Asamatteroffact，atsomeperiodstheprogressof
populationhasbeenthemorerapidofthetwo，atothersthatof
improvement。InEnglandduringalongintervalprecedingthe
FrenchRevolution，populationincreasedslowly。buttheprogress
ofimprovement，atleastinagriculture，wouldseemtohavebeen
stillslower，sincethoughnothingoccurredtolowerthevalueof
thepreciousmetals，thepriceofcornroseconsiderably，and
England，fromanexporting，becameanimportingcountry。This
evidence，however，isshortofconclusive，inasmuchasthe
extraordinarynumberofabundantseasonsduringthefirsthalfof
thecentury，notcontinuingduringthelast，wasacauseof
increasedpriceinthelaterperiod，extrinsictotheordinary
progressofsociety。Whetherduringthesameperiodimprovements
inmanufactures，ordiminishedcostofimportedcommodities，made
amendsforthediminishedproductivenessoflabourontheland，
isuncertain。Buteversincethegreatmechanicalinventionsof
Watt，Arkwright，andtheircontemporaries，thereturntolabour
hasprobablyincreasedasfastasthepopulation;andwouldhave
out—strippedit，ifthatveryaugmentationofreturnhadnot
calledforthanadditionalportionoftheinherentpowerof
multiplicationinthehumanspecies。Duringthetwentyorthirty
yearslastelapsed，sorapidhasbeentheextensionofimproved
processesofagriculture，thateventhelandyieldsagreater
produceinproportiontothelabouremployed;theaverageprice
ofcornhadbecomedecidedlylower，evenbeforetherepealofthe
cornlawshadsomateriallylightened，forthetimebeing，the
pressureofpopulationuponproduction。Butthoughimprovement
mayduringacertainspaceoftimekeepupwith，orevensurpass，
theactualincreaseofpopulation，itassuredlynevercomesupto
therateofincreaseofwhichpopulationiscapable;andnothing
couldhavepreventedageneraldeteriorationintheconditionof
thehumanrace，wereitnotthatpopulationhasinfactbeen
restrained。Haditbeenrestrainedstillmore，andthesame
improvementstakenplace，therewouldhavebeenalargerdividend
thantherenowis，forthenationorthespeciesatlarge。The
newgroundwrungfromnaturebytheimprovementswouldnothave
beenallusedupinthesupportofmerenumbers。Thoughthegross
producewouldnothavebeensogreat，therewouldhavebeena
greaterproduceperheadofthepopulation。
3。Whenthegrowthofnumbersoutstripstheprogressof
improvement，andacountryisdriventoobtainthemeansof
subsistenceontermsmoreandmoreunfavourable，bytheinability
ofitslandtomeetadditionaldemandsexceptonmoreonerous
conditions;therearetwoexpedientsbywhichitmayhopeto
mitigatethatdisagreeablenecessity，eventhoughnochange
shouldtakeplaceinthehabitsofthepeoplewithrespectto
theirrateofincrease。Oneoftheseexpedientsisthe
importationoffoodfromabroad。Theotherisemigration。
Theadmissionofcheaperfoodfromaforeigncountry，is
equivalenttoanagriculturalinventionbywhichfoodcouldbe
raisedatasimilarlydiminishedcostathome。Itequally
increasestheproductivepoweroflabour。Thereturnwasbefore，
somuchfoodforsomuchlabouremployedinthegrowthoffood:
thereturnisnow，agreaterquantityoffood，forthesame
labouremployedinproducingcottonsorhardwareorsomeother
commodity，tobegiveninexchangeforfood。Theoneimprovement，
liketheother，throwsbackthedeclineoftheproductivepower
oflabourbyacertaindistance:butintheonecaseasinthe
other，itimmediatelyresumesitscourse;thetidewhichhas
receded，instantlybeginstore—advance。Itmightseem，indeed，
thatwhenacountrydrawsitssupplyoffoodfromsowidea
surfaceasthewholehabitableglobe，solittleimpressioncanbe
producedonthatgreatexpansebyanyincreaseofmouthsinone
smallcornerofit，thattheinhabitantsofthecountrymay
doubleandtrebletheirnumbers，withoutfeelingtheeffectin
anyincreasedtensionofthespringsofproduction，orany
enhancementofthepriceoffoodthroughouttheworld。Butin
thiscalculationseveralthingsareoverlooked。
Inthefirstplace，theforeignregionsfromwhichcorncan
beimporteddonotcomprisethewholeglobe，butthosepartsof
itprincipallywhichareintheimmediateneighbourhoodofcoasts
ornavigablerivers。Thecoastisthepartofmostcountries
whichisearliestandmostthicklypeopled，andhasseldomany
foodtospare。Thechiefsourceofsupply，therefore，isthe
stripofcountryalongthebanksofsomenavigableriver，asthe
Nile，theVistula，ortheMississippi;andofsuchthereisnot，
intheproductiveregionsoftheearth，sogreatamultitudeas
tosufficeduringanindefinitetimeforarapidlygrowing
demand，withoutanincreasingstrainontheproductivepowersof
thesoil。Toobtainauxiliarysuppliesofcornfromtheinterior
inanyabundance，is，intheexistingstateofthe
communications，inmostcasesimpracticable。Byimprovedroads，
andbycanalsandrailways，theobstaclewilleventuallybeso
reducedasnottobeinsuperable:butthisisaslowprogress;in
allthefood—exportingcountiesexceptAmerica，averyslow
progress;andonewhichcannotkeeppacewithpopulation，unless
theincreaseofthelastisveryeffectuallyrestrained。
Inthenextplace，evenifthesupplyweredrawnfromthe
wholeinsteadofasmallpartofthesurfaceoftheexporting
counties，thequantityoffoodwouldstillbelimited，which
couldbeobtainedfromthemwithoutanincreaseofthe
proportionalcost。Thecountrieswhichexportfoodmaybedivided
intotwoclasses;thoseinwhichtheeffectivedesireof
accumulationisstrong，andthoseinwhichitisweak。In
AustraliaandtheUnitedStatesofAmerica，theeffectivedesire
ofaccumulationisstrong;capitalincreasesfast，andthe
productionoffoodmightbeveryrapidlyextended。Butinsuch
