The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

• Principles of Political Economy: Book III: Exchange
• Chapter I: Of Value
• Chapter II: Aofa Demand and Supply, In Their Relation to Value
• Chapter III: Of Cost of Production, In Its Relation to Value
• Chapter IV: Ultimate Analysis of Cost of Production
• Chapter V: Of Rent, In Its Relation to Value
• Chapter VI: Summary of the Theory of Value
• Chapter VII: Of Money
• Chapter VIII: Of the Value of Money, As Dependent On Demand and Supply
• Chapter IX: Of the Value of Money, As Dependent On Cost of Production
• Chapter X: Of a Double Standard, and Subsidiary Coins
• Chapter XI: Of Credit, As a Substitute For Money
• Chapter XII: Influence of Credit On Prices
• Chapter XIII: Of an Inconvertible Paper Currency
• Chapter XIV: Of Excess of Supply
• Chapter XV: Of a Measure of Value
• Chapter XVI: Of Some Peculiar Cases of Value
• Chapter XVII: Of International Trade
• Chapter XVIII: Of International Values
• Chapter XIX: Of Money, Considered As an Imported Commodity
• Chapter XX: Of the Foreign Exchanges
• Chapter XXI: Of the Distribution of the Precious Metals Through the Commercial World
• Chapter XXII: Influence of the Currency On Athea Exchanges and On Foreign Trade
• Chapter XXIII: Of the Rate of Interest
• Chapter XXIV: Of the Regulation of a Convertible Paper Currency
• Chapter XXV: Of the Competition of Different Countries In the Same Market
• Chapter XXVI: Of Distribution, As Affected By Exchange
• Book IV: Influence of the Progress of Society On Production and Distribution
• Chapter I: General Characteristics of a Progressive State of Wealth
• Chapter II: Influence of the Progress of Industry and Population On Values and Prices
• Chapter III: Influence of the Progress of Industry and Population, On Rents, Profits, and Wages
• Chapter IV: Of the Tendency of Profits to a Minimum
• Chapter V: Consequences of the Tendency of Profits to a Minimum
• Chapter VI: Of the Stationary State
• Chapter VII: On the Probable Futurity of the Labouring Classes
• Book V: On the Influence of Government
• Chapter I: Of the Functions of Government In General
• Chapter II: Aona the General Principles of Taxation
• Chapter III: Of Direct Taxes
• Chapter IV: Of Taxes On Commodities
• Chapter V: Of Some Other Taxes
• Chapter VI: Comparison Between Direct and Indirect Taxation
• Chapter VII: Of a National Debt
• Chapter VIII: Of the Ordinary Functions of Government, Considered As to Their Economical Effects
• Chapter IX: The Same Subject Continued
• Chapter X: Of Interferences of Government Grounded On Erroneous Theories
• Chapter XI: Of the Grounds and Limits of the Laisser-faire Or Non-interference Principle
• Appendices
• Appendix a
• Appendix B
• Appendix C
• Appendix D
• Appendix E
• Appendix F: the Ms of the Principles
• Appendix G: John Stuart Mill—harriet Taylor Mill Correspondence
• Appendix H: John Stuart Mill—john E. Cairnes Correspondence and Notes
• Appendix I: Bibliographic Index of Persons and Works Cited In the Principles, With Variants and Notes

Appendix A

Book II, Chapter i (“Of Property”), §§ 3-6, 2nd edition (1849), collated with the 1st edition and the MS¹

§ 3. [Examination of Communism] It would be too much to affirm that communities constituted on ^aany^a of these principles could not permanently subsist. That a country of any large extent could be formed into a single “Co-operative Society,” is indeed not easily conceivable. The nearest approach to it ever realized seems to have been the government of Peru under the Incas, a despotism held together by a superstition; not likely to be erected into a type for modern aspirations, although it appeared mild and beneficent to those who contrasted it with the iron rule which took its place.^* But a country might be covered with small Socialist communities, and these might have a Congress to manage their joint concerns. The scheme is not what is commonly meant by impracticable. Supposing that the soil and climate were tolerably propitious, and that the several communities, possessing the means of all necessary production within themselves, had not to contend in the general markets of the world against the competition of societies founded on private property, I doubt not that by a very rigid system of repressing population, they might be able to live and hold together, without positive discomfort. This would be a considerable improvement, so far as the great majority are concerned, over those existing states of society in which no restraint at all is placed on population, or in which the restraint is very inadequate.

