28; on freedom of trade, 29 n.-30 n.; on the balance of trade theory, 31; on reciprocity, 31; on laws, 34 n.; and Catherine the Great, 34; on despotism, 35 n.; on taxation, 40 n.; on the relation of expenditure to production, 42 n.; on the felicity following on the establishment of the “natural order,” 46 n.; 232

Rochdale Pioneers, 263 n., 243, 244, 605

Rodbertus, J. K., 73 n.; and Sismondi, 198; and the products of labour, 293 n.; 294, 316; on the relative returns of capital and labour, 341 n.-342 n.; 369; and State Socialism, 414-415, 428, 431; and Lassalle, 414-415, 416, 417, 433, 434; French origin of his ideas, 415, 416, 423; his works, 415 n.-416 n.; his political and economic views, 416-417; his social theory, 417-432, 590; and the State, 261, 418, 429-430, 441; and production, 419-421, 423, 430; and the utilisation of the means of production, 421; and distribution, 421-428, 430-431; and labour’s share of the national product, 425-426, 427; and the “brazen law,” 426; his theory of crises, 426-427; and the regulation of national production and distribution, 427-429; and the State and economic functions, 430-431; the State Socialists and his doctrine, 430; 437, 443, 448 n., 450, 475; and Professor Schäffle, 590 n.

Rodrigues, E., 211, 212

Rodrigues, O., 203, 204 n., 211

Rogers, Thorold, 52 n.

Roscher, W., 106 n., 196, 379 and n., 380 n.; founder of the Historical school, 381-383; 389, 400 n., 402

Rossi, P., 315 n., 352, 375, 379

Roubaud, the Abbé—see Baden, Margrave of

Round, J. H., vi

Rousiers, P. de, 495 n.

Rousseau, J. J., 1; and the Physiocrats, 6 n.; and the natural state compared with the social state, 7; 120 n.; and private property, 200 n.; 238 n., 596

Royal Economic Society, 506 n.

“Rural economy,” 2, 3 n., 5

Ruskin, John, 196, 251, 510 and n., 511-513

Rutten, Father, 498 n.

Sabotage, 481 n.

Sadler, Michael, 67

Saint-Leon, M., 500 n.

St. Paul, 588

Saint-Simon, C. H., and Fourier, 201 n.; quality of his socialism, 201-202; his career, 202-203; his works, 203 n.; his earlier philosophic system, 203; his economic ideas, 204; his “Parable,” 204-205; on the future of the industrial classes, 205 n.; on industry, 205 n.; and the new industrial system, 205-211, 224; and socialism, 209-211; the Saint-Simonians and their doctrine, 211-231; and capital, 214; and A. Comte’s theory of the three estates, 222; and history, 224; on politics, 225 n.; on philanthropy in social reorganisation, 225 n.; Engels on, 228; and private property, 217; 233, 256; and Protection, 265 n.; 290, 300; Proudhon and, 311 n.; 318, 323, 352, 402, 404, 405; Rodbertus and, 418; 450, 470, 475, 486

Saint-Simonians, the, 169, 184; and Sismondi, 193; and the equalitarians, 200 n.-201 n.; and their socialist contemporaries, 201 n.; and collectivism, 201, 202, 211, 218-220; their doctrine, 202, 213-225; and governmental control, 207 n.; the development of their doctrine from Saint-Simon’s, 211; earliest members of the school, 211; organisation of the school, 211-212; Enfantine and the downfall of the school, 212-213; and private property, 199-202, 213-225, 294 n.; and “exploitation,” 215-216; and production, 217-218, 226-227; and inheritance, 217-218; and the historical method in the criticism of private property, 221-224; their socialism, 225, 230 n.; part played by members of the school in practical economic administration, 226; and banks and credit, 226; influence upon the socialists, 227; and distribution, 229; and the general and particular interest, 229-230; on the disadvantages of the spontaneous economic forces, 230; and profits and wages, 216 n.; and value, 216; compared with the Associationists, 231; Fourier on, 245; and Protection, 265 n.; and the State, 289 n.; List and, 289 n.; 293; Proudhon and, 296; 297; Stuart Mill and, 367, 372; 378, 381, 415 and n.; Rodbertus and, 421, 423; 465 n.; and class antagonism, 471 n.; and the confiscation of rent, 562

Saint-Simonism, 112; Fourier and, 201 n.; 212, 219, 254, 255

Sainte-Beuve, and Sismondi, 193; and Proudhon, 292, 295 n., 298 n.