countriespopulationalsoincreaseswithextraordinaryrapidity。
Theiragriculturehastoprovidefortheirownexpandingnumbers，
aswellasforthoseoftheimportingcountries。Theymust，
therefore，fromthenatureofthecase，berapidlydriven，ifnot
tolessfertile，atleastwhatisequivalent，toremoterandless
accessiblelands，andtomodesofcultivationlikethoseofold
countries，lessproductiveinproportiontothelabourand
expense。
Butthecountrieswhichhaveatthesametimecheapfoodand
greatindustrialprosperityarefew，beingonlythoseinwhich
theartsofcivilizedlifehavebeentransferredfull—growntoa
richanduncultivatedsoil。Amongoldcountries，thosewhichare
abletoexportfood，areableonlybecausetheirindustryisina
verybackwardstate;becausecapital，andhencepopulation，have
neverincreasedsufficientlytomakefoodrisetoahigherprice。
SuchcountriesareRussia，Poland，andtheplainsoftheDanube。
Inthoseregionstheeffectivedesireofaccumulationisweak，
theartsofproductionmostimperfect，capitalscanty，andits
increase，especiallyfromdomesticsources，slow。Whenan
increaseddemandaroseforfoodtobeexportedtoother
countries，itwouldonlybeverygraduallythatfoodcouldbe
producedtomeetit。Thecapitalneededcouldnotbeobtainedby
transferfromotheremployments，forsuchdonotexist。The
cottonsorhardwarewhichwouldbereceivedfromEnglandin
exchangeforcorn，theRussiansandPolesdonotnowproducein
thecountry:theygowithoutthem。Somethingmightintimebe
expectedfromtheincreasedexertionstowhichproducerswouldbe
stimulatedbythemarketopenedfortheirproduce;buttosuch
increaseofexertion，thehabitsofcountrieswhoseagricultural
populationconsistsofserfs，orofpeasantswhohavebutjust
emergedfromaservilecondition，arethereverseoffavourable，
andeveninthisageofmovementthesehabitsdonotrapidly
change。Ifagreateroutlayofcapitalisreliedonasthesource
fromwhichtheproduceistoheincreased，themeansmusteither
beobtainedbytheslowprocessofsaving，undertheimpulse
givenbynewcommoditiesandmoreextendedintercourse（andin
thatcasethepopulationwouldmostlikelyincreaseasfast），or
mustbebroughtinfromforeigncountries。IfEnglandisto
obtainarapidlyincreasingsupplyofcornfromRussiaorPoland，
Englishcapitalmustgotheretoproduceit。This，however，is
attendedwithsomanydifficulties，asareequivalenttogreat
positivedisadvantages。Itisopposedbydifferencesoflanguage，
differencesofmanners，andathousandobstacles。arisingfrom
theinstitutionsandsocialrelationsofthecountry。andafter
allitwouldinevitablysostimulatepopulationonthespot，that
nearlyalltheincreaseoffoodproducedbyitsmeanswould
probablybeconsumedwithoutleavingthecountry:sothat，ifit
werenotthealmostonlymodeofintroducingforeignartsand
ideas，andgivinganeffectualspurtothebackwardcivilization
ofthosecountries，littlereliancecouldbeplacedonitfor
increasingtheexports，andsupplyingothercountrieswitha
progressiveandindefiniteincreaseoffood。Buttoimprovethe
civilizationofacountryisaslowprocess，andgivestimefor
sogreatanincreaseofpopulationbothinthecountryitself，
andinthosesuppliedfromit，thatitseffectinkeepingdown
thepriceoffoodagainsttheincreaseofdemand，isnotlikely
tobemoredecisiveonthescaleofallEurope，thanonthe
smalleroneofaparticularnation。
Thelaw，therefore，ofdiminishingreturntoindustry，
wheneverpopulationmakesamorerapidprogressthanimprovement，
isnotsolelyapplicabletocountrieswhicharefedfromtheir
ownsoil，butinsubstanceappliesquiteasmuchtothosewhich
arewillingtodrawtheirfoodfromanyaccessiblequarterthat
canafforditcheapest。Asuddenandgreatcheapeningoffood，
indeed，inwhatevermannerproduced，would，likeanyothersudden
improvementintheartsoflife，throwthenaturaltendencyof
affairsastageortwofurtherback，thoughwithoutalteringits
course。Thereisonecontingencyconnectedwithfreedomof
importation，whichmayyetproducetemporaryeffectsgreaterthan
wereevercontemplatedeitherbythebitterestenemiesorthe
mostardentadherentsoffree—tradeinfood。Maize，orIndian
corn，isaproductcapableofbeingsuppliedinquantity
sufficienttofeedthewholecountry，atacost，allowingfor
differenceofnutritivequality，cheapereventhanthepotato。If
maizeshouldeversubstituteitselfforwheatasthestaplefood
ofthepoor，theproductivepoweroflabourinobtainingfood
wouldbesoenormouslyincreased，andtheexpenseofmaintaining
afamilysodiminished，thatitwouldrequireperhapssome
generationsforpopulation，evenifitstartedforwardatan
Americanpace，toovertakethisgreataccessiontothefacilities
ofitssupport。
4。Besidestheimportationofcorn，thereisanotherresource
whichcanheinvokedbyanationwhoseincreasingnumberspress
hard，notagainsttheircapital，butagainsttheproductive
capacityoftheirland:ImeanEmigration，especiallyintheform
ofColonization。Ofthisremedytheefficacyasfarasitgoesis
real，sinceitconsistsinseekingelsewherethoseunoccupied
tractsoffertileland，whichiftheyexistedathomewould
enablethedemandofanincreasingpopulationtobemetwithout
anyfallingoffintheproductivenessoflabour。Accordingly，
whentheregiontobecolonizedisnearathand，andthehabits
andtastesofthepeoplesufficientlymigratory，thisremedyis
completelyeffectual。Themigrationfromtheolderpartsofthe
AmericanConfederationtothenewterritories，whichistoall
intentsandpurposescolonization，iswhatenablespopulationto
goonuncheckedthroughouttheUnionwithouthavingyet
diminishedthereturntoindustry，orincreasedthedifficultyof
earningasubsistence。IfAustraliaortheinteriorofCanada