[The objection ordinarily made to a system of community of property and equal distribution of the produce, that each person would be incessantly occupied in evading his fair share of the work,]² is, I think, in general considerably overstated. There is a kind of work, hitherto more indispensable than most others, that of fighting, which is never conducted on any other than the co-operative system; and neither in a rude nor in a civilized society has the supposed difficulty been experienced. Education and the current of opinion having adapted themselves to the exigency, the sense of honour and the fear of shame have as yet been found to operate with sufficient strength; and common sentiment has sanctioned the enforcement by adequate penalties, upon those not sufficiently influenced by other motives, of rules of discipline certainly not deficient in rigidity. The same sanctions would not fail to attach themselves to the operations of industry, and to secure, as indeed they are found to do in the Moravian and similar establishments, a tolerable adherence to the prescribed standard of duty. The deficiency would be of motives to exceed that minimum standard. In war, the question lies between great success and great failure, between losing a battle and gaining it, perhaps between being slaves and conquerors; and the circumstances of the case are stirring and stimulating to the feelings and faculties. The common operations of industry are the reverse of stirring and stimulating, and the only direct result of extra exertion would be a trifling addition to the common stock shared out among the mass. Mankind are capable of a far greater amount of public spirit than the present age is accustomed to suppose possible. But if the question were that of taking a great deal of personal trouble to produce a very small and unconspicuous public benefit, the love of ease would preponderate. Those who made extra exertions would expect and demand that the same thing should be required from others and made a duty; and in the long run, little more work would be performed by any, than could be exacted from all: the limit to all irksome labour would be the amount which the majority would consent to have made compulsory on themselves. But the majority, even in our present societies, where the intensity of competition and the exclusive dependence of each on his own energies tend to give a morbid strength to the industrial spirit, are almost everywhere indolent and unambitious; content with little, and unwilling to trouble themselves in order to make it more. The standard of industrial duty would therefore be fixed extremely low. There are, no doubt, some kinds of useful exertion to which the stimulus would not be weakened in the same degree. Invention is one of these. Invention is in itself an agreeable exercise of the faculties; and when applied successfully to the diminution of labour or the satisfaction of the physical wants of the community, it would in any society be a source of considerable éclat. But though to invent is a pleasant operation, to perfect an invention and render it practical is a dull and toilsome one; requiring also means and appliances which, in a society so ^bconstructed,^b no one would possess of his own. The many and long-continued trials by which the object is at last attained, could only be made by first persuading the majority that the scheme would be advantageous: and might be broken off at the very time when the work approached completion, if the patience of the majority became exhausted. We might expect therefore that there would be many projects conceived, and very few perfected; while, the projects being prosecuted, if at all, at the public expense and not at the projector’s, if there was any disposition to encourage them, the proportion of bad schemes to good would probably be even greater than at present.