Sand, George, 263

Sangnier, M., 496, 502 n.

Sartorius, G. F., 106

Saumaise, C., 503 n.

Savigny, F. K. von, 382

Saving, Adam Smith on, 73

Sax, Professor, 522 n.

Saxony, 281 n.

Say, J. B., xii, 34 n.; and production, 56 n.; and capital, 56; and productive and unproductive works, 62, 348 n.; and the entrepreneur, 65 n., 113-114, 550 n.; 70; on Adam Smith’s theory of distribution, 80; and distribution, 93, 113-114, 422; on the loss of England’s American colonies, 103-104; on the Wealth of Nations, 106; and Adam Smith’s doctrines, 107-117; his career, 107 n.; and the Physiocrats, 108-109; and political economy, 110-111, 175, 178; on machinery, 112, 181; and rent, 114-115, 551, 554 n., 555 n., 556; his theory of markets, 115; and over-production crises, 115-117, 192; correspondence with Ricardo, 139 n.; 148; on the poverty of the English worker, 171; Sismondi and, 175, 177, 178, 181; and the relative poverty of industrial society, 193; 201 n., 207; Saint-Simon and, 209 n., 210 n.; 228; and property, 228; 264, 265 n.; List and, 269 n.; 279 n., 280, 287, 298, 311 n.; and anarchy, 311 n.; 314, 322, 328 n., 335 n., 336 n., 352 n., 353, 375, 379, 390, 425, 615 n., 645

Say, Louis, 107 n., 265 n.

“Scarcity,” 521 n., 522 n.

Schäffle, A., 438 n., 469, 556-557, 590 n.

Schatz, A., 54 n., 357 n., 372 n.

Schelle, M., 4 n., 11 n.

Schmidt, Kaspar—see Stirner, Max

Schmoller, G., 196, 379 and n., 383, 385-386, 389 nn., 393 n., 395, 397, 400, 403, 406 n., 407, 438, 443 n., 517, 647

Schönberg, G., 439

School of Social Science, 494

Schulze-Delitzsch, F. H., 376, 434 and n.

Schumpeter, Herr, 547 n.

Schuster, R., 323

Schweitzer, Herr, 434 n.

Science, Bakunin and, 628-629

Seager, Professor H. R., 349 n.

Secrétan, C., 560, 600 n.

Seebohm, F., vi

Ségur-Lamoignon, M., 500 n.

Seignobos, C., 405 n.

Self-interest, Adam Smith on, as the mainspring of progress, 86-87, 88, 89, 92, 95, 393; 99; the Classical school and, 393-394; Wagner and, 394; Stuart Mill and, 394, 404, 411

Seligman, Professor, 349 n., 570 n.

Semaines Sociales, 500 n.

Senior, N. W., 109 n., 168, 349-351, 358, 362 and n., 371, 372, 379, 549, 551

Sensi, Signor, 555 n.

Service, in Bastiat’s theory of value, 332-335; place of the term in economic terminology, 335

Service-value, Bastiat’s theory of, 332-335

Shaftesbury, Lord, 67; Robert Owen and, 237; and Christian Socialism, 486

Shaw, G. Bernard, 579 n., 580 and n., 583 n.

Sidgwick, H., 329

Sillon, the, 502

Simiand, M., 388 n., 402 n., 538 n.

