Essays on Political Economy | Page 3

evil which can
be inflicted on society. You see, then, workmen, that there is not a
more important question than this:--"Is the interest of capital lawful or
not?" In the former case, you must immediately renounce the struggle
to which you are being urged; in the second, you must carry it on
bravely, and to the end.
Productiveness of capital--perpetuity of interest. These are difficult
questions. I must endeavour to make myself clear. And for that purpose
I shall have recourse to example rather than to demonstration; or rather,
I shall place the demonstration in the example. I begin by
acknowledging that, at first sight, it may appear strange that capital
should pretend to a remuneration, and above all, to a perpetual
remuneration. You will say, "Here are two men. One of them works
from morning till night, from one year's end to another; and if he

consumes all which he has gained, even by superior energy, he remains
poor. When Christmas comes he is no forwarder than he was at the
beginning of the year, and has no other prospect but to begin again. The
other man does nothing, either with his hands or his head; or at least, if
he makes use of them at all, it is only for his own pleasure; it is
allowable for him to do nothing, for he has an income. He does not
work, yet he lives well; he has everything in abundance; delicate dishes,
sumptuous furniture, elegant equipages; nay, he even consumes, daily,
things which the workers have been obliged to produce by the sweat of
their brow, for these things do not make themselves; and, as far as he is
concerned, he has had no hand in their production. It is the workmen
who have caused this corn to grow, polished this furniture, woven these
carpets; it is our wives and daughters who have spun, cut out, sewed,
and embroidered these stuffs. We work, then, for him and for ourselves;
for him first, and then for ourselves, if there is anything left. But here is
something more striking still. If the former of these two men, the
worker, consumes within the year any profit which may have been left
him in that year, he is always at the point from which he started, and
his destiny condemns him to move incessantly in a perpetual circle, and
a monotony of exertion. Labour, then, is rewarded only once. But if the
other, the 'gentleman,' consumes his yearly income in the year, he has,
the year after, in those which follow, and through all eternity, an
income always equal, inexhaustible, perpetual. Capital, then, is
remunerated, not only once or twice, but an indefinite number of times!
So that, at the end of a hundred years, a family which has placed 20,000
francs,[1] at five per cent., will have had 100,000 francs; and this will
not prevent it from having 100,000 more, in the following century. In
other words, for 20,000 francs, which represent its labour, it will have
levied, in two centuries, a tenfold value on the labour of others. In this
social arrangement, is there not a monstrous evil to be reformed? And
this is not all. If it should please this family to curtail its enjoyments a
little--to spend, for example, only 900 francs, instead of 1,000--it may,
without any labour, without any other trouble beyond that of investing
100 francs a year, increase its capital and its income in such rapid
progression, that it will soon be in a position to consume as much as a
hundred families of industrious workmen. Does not all this go to prove
that society itself has in its bosom a hideous cancer, which ought to be

eradicated at the risk of some temporary suffering?"
These are, it appears to me, the sad and irritating reflections which
must be excited in your minds by the active and superficial crusade
which is being carried on against capital and interest. On the other hand,
there are moments in which, I am convinced, doubts are awakened in
your minds, and scruples in your conscience. You say to yourselves
sometimes, "But to assert that capital ought not to produce interest, is to
say that he who has created instruments of labour, or materials, or
provisions of any kind, ought to yield them up without compensation.
Is that just? And then, if it is so, who would lend these instruments,
these materials, these provisions? who would take care of them? who
even would create them? Every one would consume his proportion, and
the human race would never advance a step. Capital would be no longer
formed, since there would be no interest in forming it. It would become
exceedingly scarce. A singular step towards gratuitous loans! A
singular means of improving the