Key Arguments

• He asserts that 'In so far as laborers are associated, they are equal; and it involves a contradiction to say that one should be paid more than another,' since the product of one can be paid only in the product of another.
• If two associated workers produce unequal quantities, the difference 'will not be acquired by society; and, therefore, not being exchanged, will not affect the equality of wages,' so any extra product remains a 'natural inequality, but not a social inequality.'
• He formulates a general rule: 'society exchanges only equal products⁠—that is, rewards no labor save that performed for her benefit; consequently, she pays all laborers equally.'
• He argues that as association extends and the social task is divided, 'natural inequality neutralizes itself,' making wage equality more complete.
• Using a concrete example of a fixed social task (ploughing/hoeing/reaping two square decameters in an average of seven hours), he concludes that provided each furnishes the required quantity of labor, 'whatever be the time he employs, they are entitled to equal wages.'

Source Quotes

In labor, two things must be noticed and distinguished: association and available material. In so far as laborers are associated, they are equal; and it involves a contradiction to say that one should be paid more than another. For, as the product of one laborer can be paid for only in the product of another laborer, if the two products are unequal, the remainder⁠—or the difference between the greater and the smaller⁠—will not be acquired by society; and, therefore, not being exchanged, will not affect the equality of wages.

In so far as laborers are associated, they are equal; and it involves a contradiction to say that one should be paid more than another. For, as the product of one laborer can be paid for only in the product of another laborer, if the two products are unequal, the remainder⁠—or the difference between the greater and the smaller⁠—will not be acquired by society; and, therefore, not being exchanged, will not affect the equality of wages. There will result, it is true, in favor of the stronger laborer a natural inequality, but not a social inequality; no one having suffered by his strength and productive energy.

There will result, it is true, in favor of the stronger laborer a natural inequality, but not a social inequality; no one having suffered by his strength and productive energy. In a word, society exchanges only equal products⁠—that is, rewards no labor save that performed for her benefit; consequently, she pays all laborers equally: with what they produce outside of her sphere she has no more to do, than with the difference in their voices and their hair. I seem to be positing the principle of inequality: the reverse of this is the truth.

I seem to be positing the principle of inequality: the reverse of this is the truth. The total amount of labor which can be performed for society (that is, of labor susceptible of exchange), being, within a given space, as much greater as the laborers are more numerous, and as the task assigned to each is less in magnitude⁠—it follows that natural inequality neutralizes itself in proportion as association extends, and as the quantity of consumable values produced thereby increases. So that in society the only thing which could bring back the inequality of labor would be the right of occupancy⁠—the right of property.

Now, suppose that this daily social task consists in the ploughing, hoeing, or reaping of two square decameters, and that the average time required to accomplish it is seven hours: one laborer will finish it in six hours, another will require eight; the majority, however, will work seven. But provided each one furnishes the quantity of labor demanded of him, whatever be the time he employs, they are entitled to equal wages. Shall the laborer who is capable of finishing his task in six hours have the right, on the ground of superior strength and activity, to usurp the task of the less skilful laborer, and thus rob him of his labor and bread?

Key Concepts

• In so far as laborers are associated, they are equal; and it involves a contradiction to say that one should be paid more than another.
• For, as the product of one laborer can be paid for only in the product of another laborer, if the two products are unequal, the remainder⁠—or the difference between the greater and the smaller⁠—will not be acquired by society; and, therefore, not being exchanged, will not affect the equality of wages.
• In a word, society exchanges only equal products⁠—that is, rewards no labor save that performed for her benefit; consequently, she pays all laborers equally:
• the total amount of labor which can be performed for society (that is, of labor susceptible of exchange), being, within a given space, as much greater as the laborers are more numerous, and as the task assigned to each is less in magnitude⁠—it follows that natural inequality neutralizes itself in proportion as association extends, and as the quantity of consumable values produced thereby increases.
• But provided each one furnishes the quantity of labor demanded of him, whatever be the time he employs, they are entitled to equal wages.

Context

Core of § 6, where Proudhon derives equality of wages from the logic of associated labor and exchange, distinguishing natural from social inequality.