Sismondi, S. de, x, 111, 116, 117, 169; life, 173 n.; and political economy, 173, 174, 175, 178, 196, 198; and Adam Smith, 173, 174, 410; and Ricardo and J. B. Say, 174-175; and Malthus, 175; and the English Corn Laws, 175; and the abstract method in economics, 176 and n., 380; and production and over-production, 176-177, 178-182; and interest, 176 n.; 192-193 n., 215; and distribution, 177-178, 185, 186, 198, 422, 443; and the Classical school, 179-182, 195-196; and machinery, 180-182; and competition, 182-184, 193 n., 198, 410; and socialism, 184-185; and the theory of the identity of individual and general interests, 185-186, 410; and the concentration of capital, 187-189; on the regulation of population by the revenue, 188-189; and economic crises, 187, 190-192, 426; and net and gross production, 189-190, 420; his reform projects, 192-197; the first of the Interventionists, 192; influence upon writers and movements in the nineteenth century, 195-196; influence upon his contemporaries, 196, 197; and State Socialism, 197; and the socialists, 196, 197-198; Marx’s debt to, 198; and private property, 198; and “exploitation,” 215, 216; 228 n., 230, 233, 256; on liberty, 262 n.; 264; and Protection, 264 n.-265 n.; 289; Stuart Mill and, 367; and peasant proprietorship, 371 n.; 377, 378, 415 and n.; and production, 419, 421; 440, 450; and increment value, 453 n.; 475; and guarantism, 599, 604; and Liberalism and political economy, 647

Slavery, Le Play and, 491 n.

Smith, Adam, vi; on the object of political economy, 1; accredited the founder of political economy, 2, 50-51, 103; and Quesnay, 3, 55; Turgot resembles, 4 n., 47; and nature regarded as the only source of value, 16; on “sterile” labour, 17; his career, 50 n.-52 n.; his Wealth of Nations, 51 et seq., 105; intimate with David Hume, 50 n., 53; and the Physiocrats, 51 n., 55, 62-65, 69; his admiration for Voltaire, 52 n.; and Bernard de Mandeville, 51; and Turgot, 55; and the Tableau économique, 55; and the division of labour, 56-68, 70-71; on labour as the true source of wealth, 56-57; and taxation, 61-62; on equality in the State, 62; and productive and unproductive workers, 62-63; and the superior productivity of agriculture, 63-64, 65, 67, 108, 143; and rent, 64, 80, 141-143; and industry, 65-66, 67-68; his sympathy for the worker, 66-67; on profits, 67-80, 114; his “naturalism,” 68-88; and the spontaneity of economic institutions, 69-88; and money, 71, 82-85, 115; and capital, 71-73, 89-91, 272 n.; on saving, 73; on demand and supply, 73-85; his theory of prices, 74-82; on “value in use” and “value in exchange,” 75-77; on labour as the measure of value, 77-78, 149; and cost of production as the determinant of value, 78-79; his theory of wages, 80; and distribution, 80, 93; on the regulation of population to the demand, 82, 188; on banks, 85; on self-interest as the root of all economic activity, 86-87, 88, 393; and the homo œconomicus, 86; and the “spontaneous order,” 87-88; on Quesnay’s economic theory, 88; his “optimism,” 88-93; and the harmony between self-interest and the general well-being of society, 92, 185, 410; on the duty of the sovereign, 93, 94, 409; and economic liberty, 93-97, 315; on the inefficiency of State administration, 94-95; and Mercantilism, 98, 169, 314; and international trade, 97-102; and Protection, 98-102; influence of his thought, and its diffusion, 102-107; and Lord North, 105; and Pitt, 105; J. B. Say and, 107-118; on the basis and the aim of political economy, 110; and the entrepreneur, 114; and Malthus’s Principles of Population, 121; compared with Ricardo, 138; and the products of mines, 143 n.; and the interests of the landlords, 153 n.; and Free Trade, 153, 163, 287; 165, 166; Sismondi and, 173, 174, 192; on competition, 182; and high wages and population, 189; 201 n., 204, 207; Saint-Simon and, 209 n.; on government, 217, 625; 228; and property, 228; 264; on the Act of Union of 1800, 266; List and, 269 n., 270, 271 n., 273, 278 n., 279 n., 280; and the three stages in economic evolution, 271 n.; on national power, 271 n.; 272; on moral forces, 273 n.; on the prosperity of Britain as the outcome of her legal system, 273 n.; 322, 323, 326, 338 n., 355 n., 371, 379, 380 and n., 390; and State intervention, 408-410; and laissez-faire, 408, 410; 416, 417, 418, 423, 438 n., 440, 516; Mr. and Mrs. Webb on his theory that labour is the cause of value, 581 n.; 588, 615 n.; simplicity of his system, 644

Smith, Prince, 376, 439

“Smithianismus,” 438

Social biology, 590 n.