wereasneartoGreatBritainasWisconsinandIowatoNewYork;
ifthesuperfluouspeoplecouldremovetoitwithoutcrossingthe
sea，andwereofasadventurousandrestlessacharacter，andas
littleaddictedtostayingathome，astheirkinsfolkofNew
England，thoseunpeopledcontinentswouldrenderthesameservice
totheUnitedKingdomwhichtheoldstatesofAmericaderivefrom
thenew。But，thesethingsbeingastheyare——thougha
judiciouslyconductedemigrationisamostimportantresourcefor
suddenlylighteningthepressureofpopulationbyasingleeffort
——andthoughinsuchanextraordinarycaseasthatofIreland
underthethreefoldoperationofthepotatofailure，thepoor
law，andthegeneralturningoutoftenantthroughoutthe
country，spontaneousemigrationmayataparticularcrisisremove
greatermultitudesthanitwaseverproposedtoremoveatonceby
anynationalscheme;itstillremainstobeshownbyexperience
whetherapermanentsteamofemigrationcanbekeptup，
sufficienttotakeoff，asinAmerica，allthatportionofthe
annualincrease（whenproceedingatitsgreatestrapidity）which
beinginexcessoftheprogressmadeduringthesameshortperiod
intheartsoflife，tendstorenderlivingmoredifficultfor
everyaveragely—situatedindividualinthecommunity。Andunless
thiscanbedone，emigrationcannot，eveninaneconomicalpoint
ofview，dispensewiththenecessityofcheckstopopulation。
Furtherthanthiswehavenottospeakofitinthisplace。The
generalsubjectofcolonizationasapracticalquestion，its
importancetooldcountries，andtheprinciplesonwhichit
shouldbeconducted，willbediscussedatsomelengthina
subsequentportionofthisTreatise。
ThePrinciplesofPoliticalEconomy
byJohnStuartMill
Book2
Chapter1
OfProperty
1。Theprincipleswhichhavebeensetforthinthefirstpart
ofthisTreatise，are，incertainrespects，strongly
distinguishedfromthose，ontheconsiderationofwhichweare
nowabouttoenter。Thelawsandconditionsoftheproductionof
wealthpartakeofthecharacterofphysicaltruths。Thereis
nothingoptionalorarbitraryinthem。Whatevermankindproduce，
mustbeproducedinthemodes，andundertheconditions，imposed
bytheconstitutionofexternalthings，andbytheinherent
propertiesoftheirownbodilyandmentalstructure。Whetherthey
likeitornot，theirproductionswillbelimitedbytheamount
oftheirpreviousaccumulation，and，thatbeinggiven，itwillbe
proportionaltotheirenergy，theirskill，theperfectionof
theirmachinery，andtheirjudicioususeoftheadvantagesof
combinedlabour。Whethertheylikeitornot，adoublequantity
oflabourwillnotraise，onthesameland，adoublequantityof
food，unlesssomeimprovementtakesplaceintheprocessesof
cultivation。Whethertheylikeitornot，theunproductive
expenditureofindividualswillprotantotendtoimpoverishthe
community，andonlytheirproductiveexpenditurewillenrichit。
Theopinions，orthewishes，whichmayexistonthesedifferent
matters，donotcontrolthethingsthemselves。Wecannot，indeed，
foreseetowhatextentthemodesofproductionmaybealtered，or
theproductivenessoflabourincreased，byfutureextensionsof
ourknowledgeofthelawsofnature，suggestingnewprocessesof
industryofwhichwehaveatpresentnoconception。Buthowsoever
wemaysucceedinmakingforourselvesmorespacewithinthe
limitssetbytheconstitutionofthings，weknowthattheremust
belimits。Wecannotaltertheultimatepropertieseitherof
matterormind，butcanonlyemploythosepropertiesmoreorless
successfully，tobringabouttheeventsinwhichweare
interested。
ItisnotsowiththeDistributionofWealth。Thatisa
matterofhumaninstitutionsolely。Thethingsoncethere，
mankind，individuallyorcollectively，candowiththemasthey
like。Theycanplacethematthedisposalofwhomsoeverthey
please，andonwhateverterms。Further，inthesocialstate，in
everystateexcepttotalsolitude，anydisposalwhateverofthem
canonlytakeplacebytheconsentofsociety，orratherofthose
whodisposeofitsactiveforce。Evenwhatapersonhasproduced
byhisindividualtoil，unaidedbyanyone，hecannotkeep，
unlessbythepermissionofsociety。Notonlycansocietytakeit
fromhim，butindividualscouldandwouldtakeitfromhim，if
societyonlyremainedpassive;ifitdidnoteitherinterfereen
masse，oremployandpaypeopleforthepurposeofpreventinghim
frombeingdisturbedinthepossession。Thedistributionof
wealth，therefore，dependsonthelawsandcustomsofsociety。
Therulesbywhichitisdetermined，arewhattheopinionsand
feelingsoftherulingportionofthecommunitymakethem，and
areverydifferentindifferentagesandcountries;andmightbe
stillmoredifferent，ifmankindsochose。
Theopinionsandfeelingsofmankind，doubtless，arenota
matterofchance。Theyareconsequencesofthefundamentallaws
ofhumannature，combinedwiththeexistingstateofknowledge
andexperience，andtheexistingconditionofsocialinstitutions
andintellectualandmoralculture。Butthelawsofthe
generationofhumanopinionsarenotwithinourpresentsubject。
Theyarepartofthegeneraltheoryofhumanprogress，afar
largerandmoredifficultsubjectofinquirythanpolitical
economy。Wehaveheretoconsider，notthecauses，butthe
consequences，oftherulesaccordingtowhichwealthmaybe
distributed。Those，atleast，areaslittlearbitrary，andhave
asmuchthecharacterofphysicallaws，asthelawsof
production。Humanbeingscancontroltheirownacts，butnotthe
consequencesoftheiractsneithertothemselvesortoothers。
Societycansubjectthedistributionofwealthtowhateverrules
itthinksbest:butwhatpracticalresultswillflowfromthe
operationofthoserules，mustbediscovered，likeanyother
physicalormentaltruths，byobservationandreasoning。
