Key Arguments

• He starts from his opponents’ own premise: "Admit, however, that labor gives a right of property in material," then asks why this principle is not applied universally to all laborers instead of "confined to a few and denied to the mass of laborers."
• He presents the case of a tenant whose skill doubles a farm’s yield: "A farm yields fifty bushels per hectare; the skill and labor of the tenant double this product: the increase is created by the tenant," so even if the owner benevolently leaves him this increase in income, "even then justice is not satisfied."
• He argues that improvement by the tenant has changed the very value of the land, not only the harvest: "The tenant, by improving the land, has imparted a new value to the property; he, therefore, has a right to a part of the property."
• He quantifies the claim to show its juridical character: "If the farm was originally worth one hundred thousand francs, and if by the labor of the tenant its value has risen to one hundred and fifty thousand francs, the tenant, who produced this extra value, is the legitimate proprietor of one-third of the farm."
• He notes that this conclusion is grounded in Charles Comte’s own statement that those who increase the fertility of the earth are equivalent to creators of new land: "Men who increase the fertility of the earth are no less useful to their fellow-men, than if they should create new land," so Comte cannot consistently deny the tenant’s property claim.
• He presses the logic: "The labor of the former makes the land worth one; that of the latter makes it worth two: both create equal values. Why not accord to both equal property? I defy anyone to refute this argument, without again falling back on the right of first occupancy," showing that defenders must retreat to a pre‑labor principle.
• He dismisses the objection that improvements quickly reach a maximum and only add a few proprietors as a "misconception" that "does but prove the general lack of intelligence and logic," insisting that the underlying principle would, if consistently applied, challenge the whole institution, not just marginally broaden it.

Source Quotes

§ 5. That Labor Leads to Equality of Property Admit, however, that labor gives a right of property in material. Why is not this principle universal? Why is the benefit of this pretended law confined to a few and denied to the mass of laborers? A philosopher, arguing that all animals sprang up formerly out of the earth warmed by the rays of the sun, almost like mushrooms, on being asked why the earth no longer yielded crops of that nature, replied: “Because it is old, and has lost its fertility.”

That is no answer. A farm yields fifty bushels per hectare; the skill and labor of the tenant double this product: the increase is created by the tenant. Suppose the owner, in a spirit of moderation rarely met with, does not go to the extent of absorbing this product by raising the rent, but allows the cultivator to enjoy the results of his labor; even then justice is not satisfied.

Suppose the owner, in a spirit of moderation rarely met with, does not go to the extent of absorbing this product by raising the rent, but allows the cultivator to enjoy the results of his labor; even then justice is not satisfied. The tenant, by improving the land, has imparted a new value to the property; he, therefore, has a right to a part of the property. If the farm was originally worth one hundred thousand francs, and if by the labor of the tenant its value has risen to one hundred and fifty thousand francs, the tenant, who produced this extra value, is the legitimate proprietor of one-third of the farm.

The tenant, by improving the land, has imparted a new value to the property; he, therefore, has a right to a part of the property. If the farm was originally worth one hundred thousand francs, and if by the labor of the tenant its value has risen to one hundred and fifty thousand francs, the tenant, who produced this extra value, is the legitimate proprietor of one-third of the farm. M.

Why, then, is not this rule applicable to the man who improves the land, as well as to him who clears it? The labor of the former makes the land worth one; that of the latter makes it worth two: both create equal values. Why not accord to both equal property? I defy anyone to refute this argument, without again falling back on the right of first occupancy. “But,” it will be said, “even if your wish should be granted, property would not be distributed much more evenly than now.

Key Concepts

• Admit, however, that labor gives a right of property in material. Why is not this principle universal? Why is the benefit of this pretended law confined to a few and denied to the mass of laborers?
• A farm yields fifty bushels per hectare; the skill and labor of the tenant double this product: the increase is created by the tenant.
• The tenant, by improving the land, has imparted a new value to the property; he, therefore, has a right to a part of the property.
• If the farm was originally worth one hundred thousand francs, and if by the labor of the tenant its value has risen to one hundred and fifty thousand francs, the tenant, who produced this extra value, is the legitimate proprietor of one-third of the farm.
• The labor of the former makes the land worth one; that of the latter makes it worth two: both create equal values. Why not accord to both equal property? I defy anyone to refute this argument, without again falling back on the right of first occupancy.

Context

Opening of § 5 ('That Labor Leads to Equality of Property'), where Proudhon accepts for the sake of argument the labor‑theory of property and shows that, applied to tenants and improvers, it demands proportional ownership of land and thus clashes with the doctrine of original appropriation.