Social Catholicism, 495-503; and co-operation, 496-500; and the emancipation of the workers by themselves, 500; and the State, 501; and Protection, 501 n.; and socialism, 501; and the employer and the worker, 502; compared with Social Protestantism, 503

Social Catholics, 494

Social Christianity, 509

Social contract, the, 6 n.

Social Democratic Federation, 579 n.

Social Democratic party, German, Rodbertus and, 417; 432; founded, 437; 480 n.

Social economics, 1, 181, 645

“Social function,” 335

“Social instinct,” the, 632; Kropotkin on, 632-633

Social League of Buyers, 500 n.

Social Protestantism—see Christian Socialism

“Social workshops,” Blanc and, 301

Socialism, xi; Adam Smith regarded as the father of, 79 n.; Adam Smith a forerunner of, 92; Ricardo’s theory of value the starting-point of modern, 138; the Marxian theory of surplus value and, 140; and the French Revolution, 199 n.-200 n.; equalitarian, 200 n.; the Saint-Simonians and, 200 n.-201 n., 212, 225, 227, 230 n., 231; Saint-Simon and, 201, 202, 209, 210 n.; Saint-Simon the father of, 203; Robert Owen and, 235; origin of the term, 235 n., 263 and n.; Wm. Thompson and, 244; Leroux and, 263; Proudhon and, 290-291, 296-299, 315; and the Revolution of 1848, 300-307; Marx and, 320, 470; France the classic land of, 323; Bastiat and, 328 n., 329; Stuart Mill and, 352 n., 353, 358; the Liberal school and, 354; Reybaud on, 354; revival of, 377; Marx’s Kapital and, 377; Rodbertus and, 417; State Socialism and, 431; Lassalle and, 433; the Christian schools and, 483-485; the Social Catholics and, 500; the Sillon and, 502; the Christian Socialists and, 509; modern changes in, 515-516; in England in mid-nineteenth century, 579; of the Fabian Society, vii, 580 n.-581 n., 584-587; Sidney Webb on the present realisation of, 585; “juridical socialism,” 606, 607 n.; criticism of solidarity, 611; anarchism and, 640, 641; and violence, 641; and the State and private property, 642

Socialists, favour Adam Smith’s theory of value, 75; Sismondi reckoned among, 184; Saint-Simon reckoned among, 210 n.; Proudhon and, 296-297; and the Revolution of 1848, 300; 335; and State Socialism, 414; Rodbertus and, 417; and capital, 459-460; F. D. Maurice on the motto of the socialist, 504 n.; and interest and rent, 568, 579

Society, the reality of, 618, 619 n.; Kropotkin on, 625 n., 630, 631 n.; Bakunin on, 625 n.-626 n., 630, 631 n.; the anarchist conception of, 629-636; Proudhon and, 630, 631 n.; Jean Grave and, 630, 631 n.; and government, 631

Sociological analogy, the, 590-591

Sociology, 388, 392, 404, 590

Solidarity, xv; in France, 136 n., 516; Protection and, 289 n., 602; Proudhon and, 317; the Liberal school and, 325; Bastiat and the law of, 344-345; origin of the term, 344 n., 587; modern conception of, 344; Carey and, 345; and individualism, 356 n.; State Socialism and, 439, 592, 601, 602-603; Le Play’s new school and, 495; Gounelle on, 508 n.; the Christian Socialists and, 508; development of the ideal, 587; the ancients and, 588-589; heredity and, 588; A. Comte and, 589; bacteriology and, 589; the sociological analogy and, 590-591; growth and universality of, 591-592; the Solidarity school, 592 n.-593 n.; Gide on, 593 n.; a new watchword, 593; M. Bourgeois and, 593-594, 596, 597-599; and natural solidarity, 594-599; progress of the movement, 593-594; Durkheim and, 599-600; a movement towards universal unity, 600-601; practical applications of, 601-607; fiscal reform and, 602; and association, 602, 613-614; the syndicalists and, 603; the mutualists and, 603-604; and co-operation, 604; the École de Nîmes, 605 n.; and the mutual credit society, 606; and private property, 606; and jurisprudence, 606; criticism of, 607-614; the Liberal school and, 607-608; evolution and, 609; and collective responsibility for misdemeanour, 610; the moralists and, 610-611; socialist criticism, 611; its moral influence, 611-612; and individuality, 612-613; and exchange, 613-614; distinguished from charity, 614 n.; the anarchists and social solidarity, 630; 632