Weproceed，then，totheconsiderationofthedifferentmodes
ofdistributingtheproduceoflandandlabour，whichhavebeen
adoptedinpractice，ormaybeconceivedintheory。Amongthese，
ourattentionisfirstclaimedbythatprimaryandfundamental
institution，onwhich，unlessinsomeexceptionalandvery
limitedcases，theeconomicalarrangementsofsocietyhavealways
rested，thoughinitssecondaryfeaturesithasvaried，andis
liabletovary。Imean，ofcourse，theinstitutionofindividual
property。
2。Privateproperty，asaninstitution，didnotoweits
origintoanyofthoseconsiderationsofutility，whichpleadfor
themaintenanceofitwhenestablished。Enoughisknownofrude
ages，bothfromhistoryandfromanalogousstatesofsocietyin
ourowntime，toshow，thattribunals（whichalwaysprecedelaws）
wereoriginallyestablished，nottodeterminerights，butto
repressviolenceandterminatequarrels。Withthisobjectchiefly
inview，theynaturallyenoughgavelegaleffecttofirst
occupancy，bytreatingastheaggressorthepersonwhofirst
commencedviolence，byturning，orattemptingtoturn，another
outofpossession。Thepreservationofthepeace，whichwasthe
originalobjectofcivilgovernment，wasthusattained;whileby
confirming，tothosewhoalreadypossessedit，evenwhatwasnot
thefruitofpersonalexertion，aguaranteewasincidentally
giventothemandothersthattheywouldbeprotectedinwhatwas
so。
Inconsideringtheinstitutionofpropertyasaquestionin
socialphilosophy，wemustleaveoutofconsiderationitsactual
origininanyoftheexistingnationsofEurope。Wemaysupposea
communityunhamperedbyanypreviouspossession;abodyof
colonists，occupyingforthefirsttimeanuninhabitedcountry’。
bringingnothingwiththembutwhatbelongedtothemincommon，
andhavingaclearfieldfortheadoptionoftheinstitutionsand
politywhichtheyjudgedmostexpedient;required，therefore，to
choosewhethertheywouldconducttheworkofproductiononthe
principleofindividualproperty，oronsomesystemofcommon
ownershipandcollectiveagency。
Ifprivatepropertywereadopted，wemustpresumethatit
wouldbeaccompaniedbynoneoftheinitialinequalitiesand
injusticeswhichobstructthebeneficialoperationofthe
principleinoldsocieties。Everyfullgrownmanorwoman，we
mustsuppose，wouldbesecuredintheunfettereduseanddisposal
ofhisorherbodilyandmentalfaculties;andtheinstrumentsof
production，thelandandtools，wouldbedividedfairlyamong
them，sothatallmightstart，inrespecttooutwardappliances，
onequalterms。Itispossiblealsotoconceivethatinthis
originalapportionment，compensationmightbemadeforthe
injuriesofnature，andthebalanceredressedbyassigningtothe
lessrobustmembersofthecommunityadvantagesinthe
distribution，sufficienttoputthemonaparwiththerest。But
thedivision，oncemade，wouldnotagainbeinterferedwith;
individualswouldbelefttotheirownexertionsandtothe
ordinarychances，formakinganadvantageoususeofwhatwas
assignedtothem。Ifindividualproperty，onthecontrary，were
excluded，theplanwhichmustbeadoptedwouldbetoholdthe
landandallinstrumentsofproductionasthejointpropertyof
thecommunity，andtocarryontheoperationsofindustryonthe
commonaccount。Thedirectionofthelabourofthecommunity
woulddevolveuponamagistrateormagistrates，whomwemay
supposeelectedbythesuffragesofthecommunity，andwhomwe
mustassumetobevoluntarilyobeyedbythem。Thedivisionofthe
producewouldinlikemannerbeapublicact。Theprinciplemight
eitherbethatofcompleteequality，orofapportionmenttothe
necessitiesordesertsofindividuals，inwhatevermannermight
beconformabletotheideasofjusticeorpolicyprevailingin
thecommunity。
Examplesofsuchassociations，onasmallscale，arethe
monasticorders，theMoravians，thefollowersofRapp，and
others:andfromthehopeswhichtheyholdoutofrelieffromthe
miseriesandiniquitiesofastateofmuchinequalityofwealth，
schemesforalargerapplicationofthesameideahavereappeared
andbecomepopularatallperiodsofactivespeculationonthe
firstprinciplesofsociety。Inanagelikethepresent，whena
generalreconsiderationofallfirstprinciplesisfelttobe
inevitable，andwhenmorethanatanyformerperiodofhistory
thesufferingportionsofthecommunityhaveavoiceinthe
discussion，itwasimpossiblebutthatideasofthisnature
shouldspreadfarandwide。ThelaterevolutionsinEuropehave
thrownupagreatamountofspeculationofthischaracter，andan
unusualshareofattentionhasconsequentlybeendrawntothe
variousformswhichtheseideashaveassumed:noristhis
attentionlikelytodiminish，butonthecontrary，toincrease
moreandmore。
Theassailantsoftheprincipleofindividualpropertymaybe
dividedintotwoclasses:thosewhoseschemeimpliesabsolute
equalityinthedistributionofthephysicalmeansoflifeand
enjoyment，andthosewhoadmitinequality，butgroundedonsome
principle，orsupposedprinciple，ofjusticeorgeneral
expediency，andnot，likesomanyoftheexistingsocial
inequalities，dependentonaccidentalone。Attheheadofthe
firstclass，astheearliestofthosebelongingtothepresent
generation，mustbeplacedMr。Owenandhisfollowers。M。Louis
BlancandM。Cabethavemorerecentlybecomeconspicuousas
apostlesofsimilardoctrines（thoughtheformeradvocates
equalityofdistributiononlyasatransitiontoastillhigher
standardofjustice，thatallshouldworkaccordingtotheir
capacity，andreceiveaccordingtotheirwants）。The
characteristicnameforthiseconomicalsystemisCommunism，a
wordofcontinentalorigin，onlyoflateintroducedintothis
country。ThewordSocialism，whichoriginatedamongtheEnglish