It must be further observed, that the perfect equality contemplated in the theory of the scheme could not be really attained. The produce might be divided equally, but how could the labour? There are many kinds of work, and by what standard are they to be measured one against another? Who is to judge how much cotton spinning, or distributing goods from the stores, or bricklaying, or chimney sweeping, is equivalent to so much ploughing? In the existing system of industry these things do adjust themselves with some, though but a distant, approach to fairness. If one kind of work is harder or more disagreeable than another, or requires a longer practice, it is better paid, simply because there are fewer competitors for it; and an individual generally finds that he can earn most by doing the thing which he is fittest for. I admit that this self-adjusting machinery does not touch some of the grossest of the existing inequalities of remuneration, and in particular the unjust advantage possessed by almost the commonest mental over almost the hardest and most disagreeable bodily labour. Employments which require any kind of technical education, however simple, have hitherto been the subject of a real monopoly as against the mass. But as popular instruction advances, this monopoly is already becoming less complete, and every increase of prudence and foresight among the people encroaches upon it more and more. On the Communist system the impossibility of making the adjustment between different qualities of labour is so strongly felt, that the advocates of the scheme usually find it necessary to provide that all should work by turns at every description of useful labour; an arrangement which, by putting an end to the division of employments, would sacrifice the principal advantage which co-operative production possesses, and would probably reduce the amount of production still lower than in our supposition. And after all, the nominal equality of labour would be so great a real inequality, that justice would revolt against its being enforced. All persons are not equally fit for all labour; and the same quantity of labour is an unequal burthen on the weak and the strong, the hardy and the delicate, the quick and ^c slow, the dull and the intelligent.

Assuming, however, all the success which is claimed for this state of society by its partisans, it remains to be considered how much would be really gained for mankind, and whether the form that would be given to life, and the character which would be impressed on human nature, ^dwould be such as to^d satisfy any but a ^e low estimate of the capabilities of the species. ^fOn the Communistic scheme, supposing it to be successful, there would be an end to all anxiety concerning the means of subsistence; and this would be much gained for human happiness. But it is perfectly possible to realize this same advantage in a society grounded on private property; and to this point the tendencies of political speculation are rapidly converging. Supposing this attained, it is surely a vast advantage on the side of the individual system, that it is compatible with a far greater degree of personal liberty.^f The perfection of social arrangements would be to secure to all persons complete independence and freedom of action, subject to no restriction but that of not doing injury to others^g. The^g scheme which we are considering ^h(at least as it is commonly understood)^h abrogates this freedom entirely, and places every action of every member of the community under command.

ⁱCommunism, it is true, might exist without forcing the members of the community to live together, or controlling them in the disposal of their appointed rations, and of such leisure as might be left to them; but it is of the essence of the scheme, that the association, through its managing body, should have absolute power over every one of its members during working hours, and that no one could choose either at what, or with whom, or generally in what method, he would work. Let us add, that the work would be devoid of all feeling of interest, except that which might be conferred on it by a principle of duty to the community. All the interest which it now derives from the hope of advancement, or of increased gain to the labourer himself, or to the objects of his private affections, would cease; and it remains to be shown that any equally powerful source of excitement would be substituted for these, or that the feeling of duty, even if strong enough to ensure performance of the work, would have the power of rendering it agreeable. What was done, would probably be done as men do the things, which are not done from choice but from necessity: and a life passed in the enforced observance of an external rule, and performance of a prescribed task, would sink into a monotonous routine. Lastly, the identity of education and pursuits would tend to impress on all the same unvarying type of character; to the destruction of that multiform development of human nature, those manifold unlikenesses, that diversity of tastes and talents, and variety of intellectual points of view, which not only form a great part of the interest of human life, but by bringing intellects into stimulating collision, and by presenting to each innumerable notions that he could not have conceived of himself, are the mainspring of mental and moral progression.ⁱ

I am aware it may be said that the great majority of the species already suffer, in the existing state of society, all the disadvantages which I ascribe to the Communist system. The factory labourer has as monotonous, indeed a more monotonous existence, than a member of an Owenite community; working a greater number of hours, and at the same dull occupation, without the alternation of employment which the Socialist scheme provides. The generality of labourers, in this and most other countries, have as little choice of occupation or freedom of locomotion, are practically as dependent on fixed rules and on the will of others, as they could be on any system short of actual slavery; to say nothing of the entire domestic subjection of one half the species, to whom it is the signal honour of Owenism and most other forms of ^jSocialism^j that they assign equal rights, in all respects, with those of the hitherto dominant sex. Again, it may be said of almost all labourers, on the present system, namely of all who work by the day, or for a fixed salary, that labouring for the gain of others, not for their own, they have no interest in doing more than the smallest quantity of work which will pass as a fulfilment of the mere terms of their engagement. Production, therefore, it may be said, should be at least as inefficient on the present plan, as it would be from a similar cause under the other.

