Chapter 9 Chapter Four

Confiscate It is said that when the French revolution broke out in 1848, the rich man Rothschild ① saw that his property was a little dangerous, so he came up with the following method: He said: "I fully admit that my property is dependent on countless other people. but if my estate were distributed among so many Europeans, it would cost me four shillings each. Well, whoever wants to ask me for the four shillings, I can take it any time. give him." ①The surname Rothschild occupied a great influence in the European banking circle in the nineteenth century, and was a wealthy Jewish family.This refers to James de Rothschild (1792-1868), who founded the Paris bank. In 1822 he served as Consul General of Austria-Hungary in Paris, where he was of great assistance to the government of Louis Philippe. - translator

After the rich man had spoken, he was still walking freely on the streets of Frankfurt.Now and then three or four passers-by asked him for their fourshillings, which he gave them with a sneer.His plan really succeeded.The Rothschilds still maintain their property to this day. So do the cunning bourgeoisie, who say: "Oh! Confiscation! I know what that means. You pile up all the coats in one place for everyone to use freely, and take the best ones. gone." This kind of joke is actually unfounded and wrong.It is not our wish that the overcoats should be distributed in this way, though we may say that it is, and that it is a little good for those who are cold.We do not want to divide the Rothschild estate in this way.What we are going to do is to arrange everything in society so well that everyone in this world has the opportunity to learn a useful occupation and to be able to become familiar with it. Secondly, he should be allowed to do things freely. , without the permission of any master, and without giving the greater part of his production to the landlords and capitalists.As for the property of the Rothschilds or the van der Berts, it is only suitable for our needs in organizing this system of common production.

①The Vanderbilts (Vanderbilts) are the richest people in the United States.Father Cornelius (1794-1877) was a famous financier.The eldest grandson Cornelius (1843-1899) was also a well-known entrepreneur who served as the general manager of several railway companies. - translator When in the future the farmer will no longer have to give half of his produce to the landlord in tilling the field, and when the machinery which improves the land so as to produce a fruitful harvest will be at the free disposal of the tiller, the laborer will no longer be at the disposal of the monopoly in the factory. , and had to do what it could to produce things for society—then we could see the working man well clothed and fed; while the Rothschilds and other plunderers were long gone.

At that time, too, no one sold his labor for a wage so small that it was worth only a fraction of his production. People who oppose our proposition will say: "This is very good, but people like Rothschild can also run in from foreign countries. For example, a person who has accumulated hundreds of millions of wealth in China and then runs to you, How can you prevent him? How can you prevent him from employing servants and wage labourers—from robbing them and making a fortune out of their labor? "You cannot make revolutions all over the world at the same time. Then, don't you want to set up customs on the frontier, check everyone who passes by, and confiscate the money that he has with him? - Anarchist policemen shoot at travelers - this What a spectacle!"

There is a big mistake in this argument.Those who make this kind of argument have never studied where the rich people's property comes from.If they had thought a little, they would have seen that these properties were derived from the misery of the poor.Where there are no poor, there are no rich men who prey on the poor to enrich themselves. Let's look at the Middle Ages, that is the period when the rich and rich flourished. A feudal lord occupies a fertile land.Yet the lord was not rich until the land had no inhabitants.His land contributed nothing to him; it was as if he had a place in the moon.

How does our lord get rich?He went looking for the farmers--for the poor farmers! Who would cultivate a lord's land, if every farmer had a piece of land, paid no tax, and had all the implements and capital necessary for its cultivation?Everyone went to look after his own.Yet there are still many poor people in the world.They were impoverished by wars, floods, and plagues.They had no horses for plowing, nor hoes (iron was expensive in the Middle Ages, and pack horses were much more valuable). Those poor people are constantly trying to improve their situation.Needless to say, one day they were on the road and saw a sign at the lord's place, which read in symbols they could understand: Those laborers who would like to live in this territory can get utensils and materials to build houses, cultivate fields, and Part of the land is exempt from rent and tax within a certain period of time.The number of years is marked by a multitude of crosses, which the peasants can understand.