Communists，andwasassumedbythemasanametodesignatetheir
owndoctrine，isnow，ontheContinent，employedinalarger
sense;notnecessarilyimplyingCommunism，ortheentire
abolitionofprivateproperty，butappliedtoanysystemwhich
requiresthatthelandandtheinstrumentsofproductionshould
betheproperty，notofindividuals，butofcommunitiesor
associations，orofthegovernment。Amongsuchsystems，thetwo
ofhighestintellectualpretensionarethosewhich，fromthe
namesoftheirrealorreputedauthors，havebeencalledSt。
SimonismandFourierism;theformerdefunctasasystem，but
whichduringthefewyearsofitspublicpromulgation，sowedthe
seedsofnearlyalltheSocialisttendencieswhichhavesince
spreadsowidelyinFrance:thesecond，stillflourishinginthe
number，talent，andzealofitsadherents。
3。Whatevermaybethemeritsordefectsofthesevarious
schemes，theycannotbetrulysaidtobeimpracticable。No
reasonablepersoncandoubtthatavillagecommunity，composedof
afewthousandinhabitantscultivatinginjointownershipthe
sameextentoflandwhichatpresentfeedsthatnumberofpeople，
andproducingbycombinedlabourandthemostimprovedprocesses
themanufacturedarticleswhichtheyrequired，couldraisean
amountofproductionssufficienttomaintainthemincomfort;and
wouldfindthemeansofobtaining，andifneedbe，exacting，the
quantityoflabournecessaryforthispurpose，fromeverymember
oftheassociationwhowascapableofwork。
Theobjectionordinarilymadetoasystemofcommunityof
propertyandequaldistributionoftheproduce，thateachperson
wouldbeincessantlyoccupiedinevadinghisfairshareofthe
work，points，undoubtedly，toarealdifficulty。Butthosewho
urgethisobjection，forgettohowgreatanextentthesame
difficultyexistsunderthesystemonwhichnine—tenthsofthe
businessofsocietyisnowconducted。Theobjectionsupposes，
thathonestandefficientlabourisonlytobehadfromthosewho
arethemselvesindividuallytoreapthebenefitoftheirown
exertions。Buthowsmallapartofallthelabourperformedin
England，fromthelowest—paidtothehighest，isdonebypersons
workingfortheirownbenefit。FromtheIrishreaperorhodmanto
thechiefjusticeortheministerofstate，nearlyallthework
ofsocietyisremuneratedbydaywagesorfixedsalaries。A
factoryoperativehaslesspersonalinterestinhisworkthana
memberofaCommunistassociation，sinceheisnot，likehim，
workingforapartnershipofwhichheishimselfamember。It
willnodoubtbesaid，thatthoughthelabourersthemselveshave
not，inmostcases，apersonalinterestintheirwork，theyare
watchedandsuperintended，andtheirlabourdirected，andthe
mentalpartofthelabourperformed，bypersonswhohave。Even
this，however，isfarfrombeinguniversallythefact。Inall
public，andmanyofthelargestandmostsuccessfulprivate
undertakings，notonlythelaboursofdetailbutthecontroland
superintendenceareentrustedtosalariedofficers。Andthough
the\"master’seye，\"whenthemasterisvigilantandintelligent，
isofproverbialvalue，itmustberememberedthatinaSocialist
farmormanufactory，eachlabourerwouldbeundertheeyenotof
onemaster，butofthewholecommunity。Intheextremecaseof
obstinateperseveranceinnotperformingthedueshareofwork，
thecommunitywouldhavethesameresourceswhichsocietynowhas
forcompellingconformitytothenecessaryconditionsofthe
association。Dismissal，theonlyremedyatpresent，isnoremedy
whenanyotherlabourerwhomaybeengageddoesnobetterthan
hispredecessor:thepowerofdismissalonlyenablesanemployer
toobtainfromhisworkmenthecustomaryamountoflabour，but
thatcustomarylabourmaybeofanydegreeofinefficiency。Even
thelabourerwholoseshisemploymentbyidlenessornegligence，
hasnothingworsetosuffer，inthemostunfavourablecase，than
thedisciplineofaworkhouse，andifthedesiretoavoidthisbe
asufficientmotiveintheonesystem，itwouldbesufficientin
theother。Iamnotundervaluingthestrengthoftheincitement
giventolabourwhenthewholeoralargeshareofthebenefitof
extraexertionbelongstothelabourer。Butunderthepresent
systemofindustrythisincitement，inthegreatmajorityof
cases，doesnotexist。IfCommunisticlabourmightbeless
vigorousthanthatofapeasantproprietor，oraworkman
labouringonhisownaccount，itwouldprobablybemoreenergetic
thanthatofalabourerforhire，whohasnopersonalinterestin
thematteratall。Theneglectbytheuneducatedclassesof
labourersforhire，ofthedutieswhichtheyengagetoperform，
isinthepresentstateofsocietymostflagrant。Nowitisan
admittedconditionoftheCommunistschemethatallshallbe
educated:andthisbeingsupposed，thedutiesofthemembersof
theassociationwoulddoubtlessbeasdiligentlyperformedas
thoseofthegeneralityofsalariedofficersinthemiddleor
higherclasses;whoarenotsupposedtobenecessarilyunfaithful
totheirtrust，becausesolongastheyarenotdismissed，their
payisthesameinhoweverlaxamannertheirdutyisfulfilled。
Undoubtedly，asageneralrule，remunerationbyfixedsalaries
doesnotinanyclassoffunctionariesproducethemaximumof
zeal:andthisisasmuchascanbereasonablyallegedagainst
Communisticlabour。
Thateventhisinferioritywouldnecessarilyexist，isbyno
meanssocertainasisassumedbythosewhoarelittleusedcarry
totheirmindsbeyondthestateofthingswithwhichtheyare
familiar。Mankindarecapableofafargreateramountofpublic
spiritthanthepresentageisaccustomedtosupposepossible。
Historybearswitnesstothesuccesswithwhichlargebodiesof
humanbeingsmaybetrainedtofeelthepublicinteresttheir
own。Andnosoilcouldbemorefavourabletothegrowthofsucha
feeling，thanaCommunistassociation，sincealltheambition，