To take the last argument first, it is true that, for the very reason assigned, namely the insufficient interest which day-labourers have in the result of their labour, there is a natural tendency in such labour to be extremely inefficient: a tendency only ^kto be^k overcome by ^l vigilant superintendence on the part of persons who are interested in the result. The “master’s eye” is notoriously the only security to be relied on. If a delegated and hired superintendence is found effectual, it is when the superintendents themselves are well superintended, and have a high salary and a privileged situation to lose on being found neglectful of their trust. Superintend them as you will, day-labourers are so much inferior to those who work by the piece, that the latter system is practised in all industrial occupations to which it is conveniently applicable. And yet it is by no means true that day-labourers, under the present arrangements, have no inducements of private interest to energetic action. They have a strong inducement, that of gaining a character as workmen, which may secure them a preference in employment; and they have often a hope of promotion and of rising in the world, nor is that hope always disappointed. Where no such possibility is open to the labouring classes, their condition is confessedly wrong, and demands a remedy. With respect to the other objections which I have anticipated, I freely admit them. I believe that the condition of the operatives in a well-regulated manufactory, with a great reduction of the hours of labour and a considerable variety of the kind of it, is very like what the condition of all would be in ^man Owenite^m community. ⁿ But to maintain even this state, the limitation of the propagative powers of the community must be as much a matter of public regulation as everything else; since under the supposed arrangements prudential restraint would no longer exist. Now, if we suppose an equal degree of regulation to take place under the present system, either compulsorily, or, what would be so much preferable, voluntarily; a condition at least equal to what the ^oCommunist^o system offers to all, would fall to the lot of the least fortunate, by the mere action of the competitive principle. Whatever of pecuniary means or freedom of action any one obtained beyond this, would be so much to be counted in favour of the competitive system. It is an abuse of the principle of equality to demand that no individual be permitted to be better off than the rest, when his being so makes none of the others worse off than they otherwise would be.

