Key Arguments

• He affirms that the physician must be treated 'with as much favor as any other producer'—not below others—but 'neither must he be lifted above that level; because his talent is collective property for which he did not pay, and for which he is ever in debt.'
• He draws a parallel between instruments of production and talents: 'Just as the creation of every instrument of production is the result of collective force, so also are a man’s talent and knowledge the product of universal intelligence and of general knowledge slowly accumulated by a number of masters, and through the aid of many inferior industries.'
• He notes that even after paying for teachers, books, diplomas, and other educational expenses, the man of talent 'has no more paid for his talent than the capitalist pays for his house and land when he gives his employees their wages.'
• He concludes that 'He has, then, a share in its possession; he is not its proprietor', indicating a usufructuary rather than a proprietary relation to talent.
• He describes the dual nature of the talented individual: 'There exist side by side in him a free laborer and an accumulated social capital', where as a laborer he is 'charged with the use of an instrument' (his capacity), and as capital 'he is not his own master; he uses himself, not for his own benefit, but for that of others.'
• He even suggests that, apart from the intrinsic satisfactions of excellence, it would be 'easier to find reasons for lowering its reward than for raising it above the common level', since education costs and social gestation are already collective investments.
• He generalizes that 'Every producer receives an education; every laborer is a talent, a capacity⁠—that is, a piece of collective property', though different talents require different periods and intensities of 'social gestation' depending on their loftiness.
• He reiterates that 'Whatever be then the capacity of a man⁠—when this capacity is once created⁠—it does not belong to him', since society gave it being out of its pre‑existing power of becoming.

Source Quotes

This I will not stop to prove. But I add that neither must he be lifted above that level; because his talent is collective property for which he did not pay, and for which he is ever in debt. Just as the creation of every instrument of production is the result of collective force, so also are a man’s talent and knowledge the product of universal intelligence and of general knowledge slowly accumulated by a number of masters, and through the aid of many inferior industries.

But I add that neither must he be lifted above that level; because his talent is collective property for which he did not pay, and for which he is ever in debt. Just as the creation of every instrument of production is the result of collective force, so also are a man’s talent and knowledge the product of universal intelligence and of general knowledge slowly accumulated by a number of masters, and through the aid of many inferior industries. When the physician has paid for his teachers, his books, his diplomas, and all the other items of his educational expenses, he has no more paid for his talent than the capitalist pays for his house and land when he gives his employees their wages.

Just as the creation of every instrument of production is the result of collective force, so also are a man’s talent and knowledge the product of universal intelligence and of general knowledge slowly accumulated by a number of masters, and through the aid of many inferior industries. When the physician has paid for his teachers, his books, his diplomas, and all the other items of his educational expenses, he has no more paid for his talent than the capitalist pays for his house and land when he gives his employees their wages. The man of talent has contributed to the production in himself of a useful instrument.

The man of talent has contributed to the production in himself of a useful instrument. He has, then, a share in its possession; he is not its proprietor. There exist side by side in him a free laborer and an accumulated social capital.

He has, then, a share in its possession; he is not its proprietor. There exist side by side in him a free laborer and an accumulated social capital. As a laborer, he is charged with the use of an instrument, with the superintendence of a machine; namely, his capacity.

As a laborer, he is charged with the use of an instrument, with the superintendence of a machine; namely, his capacity. As capital, he is not his own master; he uses himself, not for his own benefit, but for that of others. Even if talent did not find in its own excellence a reward for the sacrifices which it costs, still would it be easier to find reasons for lowering its reward than for raising it above the common level.

Even if talent did not find in its own excellence a reward for the sacrifices which it costs, still would it be easier to find reasons for lowering its reward than for raising it above the common level. Every producer receives an education; every laborer is a talent, a capacity⁠—that is, a piece of collective property. But all talents are not equally costly.

But while the physician, the poet, the artist, and the savant produce but little, and that slowly, the productions of the farmer are much less uncertain, and do not require so long a time. Whatever be then the capacity of a man⁠—when this capacity is once created⁠—it does not belong to him. Like the material fashioned by an industrious hand, it had the power of becoming, and society has given it being.

Key Concepts

• But I add that neither must he be lifted above that level; because his talent is collective property for which he did not pay, and for which he is ever in debt.
• Just as the creation of every instrument of production is the result of collective force, so also are a man’s talent and knowledge the product of universal intelligence and of general knowledge slowly accumulated by a number of masters, and through the aid of many inferior industries.
• When the physician has paid for his teachers, his books, his diplomas, and all the other items of his educational expenses, he has no more paid for his talent than the capitalist pays for his house and land when he gives his employees their wages.
• He has, then, a share in its possession; he is not its proprietor.
• There exist side by side in him a free laborer and an accumulated social capital.
• As capital, he is not his own master; he uses himself, not for his own benefit, but for that of others.
• Every producer receives an education; every laborer is a talent, a capacity⁠—that is, a piece of collective property.
• Whatever be then the capacity of a man⁠—when this capacity is once created⁠—it does not belong to him.

Context

Later portion of the passage, where Proudhon moves beyond critique of Say to his own positive theory that talent is a form of social capital or 'collective force' embodied in individuals, grounding his claim that superior capacities have no right to superior economic reward.