Key Arguments

• He starts from the admitted principle that 'interest tells against the proprietor as well as the stranger' and shows that a single individual trading with himself cannot gain by charging himself a profit: 'such a transaction would transfer the merchant’s money from his right hand to his left, but without any profit whatever.'
• He generalizes to a chain of producers A, B, C, ... Z: if A makes a profit on B, B’s loss must be made up by C, and so on, until Z bears the ultimate loss.
• He rejects Say’s claim that Z is compensated by 'the consumer,' pointing out that in a national or human economy this consumer is no one other than A, B, C, ..., Z themselves: 'Is this consumer any other, then, than A, B, C, D, etc., or Z?'
• If Z is compensated by A, then 'no one makes a profit; consequently, there is no property'; if Z bears the loss, 'he ceases to be a member of society; since it refuses him the right of property and profit, which it grants to the other associates.'
• From this he concludes: 'Since, then, a nation, like universal humanity, is a vast industrial association which cannot act outside of itself, it is clear that no man can enrich himself without impoverishing another.'
• Therefore, 'in order that the right of property, the right of increase, may be respected in the case of A, it must be denied to Z,' illustrating that equality of juridical rights without equality of economic conditions is only formally true and substantively false.

Source Quotes

I. By the third corollary of our axiom, interest tells against the proprietor as well as the stranger. This economical principle is universally admitted.

For, suppose the manufacturer, who seems to make this profit on his property, wishes also to make it on his merchandise, can he then pay himself one franc for that which cost him ninety centimes, and make money by the operation? No: such a transaction would transfer the merchant’s money from his right hand to his left, but without any profit whatever. Now, that which is true of a single individual trading with himself is true also of the whole business world.

Now, that which is true of a single individual trading with himself is true also of the whole business world. Form a chain of ten, fifteen, twenty producers; as many as you wish. If the producer A makes a profit out of the producer B, B’s loss must, according to economical principles, be made up by C, C’s by D; and so on through to Z. But by whom will Z be paid for the loss caused him by the profit charged by A in the beginning?

If the producer A makes a profit out of the producer B, B’s loss must, according to economical principles, be made up by C, C’s by D; and so on through to Z. But by whom will Z be paid for the loss caused him by the profit charged by A in the beginning? By the consumer, replies Say. Contemptible equivocation! Is this consumer any other, then, than A, B, C, D, etc., or Z? By whom will Z be paid?

By whom will Z be paid? If he is paid by A, no one makes a profit; consequently, there is no property. If, on the contrary, Z bears the burden himself, he ceases to be a member of society; since it refuses him the right of property and profit, which it grants to the other associates. Since, then, a nation, like universal humanity, is a vast industrial association which cannot act outside of itself, it is clear that no man can enrich himself without impoverishing another.

If, on the contrary, Z bears the burden himself, he ceases to be a member of society; since it refuses him the right of property and profit, which it grants to the other associates. Since, then, a nation, like universal humanity, is a vast industrial association which cannot act outside of itself, it is clear that no man can enrich himself without impoverishing another. For, in order that the right of property, the right of increase, may be respected in the case of A, it must be denied to Z; thus we see how equality of rights, separated from equality of conditions, may be a truth.

Since, then, a nation, like universal humanity, is a vast industrial association which cannot act outside of itself, it is clear that no man can enrich himself without impoverishing another. For, in order that the right of property, the right of increase, may be respected in the case of A, it must be denied to Z; thus we see how equality of rights, separated from equality of conditions, may be a truth. The iniquity of political economy in this respect is flagrant.

Key Concepts

• By the third corollary of our axiom, interest tells against the proprietor as well as the stranger.
• such a transaction would transfer the merchant’s money from his right hand to his left, but without any profit whatever.
• Form a chain of ten, fifteen, twenty producers; as many as you wish. If the producer A makes a profit out of the producer B, B’s loss must, according to economical principles, be made up by C, C’s by D; and so on through to Z.
• By whom will Z be paid for the loss caused him by the profit charged by A in the beginning? By the consumer, replies Say. Contemptible equivocation! Is this consumer any other, then, than A, B, C, D, etc., or Z?
• If he is paid by A, no one makes a profit; consequently, there is no property. If, on the contrary, Z bears the burden himself, he ceases to be a member of society; since it refuses him the right of property and profit, which it grants to the other associates.
• Since, then, a nation, like universal humanity, is a vast industrial association which cannot act outside of itself, it is clear that no man can enrich himself without impoverishing another.
• For, in order that the right of property, the right of increase, may be respected in the case of A, it must be denied to Z; thus we see how equality of rights, separated from equality of conditions, may be a truth.

Context

Section I of the Ninth Proposition, where Proudhon examines the universally admitted principle that interest 'tells against the proprietor as well as the stranger' and, using a chain-of-producers example and a critique of Say’s appeal to 'the consumer,' argues that within a national or global economy property-based profit always implies corresponding loss for others.