Clearly；　the　great　man　is　an　object　of　ridicule　to　the　reader；　he　did　not　mean　to　tell　his　secret。
  〃To　each　according　to　his　capacity；　to　each　capacity　according　to　its　results。〃
  〃To　each　according　to　his　capital；　his　labor；　and　his　skill。〃
  Since　the　death　of　St。　Simon　and　Fourier；　not　one　among　their　numerous　disciples　has　attempted　to　give　to　the　public　a　scientific　demonstration　of　this　grand　maxim；　and　I　would　wager　a　hundred　to　one　that　no　Fourierist　even　suspects　that　this　biform　aphorism　is　susceptible　of　two　interpretations。
  〃To　each　according　to　his　capacity；　to　each　capacity　according　to　its　results。〃
  〃To　each　according　to　his　capital；　his　labor；　and　his　skill。〃
  This　proposition；　taken；　as　they　say；　_in　sensu　obvio_in　the　sense　usually　attributed　to　itis　false；　absurd；　unjust；　contradictory；　hostile　to　liberty；　friendly　to　tyranny；　anti…　social；　and　was　unluckily　framed　under　the　express　influence　of　the　property　idea。
  And；　first；　CAPITAL　must　be　crossed　off　the　list　of　elements　which　are　entitled　to　a　reward。　　The　Fourieristsas　far　as　I　have　been　able　to　learn　from　a　few　of　their　pamphletsdeny　the　right　of　occupancy；　and　recognize　no　basis　of　property　save　labor。　　Starting　with　a　like　premise；　they　would　have　seenhad　they　reasoned　upon　the　matterthat　capital　is　a　source　of　production　to　its　proprietor　only　by　virtue　of　the　right　of　occupancy；　and　that　this　production　is　therefore　illegitimate。　　Indeed；　if　labor　is　the　sole　basis　of　property；　I　cease　to　be　proprietor　of　my　field　as　soon　as　I　receive　rent　for　it　from　another。　　This　we　have　shown　beyond　all　cavil。　　It　is　the　same　with　all　capital；　so　that　to　put　capital　in　an　enterprise；　is；　by　the　law's　decision；　to　exchange　it　for　an　equivalent　sum　in　products。　　I　will　not　enter　again　upon　this　now　useless　discussion；　since　I　propose；　in　the　following　chapter；　to　exhaust　the　subject　of　PRODUCTION　BY　CAPITAL。
  Thus；　capital　can　be　exchanged；　but　cannot　be　a　source　of　income。
  LABOR　and　SKILL　remain；　or；　as　St。　Simon　puts　it；　RESULTS　and　CAPACITIES。　　I　will　examine　them　successively。
  Should　wages　be　governed　by　labor？　　In　other　words；　is　it　just　that　he　who　does　the　most　should　get　the　most？　　I　beg　the　reader　to　pay　the　closest　attention　to　this　point。
  To　solve　the　problem　with　one　stroke；　we　have　only　to　ask　ourselves　the　following　question：　　〃Is　labor　a　CONDITION　or　a　STRUGGLE？〃　　The　reply　seems　plain。
  God　said　to　man；　〃In　the　sweat　of　thy　face　shalt　thou　eat　bread；〃that　is；　thou　shalt　produce　thy　own　bread：　with　more　or　less　ease；　according　to　thy　skill　in　directing　and　combining　thy　efforts；　thou　shalt　labor。　　God　did　not　say；　〃Thou　shalt　quarrel　with　thy　neighbor　for　thy　bread；〃　but；　〃Thou　shalt　labor　by　the　side　of　thy　neighbor；　and　ye　shall　dwell　together　in　harmony。〃　　Let　us　develop　the　meaning　of　this　law；　the　extreme　simplicity　of　which　renders　it　liable　to　misconstruction。
  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　remainderor　the　difference　between　the　greater　and　the　smallerwill　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。　　In　a　word；　society　exchanges　only　equal　productsthat　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。　　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？　　Who　dares　maintain　such　a　proposition？　　He　who　finishes　before　the　others　may　rest；　if　he　chooses；　he　may　devote　himself　to　useful　exercise　and　labors　for　the　maintenance　of　his　strength；　and　the　culture　of　his　mind；　and　the　pleasure　of　his　life。　　This　he　can　do　without　injury　to　any　one：　but　let　him　confine　himself　to　services　which　affect　him　solely。　　Vigor；　genius；　diligence；　and　all　the　personal　advantages　which　result　therefrom；　are　the　work　of　Nature　and；　to　a　certain　extent；　of　the　individual；　society　awards　them　the　esteem　which　they　merit：　but　the　wages　which　it　pays　them　is　measured；　not　by　their　power；　but　by　their　production。　　Now；　the　product　of　each　is　limited　by　the　right　of　all。
