Protection and Communism , livre ebook

The Floating Press - Frédéric Bastiat

Découvre YouScribe en t'inscrivant gratuitement

Je m'inscris

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus

31 pages

English

Vous pourrez modifier la taille du texte de cet ouvrage

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus

A propos
Informations
Extrait

Description

Frederic Bastiat was an influential French thinker, economist and politician whose work has had lasting influence in a number of fields. In this volume, Bastiat takes on the issue of the proper role of the government in the marketplace, a question that remains the subject of intense debate today.

Informations

Publié par	The Floating Press
Date de parution	01 juin 2014
Nombre de lectures	0
EAN13	9781776537877
Langue	English

Informations légales : prix de location à la page 0,0064€. Cette information est donnée uniquement à titre indicatif conformément à la législation en vigueur.

Extrait

PROTECTION AND COMMUNISM
* * *
FREDERIC BASTIAT

*
Protection and Communism From an 1852 edition Epub ISBN 978-1-77653-787-7 Also available: PDF ISBN 978-1-77653-788-4 © 2014 The Floating Press and its licensors. All rights reserved. While every effort has been used to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information contained in The Floating Press edition of this book, The Floating Press does not assume liability or responsibility for any errors or omissions in this book. The Floating Press does not accept responsibility for loss suffered as a result of reliance upon the accuracy or currency of information contained in this book. Do not use while operating a motor vehicle or heavy equipment. Many suitcases look alike. Visit www.thefloatingpress.com
Contents
*
Translator's Preface Protection and Communism Endnotes
Translator's Preface
*
This translation will not, it is hoped, be unacceptable to the Englishreader, particularly at the present moment, when it is not improbablethat, under certain circumstances, a great effort may be made inthis country to restore Protection—or, should that wild attempt beconsidered impossible, to shift the public burdens in such a manner asto effect, as far as possible, the same purpose in favour of what iscalled the 'agricultural interest.' M. Bastiat's spirited little workis in the form of a letter, addressed to M. Thiers—the archenemy offree-trade, as he was of most propositions which had for their objectthe true happiness of France. The present was only one of a seriesof efforts made by M. Bastiat in favour of the cause of freedom ofcommerce; and the English reader has already had an opportunity ofadmiring the force of his arguments and the clearness of his style, inMr. Porter's [1] admirable translation of Popular Fallacies , which is,indeed, a perfect armory of arguments for those 'who, although they mayhave a general impression favourable to Free-trade, have yet some fearsas to the consequences that may follow its adoption.' What impression M.Bastiat may have produced on the public mind of France it is not easyto conjecture, or how far the recent violent changes in that country,presuming them to be at all permanent, may prove favourable toFree-trade or otherwise. But it is to be feared that there is an amountof prejudice and ignorance in France, among the mass of her people, moreinveterate and more difficult to remove and enlighten than was thecase in this country. However, seed thus sown cannot remain altogetherwithout fruit, and the rapidity with which correct principlesspread through a great community, under apparently most unfavourablecircumstances, is such as frequently to astonish even those mostconvinced of the vast power of truth.
The real object of M. Bastiat is to expose the unsoundness and injusticeof the system of Protection. He does this partly by a dexterousreference to the theory of Communism, and shows, with logical force andneat application, that the principles of the two are in truth the same.The parallel thus drawn, so far from being fanciful or strained, iscapable of easy demonstration. But, in drawing it, M. Bastiat ratherassumes than proves that Communism is itself wholly indefensible—thatits establishment would be destructive of security and property,and, consequently, of society—in a word, that it is another term forrobbery.
This is true, and obviously so, of Communism, in its more extravagantform; and it is to this, of course, that M. Bastiat refers. But itcannot be denied that there are many modifications of the principlewhich embrace more or less truth, and which appear to offer acorrective to that excessive competition or pressure of numbers, theevils of which are patent, admitted, and deplored. That the specificremedy proposed is vicious, that it would quickly make matters muchworse than they are, that it is, in fact, a fraud and a mockery, doesnot prevent it from being, and naturally, captivating to many who atpresent see no other way out of the difficulties and the struggles bywhich they are surrounded: and who are tempted to embrace it, not onlyas a relief to their present wants and anxieties, but because it would,in their opinion, entail other consequences, as connected with theirsocial condition, particularly grateful to their feelings. We furtheradmit that such sentiments—not in themselves irrational—founded ona legitimate desire for improvement, and entertained by large andimportant classes—are entitled to the most respectful consideration.