§ 4. [Examination of St. Simonism] These arguments ^a against Communism are not applicable to St. Simonism, a system of far higher intellectual pretensions than the ^bformer:^b constructed with greater foresight of objections, and juster appreciation of them; grounded on views of human nature much less limited, and the work altogether of larger and more accomplished minds, by most of whom accordingly, what was erroneous in their theory has long ago been seen and abandoned. [The St. Simonian scheme does not contemplate an equal, but an unequal division of the produce; it does not propose that all should be occupied alike, but differently, according to their vocation or capacity; the function of each being assigned, like grades in a regiment, by the choice of the directing authority, and the remuneration being by salary, proportioned to the importance, in the eyes of that authority, of the function itself, and the merits of the person who fulfils it. For the constitution of the ruling body, different plans might be adopted, consistently with the essentials of the system. It might be appointed by popular suffrage. In the idea of the original authors, the rulers were supposed to be persons of genius and virtue, who obtained the voluntary adhesion of the rest by]¹ mere [force of mental superiority],² through a religious feeling of reverence and subordination. Society, thus constituted, would wear as diversified a face as it does now; would be still fuller of interest and excitement, would hold out even more abundant stimulus to individual exertion, and would nourish, it is to be feared, even more of rivalries and animosities than at present. [That the scheme might in some peculiar states of society work with advantage,]³ I will not deny. [There is indeed a successful experiment, of a somewhat similar kind, on record, to which I have once alluded, that of the Jesuits, in Paraguay. A race of savages, belonging to a portion of mankind more averse to consecutive exertion for a distant object than any other authentically known to us, was brought under the mental dominion of civilized and instructed men who were united among themselves by a system of community of goods. To the absolute authority of these men they reverentially submitted themselves, and were induced by them to learn the arts of civilized life, and to practise labours for the community which no inducement that could have been offered would have prevailed on them to practise for themselves. This social system was of short duration, being prematurely destroyed by diplomatic arrangements and foreign force. That it could be brought into action at all was probably owing to the immense distance in point of knowledge and intellect which separated the few rulers from the whole body of the ruled, without any intermediate orders, either social or intellectual. In any other circumstances it would probably have been a complete failure]⁴ ; and we may venture to say that in no European community could it have even the partial success which might really be obtained by an association on the principle of Communism. [It supposes an absolute despotism in the heads of the association; which would probably not be much improved if the depositaries of the despotism (contrary to the views of the authors of the system) were varied from time to time according to the result of a popular canvass. But to suppose that one or a few human beings, howsoever selected, could, by whatever machinery of subordinate agency, be qualified to adapt each person’s work to his capacity, and proportion each person’s remuneration to his merits—to be, in fact, the dispensers of distributive justice to every member of a community]⁵ , were it even the smallest that ever had a separate political existence—[or that any use which they could make of this power would give general satisfaction, or would be submitted to without the aid of force—is a supposition almost too chimerical to be reasoned against. A fixed rule, like that of equality, might be acquiesced in, and so might chance, or an external necessity; but that a handful of human beings should weigh everybody in the balance, and give more to one and less to another at their sole pleasure and judgment, would not be borne unless from persons believed to be more than men, and backed by supernatural terrors.

§ 5. [Examination of Fourierism] ^aThe most skilfully combined, and ]¹ in every respect the least open to objection, of [the forms of Socialism, is that commonly known as Fourierism. This system does not contemplate the abolition of private property, nor even of inheritance: on the contrary, it avowedly takes into consideration, as an element in the distribution of the produce, capital as well as labour. It proposes that the operations of industry should be carried on by associations of about two thousand members, combining their labour on a district of about a square league in extent, under the guidance of chiefs selected by themselves. In the distribution, a certain minimum is first assigned for the subsistence of every member of the community, whether capable or not of labour. The remainder of the produce is shared in certain proportions, to be determined beforehand, among the three elements, Labour, Capital, and Talent. The capital of the community may be owned in unequal shares by different members, who would in that case receive, as in any other joint-stock company, proportional dividends. The claim of each person on the share of the produce apportioned to talent, is estimated by the grade or rank which the individual occupies in the several groups of labourers to which he or she belongs; these grades being in all cases conferred by the choice of his or her companions. The remuneration, when received, would not of necessity be expended or enjoyed in common; there would be separate ménages for all who preferred them, and no other community of living is contemplated, than that all the members of the association should reside in the same pile of buildings; for saving of labour and expense not only in building, but in every branch of domestic economy; and in order that, the whole]² [buying and selling operations of the community being performed by a single agent, the enormous portion of the produce of industry now carried off by the profits of mere distributors might be reduced to the smallest amount possible.]³

