“That, under the régime of Property, in all civilized nations, the common fund, over which the entire species has a full right of usufruct, has been invaded—has been confiscated—by the few, to the exclusion of the many. Why, were even a single human being excluded from his Right to the Usufruct of this common fund, that very exclusion would of itself constitute an attack upon Right by the Institution of Property, and that institution, by sanctioning such invasion of right, would be unjust and illegitimate.” M. Considérant, however, acknowledges that the earth could not be cultivated but for the institution of individual property. Here, then, is a ‹necessary monopoly›. What can we do, then, to reconcile all, and preserve the rights which the ‹prolétaires›, or men of no property, have to the primitive, natural, uncreated capital, and to the value of the land in its rough and uncultivated state? [p259] “Why, let Society, which has taken possession of the land, and taken away from man the power of exercising, freely and at will, his four natural rights on the surface of the soil,—let this industrious society cede to the individual, in compensation for the rights of which it has deprived him, the ‹Right to Employment›.”—[«Le Droit au Travail.»] Now, nothing in the world is clearer than that this theory, except the conclusion which it seeks to establish, is exactly the theory of the Economists. The man who purchases an agricultural product remunerates three things: 1st, The actual labour—nothing more legitimate; 2dly, the ‹additional value› imparted to the soil by anterior labour—still nothing more legitimate; 3dly, and lastly, the ‹primitive›, or ‹natural›, or ‹uncreated capital›,—that gratuitous gift of God, which M. Considérant denominates the ‹value of the land in its rough and natural state›; Adam Smith, the ‹indestructible powers of the soil›; Ricardo, the ‹productive and indestructible powers of the land›; Say, ‹natural agents›. ‹This› is the part which has been ‹usurped›, according to M. Considérant; ‹this› is what has been ‹usurped›, according to J. B. Say. It is ‹this› which constitutes ‹illegitimacy› and ‹spoliation› in the eyes of the Socialists; which constitutes ‹monopoly› and ‹privilege› in the eyes of the Economists. They are at one as to the ‹necessity› and the utility of this arrangement. Without it the earth would produce nothing, say the disciples of Smith; without it we should return to the savage state, re-echo the disciples of Fourier.