In this way, many poor people came to live in the land of the lord.They built roads, drained swamps, and built villages.After nine or ten years, the lords began to tax them.In five more years, he was going to increase their tax again.Then the lord doubled the rent, and the peasants obeyed, for it was the same everywhere, and they could not find a better place outside.Later, the lords made laws, and relying on the power of this law, the poverty of the farmers gradually became the source of wealth for the lords.It was not only the lords who robbed the peasants, but many other plunderers also came to the villages.When the peasant's misery doubles, so do their numbers double.

This is how the rich flourished in the Middle Ages.Let's look at the current situation, isn't it the same as before?Who would pay fifty pounds to beg "the lords and lords" for a little plot of land, if they had all the land which they could cultivate freely and pay no tax?The land rent accounted for almost one-third of his production, would they still be willing to pay it?Are they still willing to implement the "half-half system" to give half of his harvest to the landlord? Yet they themselves have nothing.So as long as they can maintain their poor life by cultivating the land to enrich the landlords, they are willing to admit no matter what the conditions are.

Now, just as in the Middle Ages, the poverty of the peasant is the source of the wealth of the landowner. II The landlord's wealth is derived from the peasant's poverty, and the capitalist's wealth is also derived from the same source! Take, for example, a middle-class citizen who has £20,000 in property.Of course he could spend two thousand pounds a year, a very small sum in a society of luxury.However, by the end of the tenth year, he was out of money.So if he is a person who pays attention to practical interests, he will put his property aside and find a small annual income.

This is very easy in today's society, because cities or villages are full of laborers who cannot even live for a month or even two weeks.The gentleman opened a factory.If he has a reputation of being "competent", the bank will lend him another £20,000; with these £40,000 he can employ 250 workmen. ① Forty thousand pounds, the French text is half a million francs; two hundred and fifty workers, the French text is five hundred. - translator If the daily life of the people around here is not a problem, and there is no need to worry about the lack of bread, and the daily necessities are quite sufficient, then who would want his daily output to be worth one crown (Five or six in French) francs) to work for capitalists in exchange for half a crown (three francs in French) per day?

