；　equality　of　conditions　is　the　final　law　of　society。　　It　is　true　that　this　philosopher　admits　a　kind　of　property；　but　as　he　leaves　us　to　imagine　what　property　would　become　in　presence　of　equality；　we　may　boldly　class　him　with　the　opponents　of　the　right　of　increase。
  I　must　here　declare　freelyin　order　that　I　may　not　be　suspected　of　secret　connivance；　which　is　foreign　to　my　naturethat　M。　Leroux　has　my　full　sympathy。　　Not　that　I　am　a　believer　in　his　quasi…Pythagorean　philosophy　（upon　this　subject　I　should　have　more　than　one　observation　to　submit　to　him；　provided　a　veteran　covered　with　stripes　would　not　despise　the　remarks　of　a　conscript）；　not　that　I　feel　bound　to　this　author　by　any　special　consideration　for　his　opposition　to　property。　　In　my　opinion；　M。　Leroux　could；　and　even　ought　to；　state　his　position　more　explicitly　and　logically。　　But　I　like；　I　admire；　in　M。　Leroux；　the　antagonist　of　our　philosophical　demigods；　the　demolisher　of　usurped　reputations；　the　pitiless　critic　of　every　thing　that　is　respected　because　of　its　antiquity。　　Such　is　the　reason　for　my　high　esteem　of　M。　Leroux；　such　would　be　the　principle　of　the　only　literary　association　which；　in　this　century　of　coteries；　I　should　care　to　form。　　We　need　men　who；　like　M。　Leroux；　call　in　question　social　principles；not　to　diffuse　doubt　concerning　them；　but　to　make　them　doubly　sure；　men　who　excite　the　mind　by　bold　negations；　and　make　the　conscience　tremble　by　doctrines　of　annihilation。　　Where　is　the　man　who　does　not　shudder　on　hearing　M。　Leroux　exclaim；　〃There　is　neither　a　paradise　nor　a　hell；　the　wicked　will　not　be　punished；　nor　the　good　rewarded。　　Mortals！　cease　to　hope　and　fear；　you　revolve　in　a　circle　of　appearances；　humanity　is　an　immortal　tree；　whose　branches；　withering　one　after　another；　feed　with　their　debris　the　root　which　is　always　young！〃　　Where　is　the　man　who；　on　hearing　this　desolate　confession　of　faith；　does　not　demand　with　terror；　〃Is　it　then　true　that　I　am　only　an　aggregate　of　elements　organized　by　an　unknown　force；　an　idea　realized　for　a　few　moments；　a　form　which　passes　and　disappears？　　Is　it　true　that　my　mind　is　only　a　harmony；　and　my　soul　a　vortex？　　What　is　the　ego？　what　is　God？　　what　is　the　sanction　of　society？〃
  In　former　times；　M。　Leroux　would　have　been　regarded　as　a　great　culprit；　worthy　only　（like　Vanini）　of　death　and　universal　execration。　　To…day；　M。　Leroux　is　fulfilling　a　mission　of　salvation；　for　which；　whatever　he　may　say；　he　will　be　rewarded。　　Like　those　gloomy　invalids　who　are　always　talking　of　their　approaching　death；　and　who　faint　when　the　doctor's　opinion　confirms　their　pretence；　our　materialistic　society　is　agitated　and　loses　countenance　while　listening　to　this　startling　decree　of　the　philosopher；　〃Thou　shalt　die！〃　　Honor　then　to　M。　Leroux；　who　has　revealed　to　us　the　cowardice　of　the　Epicureans；　to　M。　Leroux；　who　renders　new　philosophical　solutions　necessary！　　Honor　to　the　anti…eclectic；　to　the　apostle　of　equality！
  In　his　work　on　〃Humanity；〃　M。　Leroux　commences　by　positing　the　necessity　of　property：　　〃You　wish　to　abolish　property；　but　do　you　not　see　that　thereby　you　would　annihilate　man　and　even　the　name　of　man？　。　。　。　　You　wish　to　abolish　property；　but　could　you　live　without　a　body？　　I　will　not　tell　you　that　it　is　necessary　to　support　this　body；　。　。　。　I　will　tell　you　that　this　body　is　itself　a　species　of　property。〃
  In　order　clearly　to　understand　the　doctrine　of　M。　Leroux；　it　must　be　borne　in　mind　that　there　are　three　necessary　and　primitive　forms　of　society；communism；　property；　and　that　which　to…day　we　properly　call　association。　　M。　Leroux　rejects　in　the　first　place　communism；　and　combats　it　with　all　his　might。　　Man　is　a　personal　and　free　being；　and　therefore　needs　a　sphere　of　independence　and　individual　activity。　　M。　Leroux　emphasizes　this　in　adding：　　〃You　wish　neither　family；　nor　country；　nor　property；　therefore　no　more　fathers；　no　more　sons；　no　more　brothers。　　Here　you　are；　related　to　no　being　in　time；　and　therefore　without　a　name；　here　you　are；　alone　in　the　midst　of　a　billion　of　men　who　to…day　inhabit　the　earth。　　How　do　you　expect　me　to　distinguish　you　in　space　in　the　midst　of　this　multitude？〃
  If　man　is　indistinguishable；　he　is　nothing。　　Now；　he　can　be　distinguished；　individualized；　only　through　a　devotion　of　certain　things　to　his　use；such　as　his　body；　his　faculties；　and　the　tools　which　he　uses。　　〃Hence；〃　says　M。　Leroux；　〃the　necessity　of　appropriation；〃　in　short；　property。
  But　property　on　what　condition？　　Here　M。　Leroux；　after　having　condemned　communism；　denounces　in　its　turn　the　right　of　domain。　　His　whole　doctrine　can　be　summed　up　in　this　single　proposition；　_Man　may　be　made　by　property　a　slave　or　a　despot　by　turns_。