Solidarist, or Solidarity, school, 592 n.-593 n., 601

Solvay, E., 242, 318-319

Sombart, W., 271 n., 386

Sorel, G., 209, 321, 447-448, 466 nn., 467 n., 473 n., 474 n., 479 nn., 480 n., 481 nn., 482 and nn., 483, 515, 638 n., 641, 642

Souchon, A., xi

Sovereign, the, Adam Smith on, 93, 94, 409

Sozialpolitik, 178

Spain, anarchism in, 640

Spence, T., 560 and n.

Spencer, Herbert, xiii. 356, 376, 560, 590 nn.

Spontaneity of economic institutions, Adam Smith and, 68-85, 87, 88, 89

Staël, Mme., 173 n.

Stangeland, C. E., 121 n.

Stanislaus II, King of Poland, and the Physiocrats, 5

State, the, in the Mercantilist view, 27; in the Physiocratic view, 27; the functions of, in the Physiocratic doctrine, 33-37; Adam Smith on the functions of, 95; the sole inheritor of property, in the Saint-Simonians’ system, 223; Blanc and, 261, 262; Dupont-White and, 408 n., 440, 441; Walras and, 413; Rodbertus and, 418-419, 429-431; Hegel on, 435 n.; Fichte and, 435 n.-436 n.; the Congress of Eisenach and, 437; Wagner and, 438 n., 439-440; the duties of, under State Socialism, 439; incapacity of, as an economic agent, 439; and the individual, 442-443; the Christian schools and, 484; Le Play and, 488; the Social Catholics and, 501; Carlyle on the Classical ideal, 511; the anarchists and, 615, 623-624, 625, 626, 627, 630, 641; syndicalism and, 641

State intervention, xv, 407 et seq.; Adam Smith and, 94-97, 408-410; Malthus and Ricardo and, 164; Sismondi and, 197, 413; the French Liberal school and, 325; Bastiat and, 325 n., 408-409; 377, 378; Stuart Mill and, 411, 413; Cournot and, 413; Lassalle and, 434-435; Kingsley on, 505 n. See State Socialism

State Socialism, xi, xv, 197, 221, 259, 261, 262, 304-305, 346, 377, 387, 389 n., 407; origin of, 410, 413, 438; not simply an economic doctrine, 414; Rodbertus and, 414-415, 417, 428, 431, 432; Lassalle and, 414, 432; Wagner and, 414; and socialism, 431; Andler and the philosophical origin of, 435 n.; Fichte and, 435 n.; principles and characteristics of the movement, 436-448; and the Classical school, 438; and solidarity and Lassalle, 439; and government and the individual, 439-443; and distribution, 443-444; and production, 444; Bismarck and, 445; in Germany, 445-446; influence in politics, 447; and economic Liberalism, 447; syndicalism and, 447-448; the Christian schools and, 485; and economic theory, 515; modern development of, 516; the Fabians and, 586; 592, 593 n.; and solidarity, 601, 602-603

Stationary state, Stuart Mill and, 373-374

Statistics, the science of, and economics, 407 n.; 645-646

Statute of Apprentices, the, 104, 170

Statutes of the International Brotherhood, 639

Statutes of the International Socialist Alliance, 639

Stein, H. F. K., 106 n.

Stein, L. von, 294 n.

“Sterile classes,” the, in the Physiocratic system, 14, 21, 24; Adam Smith and, 57

Sterile labour, in the Physiocratic system, 16-17

Stewart, Dugald, 52 n.

Stiegler, M., 592 n.

Stirner, Max (Kaspar Schmidt), 615-619, 622-623, 628, 630

Stöker, Pastor, 507

Storch, H. F. von, 118 n., 379

Strong, J., 506 n.

Stumm, Baron, 507 n.

