Key Arguments

• He summarizes their intent as making products of nature 'a reward, a palm, a crown offered to all kinds of preeminence and superiority' and seeing the land 'as an immense arena in which prizes are contended for' by wealth, knowledge, talent, and even virtue.
• He notes both schools openly base their systems on inequality of conditions derived from supposed natural inequalities of capacity: 'The two sects glory in laying down as a principle inequality of conditions⁠—reasoning from Nature, who, they say, intended the inequality of capacities.'
• They boast that in their systems 'the social inequalities always correspond with the natural inequalities' and do not even ask whether inequality of salaries is possible or how to measure capacity.
• He stresses that this reading is not an uncharitable gloss but their own 'official interpretations', such that to deny it would 'destroy the unity of their systems.'

Source Quotes

§ 6. That in Society All Wages Are Equal When the St. Simonians, the Fourierists, and, in general, all who in our day are connected with social economy and reform, inscribe upon their banner⁠— “To each according to his capacity, to each capacity according to its results” (St. Simon); “To each according to his capital, his labor, and his skill” (Fourier)⁠— they mean⁠—although they do not say so in so many words⁠—that the products of Nature procured by labor and industry are a reward, a palm, a crown offered to all kinds of preeminence and superiority. They regard the land as an immense arena in which prizes are contended for⁠—no longer, it is true, with lances and swords, by force and by treachery; but by acquired wealth, by knowledge, talent, and by virtue itself.

That in Society All Wages Are Equal When the St. Simonians, the Fourierists, and, in general, all who in our day are connected with social economy and reform, inscribe upon their banner⁠— “To each according to his capacity, to each capacity according to its results” (St. Simon); “To each according to his capital, his labor, and his skill” (Fourier)⁠— they mean⁠—although they do not say so in so many words⁠—that the products of Nature procured by labor and industry are a reward, a palm, a crown offered to all kinds of preeminence and superiority. They regard the land as an immense arena in which prizes are contended for⁠—no longer, it is true, with lances and swords, by force and by treachery; but by acquired wealth, by knowledge, talent, and by virtue itself. In a word, they mean⁠—and everybody agrees with them⁠—that the greatest capacity is entitled to the greatest reward; and, to use the mercantile phraseology⁠—which has, at least, the merit of being straightforward⁠—that salaries must be governed by capacity and its results.

Furthermore, such a denial on their part is not to be feared. The two sects glory in laying down as a principle inequality of conditions⁠—reasoning from Nature, who, they say, intended the inequality of capacities. They boast only of one thing; namely, that their political system is so perfect, that the social inequalities always correspond with the natural inequalities.

The two sects glory in laying down as a principle inequality of conditions⁠—reasoning from Nature, who, they say, intended the inequality of capacities. They boast only of one thing; namely, that their political system is so perfect, that the social inequalities always correspond with the natural inequalities. They no more trouble themselves to inquire whether inequality of conditions⁠—I mean of salaries⁠—is possible, than they do to fix a measure of capacity.16 “To each according to his capacity, to each capacity according to its results.”

They boast only of one thing; namely, that their political system is so perfect, that the social inequalities always correspond with the natural inequalities. They no more trouble themselves to inquire whether inequality of conditions⁠—I mean of salaries⁠—is possible, than they do to fix a measure of capacity.16 “To each according to his capacity, to each capacity according to its results.” “To each according to his capital, his labor, and his skill.”

Key Concepts

• “To each according to his capacity, to each capacity according to its results” (St. Simon); “To each according to his capital, his labor, and his skill” (Fourier)⁠— they mean⁠—although they do not say so in so many words⁠—that the products of Nature procured by labor and industry are a reward, a palm, a crown offered to all kinds of preeminence and superiority.
• They regard the land as an immense arena in which prizes are contended for⁠—no longer, it is true, with lances and swords, by force and by treachery; but by acquired wealth, by knowledge, talent, and by virtue itself.
• The two sects glory in laying down as a principle inequality of conditions⁠—reasoning from Nature, who, they say, intended the inequality of capacities.
• They boast only of one thing; namely, that their political system is so perfect, that the social inequalities always correspond with the natural inequalities.
• They no more trouble themselves to inquire whether inequality of conditions⁠—I mean of salaries⁠—is possible, than they do to fix a measure of capacity.

Context

Opening of § 6, where Proudhon introduces and characterizes the Saint-Simonian and Fourierist distributive maxims before subjecting them to critical analysis.