  That　posited；　if　we　ask　M。　Leroux　to　tell　us　under　what　system　of　property　man　will　be　neither　a　slave　nor　a　despot；　but　free；　just；　and　a　citizen；　M。　Leroux　replies　in　the　third　volume　of　his　work　on　〃Humanity：〃
  〃There　are　three　ways　of　destroying　man's　communion　with　his　fellows　and　with　the　universe：　。　。　。　　1。　By　separating　man　in　time；　2。　by　separating　him　in　space；　3。　by　dividing　the　land；　or；　in　general　terms；　the　instruments　of　production；　by　attaching　men　to　things；　by　subordinating　man　to　property；　by　making　man　a　proprietor。〃
  This　language；　it　must　be　confessed；　savors　a　little　too　strongly　of　the　metaphysical　heights　which　the　author　frequents；　and　of　the　school　of　M。　Cousin。　　Nevertheless；　it　can　be　seen；　clearly　enough　it　seems　to　me；　that　M。　Leroux　opposes　the　exclusive　appropriation　of　the　instruments　of　production；　only　he　calls　this　non…appropriation　of　the　instruments　of　production　a　NEW　METHOD　of　establishing　property；　while　I；　in　accordance　with　all　precedent；　call　it　a　destruction　of　property。　　In　fact；　without　the　appropriation　of　instruments；　property　is　nothing。
  〃Hitherto。　　we　have　confined　ourselves　to　pointing　out　and　combating　the　despotic　features　of　property；　by　considering　property　alone。　　We　have　failed　to　see　that　the　despotism　of　property　is　a　correlative　of　the　division　of　the　human　race；　。　。　。　that　property；　instead　of　being　organized　in　such　a　way　as　to　facilitate　the　unlimited　communion　of　man　with　his　fellows　and　with　the　universe；　has　been；　on　the　contrary；　turned　against　this　communion。〃
  Let　us　translate　this　into　commercial　phraseology。　　In　order　to　destroy　despotism　and　the　inequality　of　conditions；　men　must　cease　from　competition　and　must　associate　their　interests。　　Let　employer　and　employed　（now　enemies　and　rivals）　become　associates。
  Now；　ask　any　manufacturer；　merchant；　or　capitalist；　whether　he　would　consider　himself　a　proprietor　if　he　were　to　share　his　revenue　and　profits　with　this　mass　of　wage…laborers　whom　it　is　proposed　to　make　his　associates。
  〃Family；　property；　and　country　are　finite　things；　which　ought　to　be　organized　with　a　view　to　the　infinite。　　For　man　is　a　finite　being；　who　aspires　to　the　infinite。　　To　him；　absolute　finiteness　is　evil。　　The　infinite　is　his　aim；　the　indefinite　his　right。〃
  Few　of　my　readers　would　understand　these　hierophantic　words；　were　I　to　leave　them　unexplained。　　M。　Leroux　means；　by　this　magnificent　formula；　that　humanity　is　a　single　immense　society；　which；　in　its　collective　unity；　represents　the　infinite；　that　every　nation；　every　tribe；　every　commune；　and　every　citizen　are；　in　different　degrees；　fragments　or　finite　members　of　the　infinite　society；　the　evil　in　which　results　solely　from　individualism　and　privilege；in　other　words；　from　the　subordination　of　the　infinite　to　the　finite；　finally；　that；　to　attain　humanity's　end　and　aim；　each　part　has　a　right　to　an　indefinitely　progressive　development。
  〃All　the　evils　which　afflict　the　human　race　arise　from　caste。　　The　family　is　a　blessing；　the　family　caste　（the　nobility）　is　an　evil。　　Country　is　a　blessing；　the　country　caste　（supreme；　domineering；　conquering）　is　an　evil；　property　（individual　possession）　is　a　blessing；　the　property　caste　（the　domain　of　property　of　Pothier；　Toullier；　Troplong；　&c。）　is　an　evil。〃
  Thus；　according　to　M。　Leroux；　there　is　property　and　property；　the　one　good；　the　other　bad。　　Now；　as　it　is　proper　to　call　different　things　by　different　names；　if　we　keep　the　name　〃property〃　for　the　former；　we　must　call　the　latter　robbery；　rapine；　brigandage。　　If；　on　the　contrary；　we　reserve　the　name　〃property〃　for　the　latter；　we　must　designate　the　former　by　the　term　POSSESSION；　or　some　other　equivalent；　otherwise　we　should　be　troubled　with　an　unpleasant　synonymy。
  What　a　blessing　it　would　be　if　philosophers；　daring　for　once　to　say　all　that　they　think；　would　speak　the　language　of　ordinary　mortals！　　Nations　and　rulers　would　derive　much　greater　profit　from　their　lectures；　and；　applying　the　same　names　to　the　same　ideas；　would　come；　perhaps；　to　understand　each　other。　　I　boldly　declare　that；　in　regard　to　property；　I　hold　no　other　opinion　than　that　of　M。　Leroux；　but；　if　I　should　adopt　the　style　of　the　philosopher；　and　repeat　after　him；　〃Property　is　a　blessing；　but　the　property　castethe　_statu　quo_　of　propertyis　an　evil；〃　I　should　be　extolled　as　a　genius　by　all　the　bachelors　who　write　for　the　reviews。＇1＇　　If；　on　the　contrary；　I　prefer　the　classic　language　of　Rome　and　the　civil　code；　and　say　accordingly；　〃Possession　is　a　blessing；　but　property　is　robbery；〃　immediat