  If　the　soil　were　infinite　in　extent；　and　the　amount　of　available　material　were　exhaustless；　even　then　we　could　not　accept　this　maxim；TO　EACH　ACCORDING　TO　HIS　LABOR。　　And　why？　　Because　society；　I　repeat；　whatever　be　the　number　of　its　subjects；　is　forced　to　pay　them　all　the　same　wages；　since　she　pays　them　only　in　their　own　products。　　Only；　on　the　hypothesis　just　made；　inasmuch　as　the　strong　cannot　be　prevented　from　using　all　their　advantages；　the　inconveniences　of　natural　inequality　would　reappear　in　the　very　bosom　of　social　equality。　　But　the　land；　considering　the　productive　power　of　its　inhabitants　and　their　ability　to　multiply；　is　very　limited；　further；　by　the　immense　variety　of　products　and　the　extreme　division　of　labor；　the　social　task　is　made　easy　of　accomplishment。　　Now；　through　this　limitation　of　things　producible；　and　through　the　ease　of　producing　them；　the　law　of　absolute　equality　takes　effect。
  Yes；　life　is　a　struggle。　　But　this　struggle　is　not　between　man　and　manit　is　between　man　and　Nature；　and　it　is　each　one's　duty　to　take　his　share　in　it。　　If；　in　the　struggle；　the　strong　come　to　the　aid　of　the　weak；　their　kindness　deserves　praise　and　love；　but　their　aid　must　be　accepted　as　a　free　gift；not　imposed　by　force；　nor　offered　at　a　price。　　All　have　the　same　career　before　them；　neither　too　long　nor　too　difficult；　whoever　finishes　it　finds　his　reward　at　the　end：　it　is　not　necessary　to　get　there　first。
  In　printing…offices；　where　the　laborers　usually　work　by　the　job；　the　compositor　receives　so　much　per　thousand　letters　set；　the　pressman　so　much　per　thousand　sheets　printed。　　There；　as　elsewhere；　inequalities　of　talent　and　skill　are　to　be　found。　　When　there　is　no　prospect　of　dull　times　（for　printing　and　typesetting；　like　all　other　trades；　sometimes　come　to　a　stand…　still）；　every　one　is　free　to　work　his　hardest；　and　exert　his　faculties　to　the　utmost：　he　who　does　more　gets　more；　he　who　does　less　gets　less。　　When　business　slackens；　compositors　and　pressmen　divide　up　their　labor；　all　monopolists　are　detested　as　no　better　than　robbers　or　traitors。
  There　is　a　philosophy　in　the　action　of　these　printers；　to　which　neither　economists　nor　legists　have　ever　risen。　　If　our　legislators　had　introduced　into　their　codes　the　principle　of　distributive　justice　which　governs　printing…offices；　if　they　had　observed　the　popular　instincts；not　for　the　sake　of　servile　imitation；　but　in　order　to　reform　and　generalize　them；long　ere　this　liberty　and　equality　would　have　been　established　on　an　immovable　basis；　and　we　should　not　now　be　disputing　about　the　right　of　property　and　the　necessity　of　social　distinctions。
  It　has　been　calculated　that　if　labor　were　equally　shared　by　the　whole　number　of　able…bodied　individuals；　the　average　　working…day　of　each　individual；　in　France；　would　not　exceed　five　hours。　　This　being　so；　how　can　we　presume　to　talk　of　the　inequality　of　laborers？　　It　is　the　LABOR　of　Robert　Macaire　that　causes　inequality。
  The　principle；　TO　EACH　ACCORDING　TO　HIS　LABOR；　interpreted　to　mean；　WHO　WORKS　MOST　SHOULD　RECEIVE　MOST；　is　based；　therefore；　on　two　palpable　errors：　one；　an　error　in　economy；　that　in　the　labor　of　society　tasks　must　necessarily　be　unequal；　the　other；　an　error　in　physics；　that　there　is　no　limit　to　the　amount　of　producible　things。
  〃But；〃　it　will　be　said；　〃suppose　there　are　some　people　who　wish　to　perform　only　half　of　thei