Key Arguments

• He notes that artisans like 'The blacksmith who manufactures for the farmer implements of husbandry, the wheelwright who makes him a cart, the mason who builds his barn, the carpenter, the basket-maker, etc.⁠—all of whom contribute to agricultural production by the tools which they provide⁠—are producers of utility; consequently, they are entitled to a part of the products.'
• To the objection that land as an 'implement' should likewise entitle the proprietor to rent, he replies that artisans are paid once for tools and then relinquish all claim: 'He who manufactures or repairs the farmer’s tools receives the price once, either at the time of delivery, or in several payments; and when this price is once paid to the manufacturer, the tools which he has delivered belong to him no more. Never does he claim double payment for the same tool, or the same job of repairs.'
• If artisans 'annually share in the products of the farmer, it is owing to the fact that he annually makes something for the farmer', i.e., continuing productive labor justifies continuing payment.
• The proprietor behaves entirely differently: 'The proprietor, on the contrary, does not yield his implement; eternally he is paid for it, eternally he keeps it.' Thus, there is no surrender of property in exchange for rent.
• He clarifies that rent is not even a reimbursement for maintenance or repairs of the land-implement: 'the rent received by the proprietor is not intended to defray the expense of maintaining and repairing the implement; this expense is charged to the borrower, and does not concern the proprietor except as he is interested in the preservation of the article.' If the proprietor pays for repairs, he ensures that 'the money which he expends for this purpose is repaid.'
• Rent also does not represent any participation of the proprietor in production, since such participation 'could consist, like that of the blacksmith and the wheelwright, only in the surrender of the whole or a part of his implement, in which case he would cease to be its proprietor, which would involve a contradiction of the idea of property.'
• From these points he infers that 'between the proprietor and his tenant there is no exchange either of values or services', so rent has no economic equivalent and is thus 'real increase⁠—an extortion based solely upon fraud and violence on the one hand, and weakness and ignorance upon the other.'

Source Quotes

Let us clear up this matter. The blacksmith who manufactures for the farmer implements of husbandry, the wheelwright who makes him a cart, the mason who builds his barn, the carpenter, the basket-maker, etc.⁠—all of whom contribute to agricultural production by the tools which they provide⁠—are producers of utility; consequently, they are entitled to a part of the products. “Undoubtedly,” says Say; “but the land also is an implement whose service must be paid for, then.⁠ ⁠…” I admit that the land is an implement; but who made it?

Reply.⁠—Here we touch the heart of the question, the mystery of property; which we must clear up, if we would understand anything of the strange effects of the right of increase. He who manufactures or repairs the farmer’s tools receives the price once, either at the time of delivery, or in several payments; and when this price is once paid to the manufacturer, the tools which he has delivered belong to him no more. Never does he claim double payment for the same tool, or the same job of repairs.

He who manufactures or repairs the farmer’s tools receives the price once, either at the time of delivery, or in several payments; and when this price is once paid to the manufacturer, the tools which he has delivered belong to him no more. Never does he claim double payment for the same tool, or the same job of repairs. If he annually shares in the products of the farmer, it is owing to the fact that he annually makes something for the farmer.

If he annually shares in the products of the farmer, it is owing to the fact that he annually makes something for the farmer. The proprietor, on the contrary, does not yield his implement; eternally he is paid for it, eternally he keeps it. In fact, the rent received by the proprietor is not intended to defray the expense of maintaining and repairing the implement; this expense is charged to the borrower, and does not concern the proprietor except as he is interested in the preservation of the article.

If he takes it upon himself to attend to the repairs, he takes care that the money which he expends for this purpose is repaid. This rent does not represent the product of the implement, since of itself the implement produces nothing; we have just proved this, and we shall prove it more clearly still by its consequences. Finally, this rent does not represent the participation of the proprietor in the production; since this participation could consist, like that of the blacksmith and the wheelwright, only in the surrender of the whole or a part of his implement, in which case he would cease to be its proprietor, which would involve a contradiction of the idea of property.

This rent does not represent the product of the implement, since of itself the implement produces nothing; we have just proved this, and we shall prove it more clearly still by its consequences. Finally, this rent does not represent the participation of the proprietor in the production; since this participation could consist, like that of the blacksmith and the wheelwright, only in the surrender of the whole or a part of his implement, in which case he would cease to be its proprietor, which would involve a contradiction of the idea of property. Then, between the proprietor and his tenant there is no exchange either of values or services; then, as our axiom says, farm-rent is real increase⁠—an extortion based solely upon fraud and violence on the one hand, and weakness and ignorance upon the other.

Finally, this rent does not represent the participation of the proprietor in the production; since this participation could consist, like that of the blacksmith and the wheelwright, only in the surrender of the whole or a part of his implement, in which case he would cease to be its proprietor, which would involve a contradiction of the idea of property. Then, between the proprietor and his tenant there is no exchange either of values or services; then, as our axiom says, farm-rent is real increase⁠—an extortion based solely upon fraud and violence on the one hand, and weakness and ignorance upon the other. Products, say the economists, are bought only by products.

Key Concepts

• The blacksmith who manufactures for the farmer implements of husbandry, the wheelwright who makes him a cart, the mason who builds his barn, the carpenter, the basket-maker, etc.⁠—all of whom contribute to agricultural production by the tools which they provide⁠—are producers of utility; consequently, they are entitled to a part of the products.
• He who manufactures or repairs the farmer’s tools receives the price once, either at the time of delivery, or in several payments; and when this price is once paid to the manufacturer, the tools which he has delivered belong to him no more.
• Never does he claim double payment for the same tool, or the same job of repairs.
• The proprietor, on the contrary, does not yield his implement; eternally he is paid for it, eternally he keeps it.
• this rent does not represent the product of the implement, since of itself the implement produces nothing
• this rent does not represent the participation of the proprietor in the production; since this participation could consist, like that of the blacksmith and the wheelwright, only in the surrender of the whole or a part of his implement, in which case he would cease to be its proprietor
• between the proprietor and his tenant there is no exchange either of values or services; then, as our axiom says, farm-rent is real increase⁠—an extortion based solely upon fraud and violence on the one hand, and weakness and ignorance upon the other.

Context

Toward the end of the excerpt from the First Proposition, Proudhon answers the key objection that land as an implement should be paid like any tool, drawing a sharp contrast between single, justified payments to producers of tools and the perpetual, unjustified rent claimed by proprietors, in order to expose the specific exploitative structure of property.