Scanned with OmniPage Professional OCR software donated by Caere Corporation, 1-800-535-7226. Contact Mike Lough <Mikel@caere.com> THE EVOLUTION OF CAPITALISM SYSTEM OF ECONOMICAL CONTRADICTIONS OR, THE PHILOSOPHY OF MISERY. BY P. J. PROUDHON Destruam et aedificabo. Deuteronomy: c. 32. VOLUME FIRST. CONTENTS. INTRODUCTION CHAPTER I. OF THE ECONOMIC SCIENCE % 1. Opposition between FACT and RIGHT in Social Economy % 2. Inadequacy of Theories and Criticisms CHAPTER II. OF VALUE % 1. Opposition of Value in USE and Value in EXCHANGE % 2. Constitution of Value; Definition of Wealth % 3. Application of the Law of Proportionality of Values CHAPTER III. ECONOMIC EVOLUTIONS.--FIRST PERIOD.--THE DIVISION OF LABOR % 1. Antagonistic Effects of the Principle of Division % 2. Impotence of Palliatives.--MM. Blanqui, Chevalier, Dunoyer, Rossi, and Passy CHAPTER IV. SECOND PERIOD.--MACHINERY % 1. Of the Function of Machinery in its Relations to Liberty % 2. Machinery's Contradiction.--Origin of Capital and Wages % 3. Of Preservatives against the Disastrous Influence of Machinery CHAPTER V. THIRD PERIOD.--COMPETITION % 1. Necessity of Competition % 2. Subversive Effects of Competition, and the Destruction of Liberty thereby % 3. Remedies against Competition CHAPTER VI. FOURTH PERIOD.--MONOPOLY % 1. Necessity of Monopoly % 2. The Disasters in Labor and the Perversion of Ideas caused by Monopoly CHAPTER VII. FIFTH PERIOD.--POLICE, OR TAXATION % 1. Synthetic Idea of the Tax. Point of Departure and Development of this Idea % 2. Antinomy of the Tax % 3. Disastrous and Inevitable Consequences of the Tax. (Provisions, Sumptuary Laws, Rural and Industrial Police, Patents,Trade-Marks, etc.) CHAPTER VIII. OF THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MAN AND OF GOD, UNDER THE LAW OF CONTRADICTION, OR A SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM OF PROVIDENCE % 1. The Culpability of Man.--Exposition of the Myth of the Fall % 2. Exposition of the Myth of Providence.--Retrogression of God INTRODUCTION. Before entering upon the subject-matter of these new memoirs, I must explain an hypothesis which will undoubtedly seem strange, but in the absence of which it is impossible for me to proceed intelligibly: I mean the hypothesis of a God. To suppose God, it will be said, is to deny him. Why do you not affirm him? Is it my fault if belief in Divinity has become a suspected opinion; if the bare suspicion of a Supreme Being is already noted as evidence of a weak mind; and if, of all philosophical Utopias, this is the only one which the world no longer tolerates? Is it my fault if hypocrisy and imbecility everywhere hide behind this holy formula?