andthebodilyandmentalactivity，whicharenowexertedinthe
pursuitofseparateandself—regardinginterests，wouldrequire
anothersphereofemployment，andwouldnaturallyfinditinthe
pursuitofthegeneralbenefitofthecommunity。Thesamecause，
sooftenassignedinexplanationofthedevotionoftheCatholic
priestormonktotheinterestofhisorder——thathehasno
interestapartfromit——would，underCommunism，attachthe
citizentothecommunity。Andindependentlyofthepublicmotive，
everymemberoftheassociationwouldbeamenabletothemost
universal，andoneofthestrongest，ofpersonalmotives，thatof
publicopinion。Theforceofthismotiveindeterringfromany
actoromissionpositivelyreprovedbythecommunity，nooneis
likelytodeny;butthepoweralsoofemulation，inexcitingto
themoststrenuousexertionsforthesakeoftheapprobationand
admirationofothers，isbornewitnesstobyexperienceinevery
situationinwhichhumanbeingspubliclycompetewithone
another，evenifitbeinthingsfrivolous，orfromwhichthe
publicderivenobenefit。Acontest，whocandomostforthe
commongood，isnotthekindofcompetitionwhichSocialists
repudiate。Towhatextent，therefore，theenergyoflabourwould
bediminishedbyCommunism，orwhetherinthelongrunitwould
bediminishedatall，mustbeconsideredforthepresentan
undecidedquestion。
AnotheroftheobjectionstoCommunismissimilartothat，so
oftenurgedagainstpoor—laws:thatifeverymemberofthe
communitywereassuredofsubsistenceforhimselfandanynumber
ofchildren，onthesoleconditionofwillingnesstowork，
prudentialrestraintonthemultiplicationofmankindwouldbeat
anend，andpopulationwouldstartforwardataratewhichwould
reducethecommunity，throughsuccessivestagesofincreasing
discomfort，toactualstarvation。Therewouldcertainlybemuch
groundforthisapprehensionifCommunismprovidednomotivesto
restraint，equivalenttothosewhichitwouldtakeaway。But
Communismispreciselythestateofthingsmwhichopinionmight
beexpectedtodeclareitselfwithgreatestintensityagainst
thiskindofselfishintemperance。Anyaugmentationofnumbers
whichdiminishedthecomfortorincreasedthetoilofthemass，
wouldthencause（whichnowitdoesnot）immediateand
unmistakeableinconveniencetoeveryindividualinthe
association;inconveniencewhichcouldnotthenbeimputedtothe
avariceofemployers，ortheunjustprivilegesoftherich。In
suchalteredcircumstancesopinioncouldnotfailtoreprobate，
andifreprobationdidnotsuffice，torepressbypenaltiesof
somedescription，thisoranyotherculpableself—indulgenceat
theexpenseofthecommunity。TheCommunisticscheme，insteadof
beingpeculiarlyopentotheobjectiondrawnfromdangerof
over—population，hastherecommendationoftendinginanespecial
degreetothepreventionofthatevil。
Amorerealdifficultyisthatoffairlyapportioningthe
labourofthecommunityamongitsmembers。Therearemanykinds
ofwork，andbywhatstandardaretheytobemeasuredoneagainst
another？Whoistojudgehowmuchcottonspinning，or
distributinggoodsfromthestores，orbricklaying，orchimney
sweeping，isequivalenttosomuchploughing？Thedifficultyof
makingtheadjustmentbetweendifferentqualitiesoflabourisso
stronglyfeltbyCommunistwriters，thattheyhaveusually
thoughtitnecessarytoprovidethatallshouldworkbyturnsat
everydescriptionofusefullabour。anarrangementwhich，by
puttinganendtothedivisionofemployments，wouldsacrificeso
muchoftheadvantageofco—operativeproductionasgreatlyto
diminishtheproductivenessoflabour。Besides，eveninthesame
kindofwork，nominalequalityoflabourwouldbesogreatareal
inequality，thatthefeelingofjusticewouldrevoltagainstits
beingenforced。Allpersonsarenotequallyfitforalllabour;
andthesamequantityoflabourisanunequalburthenontheweak
andthestrong，thehardyandthedelicate，thequickandthe
slow，thedullandtheintelligent。
Butthesedifficulties，thoughreal，arenotnecessarily
insuperable。Theapportionmentofworktothestrengthand
capacitiesofindividuals，themitigationofageneralruleto
provideforcasesinwhichitwouldoperateharshly，arenot
problemstowhichhumanintelligence，guidedbyasenseof
justice，wouldbeinadequate。Andtheworstandmostunjust
arrangementwhichcouldbemadeofthesepoints，underasystem
aimingatequality，wouldbesofarshortoftheinequalityand
injusticewithwhichlabour（nottospeakofremuneration）isnow
apportioned，astobescarcelyworthcountingincomparison。We
mustremembertoo，thatCommunism，asasystemofsociety，exists
onlyinidea;thatitsdifficulties，atpresent，aremuchbetter
understoodthanitsresources;andthattheintellectofmankind
isonlybeginningtocontrivethemeansoforganizingitin
detail，soastoovercometheoneandderivethegreatest
advantagefromtheother。
If，therefore，thechoiceweretobemadebetweenCommunism
withallitschances，andthepresentstateofsocietywithall
itssufferingsandinjustices;iftheinstitutionofprivate
propertynecessarilycarriedwithitasaconsequence，thatthe
produceoflabourshouldbeapportionedaswenowseeit，almost
inaninverseratiotothelabour——thelargestportionsto
thosewhohaveneverworkedatall，thenextlargesttothose
whoseworkisalmostnominal，andsoinadescendingscale，the
remunerationdwindlingastheworkgrowsharderandmore
disagreeable，untilthemostfatiguingandexhaustingbodily
labourcannotcountwithcertaintyonbeingabletoearneventhe
necessariesoflife;ifthisorCommunismwerethealternative，
allthedifficulties，greatorsmall，ofCommunismwouldbebut
asdustinthebalance。Buttomakethecomparisonapplicable，we
mustcompareCommunismatitsbest，withtheregimeofindividual