Unfortunately--we know it well--the slums of our city and the surrounding villages are filled with wretched paupers; and their children are crying out for bread all day long.So when the factory was not fully equipped, they hurried to sign up.In a place where only one hundred people are employed, there are at least three hundred people surrounding the factory gate.Had the manufacturer been of ordinary skill, he would have made, in the course of a year, a net profit of four thousand pounds on every workman he employed, after his machinery was running. Thus he may amass a small fortune, and, if he chooses a more profitable cause, and possesses talents of his own, he may double the number of his plunder, and his income It will also double. Then he became an important person.Then he can invite other important people—local tycoons and bureaucrats from government offices, government offices, and police stations—to his banquet.With all his money, he can "marry other people's money" to cheat more money, and gradually he can gain a favorable position for his children and grandchildren.Later he got the protection and charter of the government, but the government asked him to pay some money for the army or the police; his money begets more money; then there was war, or even rumors of war, or speculation on the stock exchange. Career, these are big opportunities for him to grab money. Nine-tenths of great wealth in the United States is the result of that kind of massive deception aided by the state (as Henry George puts it in his book The Social Question).Nine-tenths of the property in the nations of Europe, whether monarchies or democracies, arises from the same cause.There are no two paths to becoming a millionaire. ① Henry George (1839-1890), American economist and journalist. The advocate of the "single tax on land" movement in the United States, the most powerful opponent of the private land system, his most famous book is "Progress and Poverty" (Progress and Poverty, 1879). - translator The secret of getting rich is this: go to the hungry and poor, give them half a crown (three francs in French) every day, and ask them to make items worth five shillings (ten francs in French); Save up, and then rely on the help of the state to do some big speculative business, so that the money continues to increase. Nor do we need to speak of the small fortunes which the economists think are accumulated by foresight and thrift, when we know that such accumulations can never be profitable unless they are used to rob the poor. Let us take a shoemaker as an example. He earns a lot of money by his work, and he has many customers; . Assume that the shoemaker is not sick, that he is not hungry every day, despite his efforts to save money; and suppose that he is not married, and has no children; that he does not die of consumption; and that everything is as you think. ! Well, so, at the age of fifty, he cannot save eight hundred pounds; and when he is unable to work, he cannot rely on this sum to support his dying years.This is really not the way to accumulate wealth.But suppose that every time the shoemaker deposits a few pennies, he immediately deposits them in the savings bank.Savings banks in turn lend this money to capitalists who want precisely to "employ labourers", that is to say, to rob the poor.On the one hand, the shoemaker took in a poor boy as his apprentice, and the poor man thought that he would be very happy if his child learned the craft and could earn his own living after five years. At the same time, the shoemaker suffered no loss by employing an apprentice.If his business was busy, he would take a second apprentice, and later a third.By and by he hired two or three more workmen--poors, of course, who made things worth five shillings a day, and yet received half a crown for their wages, and were very grateful.If the shoemaker is "lucky", that is to say, if he is a very shrewd and mean man, he can extract a pound a day from the workers and apprentices, which is more than the value of what he himself produces. .He will be able to expand his business.Gradually he became a rich man.He does not feel the lack of the necessities of life, nor does he have to work for daily food and clothing.He would also leave his small fortune to his children and grandchildren. This is what people often say, "get rich economically and manage the family thriftly." In fact, it is nothing more than plundering the poor. As for business, it seems to be outside the rules.Someone told us: "There was a man who bought tea from China and shipped it to France. He got 30% of the profit in addition to his capital. He didn't rob anyone." Actually the situation is still the same.It would be nice if the merchant carried the tea bags on his back.This was indeed the method of foreign trade which prevailed in the first part of the Middle Ages, so that the wealth of the rich was not then as great as it is now.The merchants of the Middle Ages traveled long distances and ventured to sail, but they earned very little money, and this small amount of money was not easy to obtain; they did not do this kind of thing for the sake of money; they loved travel and adventure. But also to overcome their love of money. Now, the method is simpler.As long as a businessman with a little capital wants to get rich, he doesn't have to leave his desk.He just sent a telegram to the agent saying that he wanted to buy 100 tons of tea, and that was it.The cargo is on board and can arrive in a few weeks, or, if this is a sailing vessel, in three months.His tea and ship are insured, so there is no fear of danger on the way; he spends four thousand pounds of capital, and can get more than five or six thousand pounds; if he does not sell novelty goods for speculation. (Twice as much profit on success, nothing left on failure.) His five or six thousand pounds is solid. However, how could he see those sailors who are willing to cross the sea, come and go to China, endure pain and suffering, and put their lives on the line for a meager wage?How can he see those coolies who are forced by hunger and cold, and come to load and unload goods for him for a small salary?Those are poor people who are hungry and cold.Try to go to the harbor area, and go into the small restaurants and hotels on the docks to see the people who come to earn a living.They gathered at the entrance of the pier at dawn, hoping to find some work on the ship.And look at those sailors who sometimes have no work for weeks or months. Once they