Whether some considerable melioration in the condition of our labourersand artisans may not by degrees be effected by means of combined labour,or co-operation, and the principle of partnership, is no doubt one ofthe great questions to be solved by modern society, but it is much toowide a one to be entered upon, however cursorily, in this place. It isunderstood, however, that one of the most original and powerful thinkerswithin the domain of statistics is at the present moment engaged on thissubject; and, if this be so, we shall no doubt, before long, be in thepossession of views of extreme importance and interest.
We have, with deep regret, to add that M. Bastiat died during the autumnof last year, after a long illness, in the south of Italy. By his death,not only France, but the world also, has sustained a loss.
Protection and Communism
*
TO M. THIERS.
Sir,
Do not be ungrateful to the revolution of February. It may havesurprised, perhaps disturbed you, but it has also afforded you, whetheras an author, an orator, or a practised statesman, some unexpectedtriumphs. Amidst these successes, there is one certainly of no usualcharacter. We not long ago read in La Presse , 'The Association for theProtection of National Labour (the ancient Mimerel Club) [2] is aboutto address a circular to all its correspondents, to announce that asubscription is opened for the purpose of promoting in manufactories thecirculation of M. Thiers's book upon Property. The association itselfsubscribes for 5000 copies.' Would that I had been present when thisflattering announcement met your eyes. It should have made them sparklewith joy. We have good reason to say that the ways of Providence are asinfallible as they are impenetrable. For if you will bear with me for amoment I will endeavour to prove that Protection, when fully developed,and pushed to its legitimate consequences, becomes Communism. It issufficiently singular that a champion of Protection should discover thathe is a promoter of Communism; but what is more extraordinary and moreconsoling still, is the fact that we find a powerful association, thatwas formed for the purpose of propagating theoretically and practicallythe principles of Communism (in the manner deemed most profitable toits members) now devoting the half of its resources to destroy the evilwhich it has done with the other half.
I repeat it,—this is consoling. It assures us of the inevitable triumphof truth, since it shows us the real and first propagators of subversivedoctrines, startled at their success, industriously correcting with theproper antidote the poison they had spread.
This supposes, it is true, the identity of the principles of Communismand of Protection, and perhaps you do not admit this identity, though,to speak the truth, it seems to me impossible that you could havewritten four hundred pages upon Property without being struck by it.Perhaps you imagine that some efforts made in favour of commercialfreedom, or rather of free trade, the impatience of a discussion withoutresults, the ardour of the contest, and the keenness of the struggle,have made me view (what happens too often to all of us) the errors of myadversaries in exaggerated colours. But, beyond question, according tomy idea, it requires but little effort to develop the principles youhave been advocating into those of Communism. How can it be that ourgreat manufacturers, landed proprietors, rich bankers, able statesmen,have become, without knowing or wishing it, the introducers, the veryapostles of Communism in Prance? And why not, I would ask? Thereare numerous workmen fully convinced of the right of labour , andconsequently Communists also without knowing or wishing it, and whowould not acknowledge the title. The reason of this is, that amongst allclasses interest biases the will, and the will, as Pascal says, isthe chief element of our faith. Under another name, many of our workingclasses, very honest people be it observed, use Communism as they havealways used it, namely, on the condition that the wealth of othersshould alone be liable to the law. But as soon as the principle,extending itself, would apply the same rule to their own property—oh!then Communism is held in detestation, and their former principlesare rejected with loathing. To express surprise at this, is simplyto confess ignorance of the human heart, its secret workings, and howstrong its inclination is to practise self-deception. [3]
No, Sir; it is not the heat of controversy, which has betrayed me inseeing the doctrine of Protection in this light, for, on the contrary,it was because I saw it in this point of view before the strugglecommenced that I am thus engaged. Believe me that to extend somewhatour foreign commerce—a consequential result which, however, is farfrom despicable—was never my governing motive; I believed, and I stillbelieve, that property itself was concerned in the question; I believed,and I still believe, that our tariff of customs, owing to the principlewhich has given it birth, and the arguments by which it is defended, hasmade a breach in the very principle of property itself, throughwhich all the rest of our legislation threatens to force itself. Inconsidering this state of things, it seems to me that a Communism, thetrue effect and range of which, (I must say this to be just,) was notcontemplated by its supporters, was on the point of overwhelming us.It seems to me that this particular species of Communism (for