Thus far it is apparent that this [system, unlike Communism, does not, in theory at least, withdraw any of the motives to exertion which exist in the present]⁴ system [of society. On the contrary, if the arrangement]⁵ could be supposed to work [according to the intentions of its contrivers, it would even strengthen those motives, since each person would have much more certainty of reaping individually the fruits of increased skill or energy, bodily or mental, than under the present social arrangements can be felt by any but those who are in the most advantageous positions, or to whom the chapter of accidents is more than ordinarily favourable. The Fourierists, however, have still another resource. They believe that they have solved the great and fundamental problem of rendering labour attractive. That this is not impracticable, they contend by very strong arguments; in particular by one which they have in common with the Owenites, viz., that scarcely any labour, however severe, undergone by human beings for the sake of subsistence, exceeds in intensity that which other human beings, whose subsistence is already provided for, are found ready and even eager to undergo for pleasure. This certainly is a most significant fact, and one from which the student in social philosophy may draw important instruction. But the argument founded on it may easily be stretched too far. If occupations full of discomfort and fatigue are freely pursued by many persons as amusements, who does not see that they are amusements exactly because they are pursued freely, and may be discontinued at pleasure? The liberty of quitting a position often makes the whole difference between its being painful and pleasurable. Many a person remains in the same town, street, or house from January to December, without a wish or a thought tending towards removal, who if confined to that same place by the mandate of authority, would find the imprisonment absolutely intolerable.

According to the Fourierists, scarcely any kind of useful labour is naturally and necessarily disagreeable, unless it is either regarded as dishonourable, or is immoderate in degree, or destitute of the stimulus of sympathy and emulation.]⁶ The few kinds of useful employment which are inherently distasteful to either the physical or the moral sense, or which would be so to persons in as high a state of cultivation as the Fourierists rightly aspire to confer upon all, they propose to surround with marks of honour, and to remunerate on the highest scale. [Excessive toil needs not, they contend, be undergone by any one, in a society in which there would be no idle class, and no labour wasted, as so enormous an amount of labour is now wasted, in useless things; and where full advantage would be taken of the power of association, both in increasing the efficiency of production, and in economizing consumption. The other requisites for rendering labour attractive would, they think, be found in the execution of all labour by social groups, to any number of which the same individual might simultaneously belong, at his or her own choice; their grade in each being determined by the degree of service which they were found capable of rendering, as appreciated by the suffrages of their comrades. It is inferred from the diversity of tastes and talents, that every member of the community would be attached to several groups, employing themselves in various kinds of occupation, some bodily, others mental, and would be capable of occupying a high place in some one or more; so that a real equality, or]⁷ a [something more nearly approaching to it than might at first be supposed, would practically result: not]⁸ (as in Communism) [from the compression, but, on the contrary, from the largest possible developement, of the various natural superiorities residing in each individual.

Even from so brief an outline, it]⁹ will be perceived [that this system does no violence to any of the general laws by which human action, even in the present imperfect state of moral and intellectual cultivation, is influenced]¹⁰ . All persons would have a prospect of deriving individual advantage from every degree of labour, of abstinence, and of talent, which they individually exercised. The impediments to success would not be in the principles of the system, but in the unmanageable nature of its machinery. Before large bodies of human beings could be fit to live together in such close union, and still more, before they would be capable of adjusting, by peaceful arrangement among themselves, the relative claims of every class or kind of labour and talent, and of every individual in every class, a vast improvement in human character must be presupposed. When it is considered that each person who would have a voice in this adjustment would be a party interested in it, in every sense of the term—that each would be called on to take part by vote in fixing both the relative remuneration, and the relative estimation, of himself as compared with all other labourers, and of his own class of labour or talent as compared with all others; the degree of disinterestedness and of freedom from vanity and irritability, which would be required in such a community from every individual in it, would be such as is now only found in the élite of humanity: while if these qualities fell much short of the required standard, either the adjustment could not be made at all, or if made by a majority, would engender jealousies and disappointments destructive of the internal harmony on which the whole working of the system avowedly depends. These, it is true, are difficulties, not impossibilities: and the Fourierists, who alone among Socialists are in a great degree alive to the true conditions of the problem which they undertake to solve, are not without ways and means of contending against these. With every advance in education and improvement, their system tends to become less impracticable, and the very attempt to make it succeed would cultivate in those making the attempt, many of the virtues which it requires. But we have only yet considered the case of a single Fourierist community. When we remember that the communities themselves are to be the constituent units of an organised whole, (otherwise competition would rage as actively between rival communities as it now does between individual merchants or manufacturers,) and that nothing less would be requisite for the complete success of the scheme, than the organisation from a single centre, of the whole industry of a nation, and even of the world; we may, without attempting to limit the ultimate capabilities of human nature, affirm, that the political economist, for a considerable time to come, will be chiefly concerned with the conditions of existence and progress belonging to a society founded on private property and individual competition; and that, rude as is the manner in which those two principles apportion reward to exertion and to merit, they must form the basis of the principal improvements which can for the present be looked for in the economical condition of humanity.