are hired to sail the ocean, they think it is a very happy thing.They probably took boats as their homes all their lives, and lived at sea for a long time. The boats they lived in were often changed, and they were finally buried in the misty waves. When you go to their homes again, you will see their wives and children in rags. They do not know how to live, but wait for their husbands and fathers to return.When you see this, your doubts can always be answered. There are many such examples, and you can vote as you please; you can investigate the origin of all property, regardless of its size, whether it is obtained from commerce, finance, industry, or land.You will surely find that the wealth of the rich always grows out of the poverty of the poor.This is why anarchist society is not afraid of Rothschilds moving in and living there.If every member of society knew that after only three or four hours of productive labor, no one had the right to enjoy all the pleasures of civilization, and also the right to enjoy the deeper sources of entertainment that science and art contribute to mankind (as long as You can get it by studying science and art), they will never sell their physical strength for a small wage.At that time absolutely no one would work for Rothschild to increase his wealth.His gold coins are but fragments of many metals, which he may use for other purposes, but which he cannot use to increase his wealth. This answers the above objection and at the same time shows the scope of confiscation.Everything that would enable a man (whether financier, industrialist, or landowner) to monopolize the produce of another's labor should be confiscated.Our approach is simple and understandable. We don't want to strip anyone of their coats, we just want to give the working people what they need, for want of which they often have to fall into the trap of predators; that no one should feel want, that no one should have to sell his strength in order to support himself and his children.In short, such a thing will never happen again in the future. This is the meaning of what we mean by confiscation; this is also the responsibility we should fulfill during the period of revolution; we know that the revolution will not come in a hundred or two hundred years, but will come in the near future. up. III The general idea of ​​anarchism and the particular idea of ​​confiscation finds a great deal more sympathy, much more than we think, among individuals of independent character in general, and among those who do not regard loitering as the highest ideal.Our friends often warn us: "You can't go too far! Humanity cannot be changed in a day. Don't rush into your plans of confiscation and anarchy, otherwise, there will be no hope." danger of permanent effects." Yet our apprehension about confiscation runs counter to this opinion.We are afraid that the confiscation cannot be carried out as much as possible; I am afraid that the scale of implementation is too small to last for a long time.What we are afraid of is to suppress the enthusiasm of the revolution halfway, so that the revolution itself will be frustrated halfway, and it will not be able to be carried out completely; such a method will not please anyone, but will also produce terrible social chaos and prevent normal social activities. , Completely lose the vitality-this half-way method is only enough to arouse the grievances of ordinary people, and it will definitely help the revival of reactionary forces. In fact, in a modern state, the various relationships that have been established for a long time cannot be partially reformed.The current economic organization is like many wheels within wheels—this kind of mechanism is extremely complicated and intertwined with each other. It is impossible to improve only a part without disturbing the whole.We understand this right away when we set out to confiscate something. Let us assume that some limited confiscation has already been carried out in a certain country.For example, as has been advocated many times before, only the property of the big landowners should be transferred to the community, leaving the factories alone (as Henry George advocated); Everything else remains in private ownership; or in an industrial center the factories are taken into public ownership, but the land remains in private ownership. In these cases the same result would be obtained—that is, the terrible disintegration of industrial organization, the impossibility of reforming it in accordance with new lines.Industry and finance are completely retarded; even the first principles of justice cannot be restored; and society cannot maintain its overall harmony. If agriculture were freed from the yoke of the big landowners, and industry remained the slave of the capitalists, merchants and banks, nothing would be possible.Today's peasants suffer not only from renting land to landlords, but also from the oppression of the current social situation from all directions.He would also be robbed by a merchant who offered him a half-crown for a hoe which was worth less than sixpence (fifteen pence in French) for the labor it took to make it. a sou)!The state also taxed him; the state could not exist without that formidable bureaucratic class, and to maintain a costly army, because merchants from various countries constantly competed for the market, and one day they would be killed by some Asian or African country. The plundering incidents in some places caused a little dispute, which eventually led to a big battle. And the peasants also suffer from the depopulation of the countryside; the youth of the country flock to the metropolises, lured by the temporarily increased wages of the luxuries-manufacturing capitalists, or by the vibrancy of urban life.The artificial protection of industry, the plunder of foreign industry, the popularity of the stock exchange, the difficulties of improving the land and producing machinery, etc., etc., etc.