[…]
[36]
Give an exact, firm analysis of all my critiques,
- Ist Memoir, 1840
- 2nd Memoir, 1841
- 3rd Memoir, 1842
- Creation of Order, 1843
- Economic Contradictions, 1845
- Le Peuple, etc., etc., 1848-1852
- Justice, liv. V., 1858
- Taxation, 1860
- Literary Property, 1862
Make this summary as interesting as possible par la hauteur de la question, the strength of the critique, the movement of my mind.
Recall the refutations of Mms. Thiers, Troplong, Sudre, etc.
Say and repeat that this critique is indestructible in itself, apart from a single hypothesis, (which I will make known soon) ;
That, in fact, Property is inadmissible from the point of view of communal, Slavic, Germanic, or Arabic right; and that in fact is has been condemned by it;
That it is equally inadmissible in the Christian or ecclesiastic theory, which condemns it;
That it is once again inadmissible in the feudal system, which subordinates all the possessions, and opposes fief to it;
That it has been condemned by the Latin authors as contrary to Roman liberty and nationality; latifundia perdidere Italiam ;
That, finally, it is inadmissible in the system of political centralization; that from this point of view as well it has only been tolerated by ROBESPIERRE, and that it is still rejected today, with reason, by the Jacobins.
There is only one point of view from which property can be accepted: it is the one that, recognizing that man possesses Justice, within himself, making him sovereign and upholder of justice, consequently awards him property, and knows no possible political order but federation.
Thus I will fortify all my earlier criticisms with considerations of history and politics;, and show in the end that if property is a truth, this can only be on one condition: that the principles of Immanent Justice, Individual Sovereignty and Federation are accepted.
Thus, three parts.
- critique of the idea in itself;
- Incompatibility with all the known systems;
- Federalist Harmony or Conciliation.
Property is as incompatible with the Empire or the Republic one and indivisible, as communal autonomy itself.
[…]