Sully, Duc de, 17

Supply, price and, 519

Surplus labour, Marx’s theory of, 450-459, 474-475

Surplus value, Marx’s theory of, 184, 198, 228, 294, 450-459; Sismondi and, 184-185, 198, 475; decline of the theory of, 516

Surplus values, the taxation of, 569-570

Switzerland, Christian Socialism in, 507

Syndicalism, 321, 447, 448, 472 n., 473, 479-483, 491; the Social Catholics and, 498 and n.; the Sillon and the C.G.T. and, 502; and solidarity, 603; and anarchism, 619 n., 641-642; and the State, 641-642; its ideal, 642

Syndicat, the, 480-481

Synthetic socialism, 573

Syntheticism, 573

Tableau économique, 3 n., 5, 18-19, 20 n., 21, 162, 534

Taillandier, Saint-René, 616 n.

Tariffs, in France, 266, 269, 280-281; in Germany, 266-269, 280-281; in the United States, 269; the economic nature of, 282

Taxation, the Physiocratic theory of, 38-45; Adam Smith and, 61-62 and nn., 102; development of the theory of, 645

Theory, economic, recent revival of, 515

Thierry, A., 203, 211

Thiers, L. A., 303

Thomas, É., 302 and n.

Thomas, P. F., 263 n.

Thompson, R., 156 n.

Thompson, W., 194, 201 n., 244, 450 n.

Thornton, W. T., 361, 371 n.

Thünen, J. H. von, 148 n., 352, 558

Tocqueville, A. C. de, 303

Todt, Pastor, 507

Tolstoy, Count Leo, 510, 511, 512, 513-514

Tooke, T., 109 n.

Torrens, Colonel, 349 n.

Tourville, the Abbé de, 494, 495 n.

Toynbee, A., 196, 374, 379, 386 n., 387

Trade, the Physiocrats and, 27-33

Trade, Free—see Free Trade

Trade unionism, Robert Owen and, 236 n.; Stuart Mill and, 361, 362 n.; the Neo-Marxians and, 479; Le Play and, 491; 496 n., 504; Durkheim and, 600; the syndicalists and, 603, 642; the French anarchists and, 640

Travail, Le, co-operative society, 257 n.

Treitschke, H. G. von, 443 n.

Trosne, G. F. Le, one of the Physiocrats, 4 n.; on the earth as the sole productive source, 12 n., 13; and the “net product,” 14 n., 15 n.; on the Tableau économique, 19; on exchange, 27 n.; on Free Trade, 29 n.; 49, 118 n.

Trusts, Ollivier on, 325

Tucker, J., 54

Turgot, A. R. J., one of the Physiocrats, 4 and n.; on the universality and immutability of the “natural order,” 10; and the origin of the term laissez-faire, 11 n.; 12 n.; on artisans and agriculturists, 14 and n.; on mines and the “net product,” 14; on the circulation of wealth, 18; and the Tableau économique, 20 n.; and property, 25 n.; on the “good price,” 30 n.; on Protection, 31 n.; and the edict establishing Free Trade in corn, 32; and interest, 33, 50 n.; distinguished from the other Physiocrats, 33, 46-47; on industry and agriculture, 37 n.; on the burdens of the poor, 42 n.; and the “iron law,” 42, 157, 453 n.; on value, 46-47; and Condillac and Galiani, 47; 50; acquainted with Adam Smith, 51 n., 55; 117; and the law of diminishing returns, 146-147 n., 340; 222 n., 228 n., 298

“Unearned increment,” rent is, 545; the confiscation of, 558-570

United States, xii; increase of population in, 124 n.; growth of per capita wealth of the population in, 131; and tariffs and Protection, 269, 278-279; List on the economic condition of, 279; cultivation and rents in, 339; Christian Socialism in, 506

Unity, the movement towards universal, 600

University economists, 436

Ure, A., 171 n.

Usury, the Catholic Church and, 503 n.

Utilitarian Radicals, 586

Utilitarian school, 352

Utility, social, 24, 91; Dunoyer and, 348 and n.

Utility theory, 328 n.; Bastiat and, 335-338

Utopia, More’s, 246

Utopian socialism, 232

Value, the accretion of, constitutes production, 16; nature the only source of, 16; the Physiocrats and, 46, 49; Turgot on, 46-47; Galiani on, 47; Condillac and, 48-49, 74, 75; Adam Smith’s theory of, 74-80, 149; Ricardo’s theory of, 138, 140-141, 149-151, 240, 332; Sismondi and, 184-185; Marx and, 185, 293 n., 466 and n., 474, 583; Marx’s theory of surplus value, 184, 450-459; Proudhon and, 293 n.; Bastiat’s theory of service-value, 332-335, 338; Carey and, 332; Ferrara and, 333 n.; in Bastiat’s utility theory, 335-338; the Classical law of, 360, 558; Rodbertus and, 415 n.; Aristotle and, 451 n.; determined by cost of production, 520, 526; definition of, 523; the Classical school and, 530 n.; the Mathematical school and, 530 n.; Aupetit and, 530 n.