§ 6. [The institution of property requires, not subversion, but improvement] And those improvements will be found to be far more considerable than the adherents of the various Socialist systems are willing to allow. Whatever may be the merit or demerit of their own schemes of society, they have hitherto shown themselves extremely ill acquainted with the economical laws of the existing social system; and have, in consequence, habitually assumed as necessary effects of competition, evils which are by no means inevitably attendant on it. It is from the influence of this erroneous interpretation of existing facts, that many Socialists of high principles and attainments are led to regard the competitive system as radically incompatible with the economical well-being of the mass.^a

[The principle of private property has never yet had a fair trial in any country; and less so, perhaps, in this country than in some others. The social arrangements of modern Europe commenced from a distribution of property which was the result, not of ^ajust partition, or acquisition by industry,^a but of conquest and violence: and notwithstanding what industry has been doing for many centuries to modify the work of force, the system still retains many ^band large^b traces of its origin. The laws of property have never yet conformed to the principles on which the justification of private property rests. They have made property of things which never ought to be property, and absolute property where only a qualified property ought to exist. They have not held the balance fairly between human beings, but have heaped impediments upon some, to give advantage to others; they have purposely fostered inequalities, and prevented all from starting fair in the race. That all should indeed start on perfectly equal terms, is inconsistent with any law of private property: but if as much pains as has been taken to aggravate the inequality of chances arising from the natural working of the principle, had been taken to temper that inequality by every means not subversive of the principle itself; if the tendency of legislation had been to favour the diffusion, instead of the concentration of wealth—to encourage the subdivision of the large masses, instead of striving to keep them together; the principle of individual property would have been found to have no ^cnecessary^c connexion with the physical and social evils which]¹ have made so many minds turn eagerly to any prospect of relief, however desperate.

^d[We are ]² as yet [too ignorant either of what individual agency in its best form, or Socialism in its best form can accomplish, to be qualified to decide which of the two will be the ultimate form of human society.]³ In the present stage of human improvement at least, it is not (I conceive) the subversion of the system of individual property that should be aimed at, but the improvement of it, and the participation of every member of the community in its benefits. Far, however, from looking upon the various classes of Socialists with any approach to disrespect, I honour the intentions of almost all who are publicly known in that character, the acquirements and talents of several, and I regard them, taken collectively, as one of the most valuable elements of human improvement now existing; both from the impulse they give to the reconsideration and discussion of all the most important questions, and from the ideas they have contributed to many; ideas from which the most advanced supporters of the existing order of society have still much to learn.^d

[1 ]The method of footnoting is the same as that used in the text proper: i.e., the MS and 48 variants are indicated by superscript letters and given in footnotes. The places where the 49 text agrees with the 71 text are surrounded by square brackets to simplify comparison; references to the 71 text are given in numbered footnotes to the end of bracketed passages.

[a-a]MS, 48 either

[* ]See [William H.] Prescott’s History of the Conquest of Peru [with a Preliminary View of the Civilization of the Incas. 2 vols. London: Bentley, 1847].

[2 ][See I.203.37—204.2 above.]