--all these effects are at present unfavorable to agriculture.In short, what farmers suffer from is not only land rent, but also the complex current social situation based on plunder.Therefore, even though the confiscation of land is carried out, and everyone is free to cultivate the land, so that the soil can be developed as much as possible, and the harvest can be maximized, and the land rent is not paid, but in fact, agriculture can only enjoy temporary prosperity (in fact, this is extremely unsatisfactory). Reliable, there is no such thing), and later must return to the current miserable state.Everything had to start all over again, and many difficulties were added. The same holds true for industry.Handing over the factories to the workers is the same as putting the land into the common ownership of the peasants, as mentioned above.Although the factory owners are gone, they still let the landowners own the land, the bankers own the money, and the merchants own the exchanges; continue to exist—then industry will naturally come to a standstill.Among the majority of the poor peasants there are literally no customers for manufactured goods.The workers had no raw materials of their own; and because of the obstruction of commerce and the spread of industry all over the world, their manufactures could not be exported; the manufacturers felt that they could not continue to compete, and countless laborers were driven out into the streets.These starving workers had to bow their heads before several conspirators who were about to rob them.As long as they were assured that they would be allowed to work, even the old slavery was restored, which they admitted. Or, still further, the landowners are also expelled, and the factories and manufactures will of course remain under the control of the workers; but the middlemen who deal with buying and selling will still exist; Speculative trade in grain, flour, meat, groceries, etc.When the exchange of produce ceases, and the great cities (like Paris) are short of bread, and at the same time the luxuries produced by the great centers of manufacture find no buyers (like the silks of Lyon, no one wants them),— Then the counter-revolution will take place immediately.As a result, killings followed, and before they could be buried, cities and villages would be wiped out by the hail of bullets.And the execution and exile of political opponents happened continuously, just like the three revolutions in France in 1815, 1848 and 1871. ①It seems that 1793 should be used here. - translator Everything in a civilized society is intertwined; it is impossible to improve a part without changing the whole.So when we attack private property, whether industrial or land, or any other form, we should attack all.The real success of the revolution depends on this. Moreover, even if we ourselves wish to achieve only a partial confiscation, then we will reach the point where we can't stop. When the principle of "sacred property" has been shaken, no theory can save it.The field slaves in one place and the industrial slaves in another will rise up to overthrow private property. This cannot be stopped. If a metropolis (like Paris) confiscated only its houses and factories, it would at the same time refuse to allow the bankers to levy a tax of £2,000,000 on the commune in the name of interest on former public debts.The metropolis, again obliged to come into contact with the agricultural country, must have liberated the peasant from the yoke of the landowner.And for the sake of making it easier for the citizens to get food and work, and especially to prevent the waste of food, the railways should also be taken into public ownership.We must also beware of those speculators who buy grain, as they did in the Paris Commune of 1793. Therefore, the storage of goods and the distribution of products must be handled by the city itself. ① This is the local self-government of Paris, which gradually became a huge force directing the revolutionary movement in the French Revolution. The Paris Commune of 1871 was a revolutionary government for working people. - translator Some socialists, however, still want to establish a distinction.They said: "Naturally, land, mines, and factories must be confiscated; these are instruments of production, and are justly regarded as public property, but consumer goods (food, clothing, houses, etc.) are to be regarded as private property." This subtle distinction is actually less than the common sense of ordinary people.We are not savages who live in the woods for shade.A civilized man cannot live without a roof, a living room, a stove, and a bed.Yes, the bed, the chamber, the house are indeed the lazy household of the unproductive.As for the warm and bright living room of the laborer, it is only his productive equipment, just like other utensils and machinery.This room is where he accumulates the physical strength needed for tomorrow's work.The laborer's rest is like the daily maintenance of machinery. Such arguments are easier to understand when applied to food.Those so-called economists who establish the above-mentioned distinction of confiscation will probably be compelled to admit that the coal burned in machinery is as much a necessity of production as the raw material itself.Likewise, without food, human machinery is incapable of action; but how can we exclude food as an indispensable commodity for the producer?Is this a relic of religious metaphysics?It is true that the rich man's feast is too extravagant; but the laborer's food is only a part of production, just like the coal burned in the steam engine. When it comes to clothes, the principle remains the same.We are not New Guinea savages.We can understand the objection of the economists who draw the distinction between produced and consumed goods if they themselves follow the customs of the New Guinea savages.Those who can't write a word and don't wear a shirt are not qualified to judge the difference between a shirt and a pen.If the gorgeous clothes worn by the wives in our society should be counted as luxuries, many linen, cotton and woolen clothes are necessities in the life of producers.The shirts and trousers they wear when they work, and the jacket they wear when they are done, are as inseparable from them as the hammer is from the anvil. Whether we like it or not, this is how revolution is perceived by the masses.When they have brought down the government, they seek first of all their adequate shelter, the sure security of adequate food and clothing--without paying any rent or tax to the capitalists. The people can't be wrong.The methods of the masses are still more scientific than those of the economists who draw many distinctions between the instruments of production and the goods of consumption, and the masses know the point of departure of this revolution.They want to establish the basis of the only economic science that is true to science in name and reality, so that economics deserves to be called "the study of human desires and economic methods for their satisfaction" pre-science.