property，notasitis，butasitmightbemade。Theprincipleof
privatepropertyhasneveryethadafairtrialinanycountry;
andlessso，perhaps，inthiscountrythaninsomeothers。The
socialarrangementsofmodernEuropecommencedfroma
distributionofpropertywhichwastheresult，notofjust
partition，oracquisitionbyindustry，butofconquestand
violence:andnotwithstandingwhatindustryhasbeendoingfor
manycenturiestomodifytheworkofforce，thesystemstill
retainsmanyandlargetracesofitsorigin。Thelawsofproperty
haveneveryetconformedtotheprinciplesonwhichthe
justificationofprivatepropertyrests。Theyhavemadeproperty
ofthingswhichneveroughttobeproperty，andabsoluteproperty
whereonlyaqualifiedpropertyoughttoexist。Theyhavenot
heldthebalancefairlybetweenhumanbeings，buthaveheaped
impedimentsuponsome，togiveadvantagetoothers;theyhave
purposelyfosteredinequalities，andpreventedallfromstarting
fairintherace。Thatallshouldindeedstartonperfectlyequal
terms，isinconsistentwithanylawofprivateproperty:butif
asmuchpainsashasbeentakentoaggravatetheinequalityof
chancesarisingfromthenaturalworkingoftheprinciple，had
beentakentotemperthatinequalitybyeverymeansnot
subversiveoftheprincipleitself;ifthetendencyof
legislationhadbeentofavourthediffusion，insteadofthe
concentrationofwealth——toencouragethesubdivisionofthe
largemasses，insteadofstrivingtokeepthemtogether;the
principleofindividualpropertywouldhavebeenfoundtohaveno
necessaryconnexionwiththephysicalandsocialevilswhich
almostallSocialistwritersassumetobeinseparablefromit。
Privateproperty，ineverydefencemadeofit，issupposedto
mean，theguaranteetoindividualsofthefruitsoftheirown
labourandabstinence。Theguaranteetothemofthefruitsofthe
labourandabstinenceofothers，transmittedtothemwithoutany
meritorexertionoftheirown，isnotoftheessenceofthe
institution，butamereincidentalconsequence，which，whenit
reachesacertainheight，doesnotpromote，butconflictswith，
theendswhichrenderprivatepropertylegitimate。Tojudgeof
thefinaldestinationoftheinstitutionofproperty，wemust
supposeeverythingrectified，whichcausestheinstitutionto
workinamanneropposedtothatequitableprinciple，of
proportionbetweenremunerationandexertion，onwhichinevery
vindicationofitthatwillbearthelight，itisassumedtobe
grounded。Wemustalsosupposetwoconditionsrealized，without
whichneitherCommunismnoranyotherlawsorinstitutionscould
maketheconditionofthemassofmankindotherthandegradedand
miserable。Oneoftheseconditionsis，universaleducation;the
other，aduelimitationofthenumbersofthecommunity。With
these，therecouldbenopoverty，evenunderthepresentsocial
institutions:andthesebeingsupposed，thequestionofSocialism
isnot，asgenerallystatedbySocialists，aquestionofflying
tothesolerefugeagainsttheevilswhichnowbeardown
humanity;butamerequestionofcomparativeadvantages，which
futuritymustdetermine。Wearetooignoranteitherofwhat
individualagencyinitsbestform，orSocialisminitsbest
form，canaccomplish，tobequalifiedtodecidewhichofthetwo
willbetheultimateformofhumansociety。
Ifaconjecturemaybehazarded，thedecisionwillprobably
dependmainlyononeconsideration，viz。whichofthetwosystems
isconsistentwiththegreatestamountofhumanlibertyand
spontaneity。Afterthemeansofsubsistenceareassured，thenext
instrengthofthepersonalwantsofhumanbeingsisliberty;and
（unlikethephysicalwants，whichascivilizationadvancesbecome
moremoderateandmoreamenabletocontrol）itincreasesinstead
ofdiminishinginintensity，astheintelligenceandthemoral
facultiesaremoredeveloped。Theperfectionbothofsocial
arrangementsandofpracticalmoralitywouldbe，tosecuretoall
personscompleteindependenceandfreedomofaction，subjectto
norestrictionbutthatofnotdoinginjurytoothers:andthe
educationwhichtaughtorthesocialinstitutionswhichrequired
themtoexchangethecontroloftheirownactionsforanyamount
ofcomfortoraffluence，ortorenouncelibertyforthesakeof
equality，woulddeprivethemofoneofthemosteLevated
characteristicsofhumannature。Itremainstobediscoveredhow
farthepreservationofthischaracteristicwouldbefound
compatiblewiththeCommunisticorganizationofsociety。No
doubt，this，likealltheotherobjectionstotheSocialist
schemes，isvastlyexaggerated。Themembersoftheassociation
neednotberequiredtolivetogethermorethantheydonow，nor
needtheybecontrolledinthedisposaloftheirindividualshare
oftheproduce，andoftheprobablylargeamountofleisure
which，iftheylimitedtheirproductiontothingsreallyworth
producing，theywouldpossess。Individualsneednotbechainedto
anoccupation，ortoaparticularlocality。Therestraintsof
Communismwouldbefreedomincomparisonwiththepresent
conditionofthemajorityofthehumanrace。Thegeneralityof
labourersinthisandmostothercountries，haveaslittlechoice
ofoccupationorfreedomoflocomotion，arepracticallyas
dependentonfixedrulesandonthewillofothers，astheycould
beonanysystemshortofactualslavery;tosaynothingofthe
entiredomesticsubjectionofonehalfthespecies，towhichit
isthesignalhonourofOwenismandmostotherformsofSocialism
thattheyassignequalrights，inallrespects，withthoseofthe
hithertodominantsex。Butitisnotbycomparisonwiththe
presentbadstateofsocietythattheclaimsofCommunismcanbe
estimated;norisitsufficientthatitshouldpromisegreater
personalandmentalfreedomthanisnowenjoyedbythosewhohave
notenoughofeithertodeservethename。Thequestionis，