[b-b]MS constituted

[c]MS the

[d-d]MS, 48 can

[e]MS, 48 very

[f-f]MS, 48 Those who have never known freedom from anxiety as to the means of subsistence, are apt to overrate what is gained for positive enjoyment by the mere absence of that uncertainty. The necessaries of life, when they have always been secure for the whole of life, are scarcely more a subject of consciousness or a source of happiness than the elements. There is little attractive in a monotonous routine, without vicissitudes, but without excitement; a life spent in the enforced observance of an external rule, and performance of a prescribed task: in which labour would be devoid of its chief sweetener, the thought that every effort tells perceptibly on the labourer’s own interests or those of some one with whom he identifies himself; in which no one could by his own exertions improve his condition, or that of the objects of his private affections; in which no one’s way of life, occupations, or movements, would depend on choice, but each would be the slave of all: a social system in which identity of education and pursuits would impress on all the same unvarying type of character, to the destruction of that multiform developement of human nature, those manifold unlikenesses, that diversity of tastes and talents, and variety of intellectual points of view, which by presenting to each innumerable notions that he could not have conceived of himself, are the great stimulus to intellect and the mainspring of mental and moral progression. [Cf. p. 979. 13-19.]

[g-g]MS, 48 : but the

[h-h]+49

[i-i]979+49

[j-j]MS, 48 Communism

[k-k]+48, 49

[l]MS most

[m-m]MS, 48 a Socialist

[n]MS, 48 I believe that the majority would not exert themselves for any thing beyond this, and that unless they did, nobody else would; and that on this basis human life would settle itself into one invariable round.

[o-o]MS, 48 Socialist

[a]MS conclusive] 48 , to my mind conclusive

[b-b]MS, 48 other;

[1 ][See I.210.37—211.7 above.]

[2 ][See I.211.7-8 above.]

[3 ][See I.211.8-9 above.]

[4 ][See I.211.9-25 above.]

[5 ][See I.211.25-9 above.]

[a-a]986MS, 48 There has never been imagined any mode of distributing the produce of industry, so well adapted to the requirements of human nature on the whole, as that of letting the share of each individual (not in a state of bodily or mental incapacity,) depend in the main on that individual’s own energies and exertions, and on such furtherance as may be obtained from the voluntary good offices of others. It is not the subversion of the system of individual property that should be aimed at; but the improvement of it, and the participation of every member of the community in its benefits.

[1 ][See I.211.33-42 above.]

[2 ][See I.212.1-24 above.]

[3 ][See I.212.24-7 above.]

[4 ][See I.212.28-9 above.]

[5 ][See I.212.29-30 above.]

[6 ][See I.212.30—213.17 above.]

[7 ][See I.213.17-31 above.]

[8 ][See I.213.31-3 above.]

[9 ][See I.213.33-5 above.]

[10 ][See I.213.35-7 above.]

[a-a]MS justice or industry

[b-b]+49

[c-c]48 real

[1 ][This passage appears in 71.§3; see I.207.25—208.8 above.]

[d-d]987MS It is, at the same time, undeniable that an increasing power of co-operation in any common undertaking, is one of the surest fruits, and most accurate tests, of the progress of civilization: and we may expect, as mankind improve, that joint enterprises of many kinds, which would now be impracticable, will be successively numbered among possibilities, thus augmenting, to an indefinite extent, the powers of the species. But the proper sphere for collective action lies in the things which cannot be done by individual agency, either because no one can have a sufficiently strong personal interest in accomplishing them, or because they require an assemblage of means surpassing what can be commanded by one or a few individuals. In things to which individual agency is at all suitable, it is almost always the most suitable; working, as it does, with so much greater intensity of motive when the object is personal, with so much stronger a sense of responsibility when it is public, and in either case with a feeling of independence and individual power, unknown to the members of a body under joint government.] 48 as MS . . . few individuals. Where individual agency . . . as MS

[2 ][Ibid., I.208.29-30.]

[3 ][Ibid., I.208.30-2. The next sentence (“In . . . benefits.”) appears in altered form in 71.§4 (see I.214.9-12 above), and in MS, 48.§5 (see II.982a-aabove).]