“Value in use,” and “value in exchange,” 75-76, 451

Value, surplus—see Surplus value

Vandervelde, É., 221, 470 n.

Varlin, M., 459 n.

Verein für Sozialpolitik, 437

Vidal, F., 259, 304-305, 414, 420 n.

Villeneuve-Bargemont, Vicomte A. de, 197

Villermé, L. R., 171, 491 n.

Villey, E., 327 n.

Vinet, A. R., 509

Voltaire, and the Physiocrats, 5; 32; his L’Homme avec Quarante Écus, 41 n.; 43; Adam Smith and, 51 n.; 52 n.

Wage fund theory, Stuart Mill and, 361-362, 374; Walker and, 362 n., 549; Cairnes and, 374; 456

Wages, the Physiocrats and, 43; Condillac on, 49-50; Adam Smith on the relation of, to rent, 64 n.; Smith’s theory of, 80; Ricardo and, 114, 157-163; Sismondi and, 176 n.; Stuart Mill and, 360 n., 369-370; 353; the law of, of the Classical School, 360-362; Cobden on, 360-361; the “brazen law” of, 361, 426, 433, 453 n., 528; Böhm-Bawerk and the Classical school and, 520; final utility and, 527-528; the productivity theory of, 527-528, 549-550; the Hedonists and, 541; relation of, to profit, 550-551; and interest, Henry George on, 565; relation of, to the increase in rents, 566 and n.

Wagner, A., 222, 393 n., 394, 396 nn., 401 n., 403, 414, 416, 431 n., 433 n.; and State Socialism, 438 and n., 439, 440-441, 443 n., 444; and the State and the individual, 442

Wakefield, Gibbon, 349 n.

Walker, A., 550 n.

Walker, F., 362 n., 549-552

Wallace, A. R., and land nationalisation, 561, 577

Wallas, Graham, 159 n.

Walras, L., on Free Trade, 30; 75; J. B. Say and, 114; and land nationalisation, 155, 561, 571, 572 n., 573-577; and “scarcity,” 351; 521 n., 522 n.; 376, 380, 392 and n.; on the State, 413; 495, 529 n.; his economic system, 533-536, 541-542; 537, 538 n., 540 n., 544; and rent and profit, 552; and the individual and the State, 573-574; and the confiscation of rent, 574-577; 631 n.

War of Independence, American, 103-104, 202

Waring, Colonel, 253 n.

Watt, James, 65

Wealth, the Physiocratic conception of the circulation of, 18-26; a material element, in the Physiocratic view, 27; Quesnay regards agriculture as the source of all, 56; Adam Smith’s view of the origin of, 56-57; Adam Smith on, 83; solely a product of the soil, in the Physiocratic view, 348

Wealth of Nations, 51 et seq., 353

Webb, Mr. and Mrs. Sidney, 170, 221, 387, 580, 581, 583, 584, 585, 586

Weber, Max, 381 n.

Weill, G., 202 n., 203 n., 226 n.

Weitling, W., 323

Wellington, Duke of, 366

Wells, H. G., 580

West, Sir E., 147 n., 149 n.

Weulersse, G., 5 n., 22 n., 26 n.

Wieser, F. von, 522 n.

William II, Emperor of Germany, 446, 507

Wilson, G., 96 n.

Wirth, M., 416 n., 417 n.

Wollemborg, 503 n.

Wolowski, L., 304

Woman question, Saint-Simonism and, 254; Fourier and, 254

“Working men’s associations,” 305-306, 319

Worms, R., 590 n.

Würtemberg, Tariff Union between Bavaria and, 268

Young, A., 136 n., 371

Yule, Udny, 407 n.

Zola, É., 254 n.

Zollverein, formation of the, 268; 280

Zollvereinsblatt, 280 n., 288