whethertherewouldbeanyasylumleftforindividualityof
character;whetherpublicopinionwouldnotbeatyrannicalyoke;
whethertheabsolutedependenceofeachonall，andsurveillance
ofeachbyall，wouldnotgrindalldownintoatameuniformity
ofthoughts，feelings，andactions。Thisisalreadyoneofthe
glaringevilsoftheexistingstateofsociety，notwithstandinga
muchgreaterdiversityofeducationandpursuits，andamuchless
absolutedependenceoftheindividualonthemass，thanwould
existintheCommunisticregime。Nosocietyinwhicheccentricity
isamatterofreproach，canbeinawholesomestate。Itisyet
tobeascertainedwhethertheCommunisticschemewouldbe
consistentwiththatmultiformdevelopmentofhumannature，those
manifoldunlikenesses，thatdiversityoftastesandtalents，and
varietyofintellectualpointsofview，whichnotonlyforma
greatpartoftheinterestofhumanlife，butbybringing
intellectsintostimulatingcollision，andbypresentingtoeach
innumerablenotionsthathewouldnothaveconceivedofhimself，
arethemainspringofmentalandmoralprogression。
4。IhavethusfarobservationstotheCommunisticdoctrine，
whichformstheextremelimitofSocialism;accordingtowhich
notonlytheinstrumentsofthelandandcapital，arethejoint
propertyofthecommunity，buttheproduceisdividedandthe
labourapportioned，asfaraspossible，equally。Theobjections，
whetherwellorillgrounded，towhichSocialismisliable，apply
tothisformofitintheirgreatestforce。Theothervarieties
ofSocialismmainlydifferfromCommunism，innotrelyingsolely
onwhatM。LouisBlanccallsthepointofhonourofindustry，but
retainingmoreorlessoftheincentivestolabourderivedfrom
privatepecuniaryinterest。Thusitisalreadyamodificationof
thestricttheoryofCommunism，whentheprincipleisprofessed
ofproportioningremunerationtolabour。Theattemptswhichhave
beenmadeinFrancetocarrySocialismintopracticaleffect，by
associationsofworkmenmanufacturingontheirownaccount，
mostlybeganbysharingtheremunerationequally，withoutregard
tothequantityofworkdonebytheindividual:butinalmost
everycasethisplanwasafterashorttimeabandoned，and
recoursewashadtoworkingbythepiece。Theoriginalprinciple
appealstoahigherstandardofjustice，andisadaptedtoamuch
highermoralconditionofhumannature。Theproportioningof
remunerationtoworkdone，isreallyjust，onlyinsofarasthe
moreorlessoftheworkisamatterofchoice:whenitdepends
onnaturaldifferenceofstrengthorcapacity，thisprincipleof
remunerationisinitselfaninjustice:itisgivingtothosewho
have;assigningmosttothosewhoarealreadymostfavouredby
nature。Considered，however，asacompromisewiththeselfish
typeofcharacterformedbythepresentstandardofmorality，and
fosteredbytheexistingsocialinstitutions，itishighly
expedient;anduntileducationshallhavebeenentirely
regenerated，isfarmorelikelytoproveimmediatelysuccessful，
thananattemptatahigherideal。
Thetwoelaborateformsofnon—communisticSocialismknownas
St。SimonismandFourierism，aretotallyfreefromtheobjections
usuallyurgedagainstCommunism;andthoughtheyareopento
othersoftheirown，yetbythegreatintellectualpowerwhichin
manyrespectsdistinguishesthem，andbytheirlargeand
philosophictreatmentofsomeofthefundamentalproblemsof
societyandmorality，theymayjustlybecountedamongthemost
remarkableproductionsofthepastandpresentage。
TheSt。Simonianschemedoesnotcontemplateanequal，butan
unequaldivisionoftheproduce;itdoesnotproposethatall
shouldbeoccupiedalike，butdifferently，accordingtotheir
vocationorcapacity。，thefunctionofeachbeingassigned，like
gradesinaregiment，bythechoiceofthedirectingauthority，
andtheremunerationbeingbysalary，proportionedtothe
importance，intheeyesofthatauthority，ofthefunction
itself，andthemeritsofthepersonwhofulfilsit。Forthe
constitutionoftherulingbody，differentplansmightbe
adopted，consistentlywiththeessentialsofthesystem。Itmight
beappointedbypopuLarsuffrage。Intheideaoftheoriginal
authors，therulersweresupposedtobepersonsofgeniusand
virtue，whoobtainedthevoluntaryadhesionoftherestbythe
forceofmentalsuperiority。Thattheschememightinsome
peculiarstatesofsocietyworkwithadvantage，isnot
improbable。Thereisindeedasuccessfulexperiment，ofa
somewhatsimilarkind，onrecord，towhichIhaveoncealluded;
thatoftheJesuitsinParaguay。Araceofsavages，belongingto
aportionofmankindmoreaversetoconsecutiveexertionfora
distantobjectthananyotherauthenticallyknowntous，was
broughtunderthementaldominionofcivilizedandinstructedmen
whowereunitedamongthemselvesbyasystemofcommunityof
goods。Totheabsoluteauthorityofthesementheyreverentially
submittedthemselves，andwereinducedbythemtolearnthearts
ofcivilizedlife，andtopractiselaboursforthecommunity，
whichnoinducementthatcouldhavebeenofferedwouldhave
prevailedonthemtopractiseforthemselves。Thissocialsystem
wasofshortduration，beingprematurelydestroyedbydiplomatic
arrangementsandforeignforce。Thatitcouldbebroughtinto
actionatallwasprobablyowingtotheimmensedistanceinpoint
ofknowledgeandintellectwhichseparatedthefewrulersfrom
thewholebodyoftheruled，withoutanyintermediateorders，
eithersocialorintellectual。Inanyothercircumstancesit
wouldprobablyhavebeenacompletefailure。Itsupposesan
absolutedespotismintheheadsoftheassociation;whichwould
probablynotbemuchimprovedifthedepositariesofthe
despotism（contrarytotheviewsoftheauthorsofthesystem）
werevariedfromtimetotimeaccordingtotheresultofa
popularcanvass。