ivided；　the　very　next　moment　this　division；　if　it　allowed　the　right　of　property；　would　become　illegitimate。　　Should　there　be　the　slightest　irregularity　in　the　method　of　transfer；　men；　members　of　society；　imprescriptible　possessors　of　the　land；　might　be　deprived　at　one　blow　of　property；　possession；　and　the　means　of　production。　　In　short；　property　in　capital　is　indivisible；　and　consequently　inalienable；　not　necessarily　when　the　capital　is　UNCREATED；　but　when　it　is　COMMON　or　COLLECTIVE。
  I　confirm　this　theory　against　M。　Considerant；　by　the　third　term　of　his　syllogism：
  Conclusion。〃The　results　of　the　labor　performed　by　this　generation　are　divisible　into　two　classes；　between　which　it　is　important　clearly　to　distinguish。　　The　first　class　includes　the　products　of　the　soil　which　belong　to　this　first　generation　in　its　usufructuary　capacity；　augmented；　improved　and　refined　by　its　labor　and　industry。　　These　products　consist　either　of　objects　of　consumption　or　instruments　of　labor。　　It　is　clear　that　these　products　are　the　legitimate　property　of　those　who　have　created　them　by　their　activity。　。　。　。　　Second　class。Not　only　has　this　generation　created　the　products　just　mentioned　（objects　of　consumption　and　instruments　of　labor）；　but　it　has　also　added　to　the　original　value　of　the　soil　by　cultivation；　by　the　erection　of　buildings；　by　all　the　labor　producing　permanent　results；　which　it　has　performed。　　This　additional　value　evidently　constitutes　a　producta　value　created　by　the　activity　of　the　first　generation；　and　if；　BY　ANY　MEANS　WHATEVER；　the　ownership　of　this　value　be　distributed　among　the　members　of　society　equitably；that　is；　in　proportion　to　the　labor　which　each　has　performed；each　will　legitimately　possess　the　portion　which　he　receives。　　He　may　then　dispose　of　this　legitimate　and　private　property　as　he　sees　fit；exchange　it；　give　it　away；　or　transfer　it；　and　no　other　individual；　or　collection　of　other　individuals；that　is；　society；can　lay　any　claim　to　these　values。〃
  Thus；　by　the　distribution　of　collective　capital；　to　the　use　of　which　each　associate；　either　in　his　own　right　or　in　right　of　his　authors；　has　an　imprescriptible　and　undivided　title；　there　will　be　in　the　phalanstery；　as　in　the　France　of　1841；　the　poor　and　the　rich；　some　men　who；　to　live　in　luxury；　have　only；　as　Figaro　says；　to　take　the　trouble　to　be　born；　and　others　for　whom　the　fortune　of　life　is　but　an　opportunity　for　long…continued　poverty；　idlers　with　large　incomes；　and　workers　whose　fortune　is　always　in　the　future；　some　privileged　by　birth　and　caste；　and　others　pariahs　whose　sole　civil　and　political　rights　are　THE　RIGHT　TO　LABOR；　AND　THE　RIGHT　TO　LAND。　　For　we　must　not　be　deceived；　in　the　phalanstery　every　thing　will　be　as　it　is　to…day；　an　object　of　property；machines；　inventions；　thought；　books；　the　products　of　art；　of　agriculture；　and　of　industry；　animals；　houses；　fences；　vineyards；　pastures；　forests；　fields；every　thing；　in　short；　except　the　UNCULTIVATED　LAND。　　Now；　would　you　like　to　know　what　uncultivated　land　is　worth；　according　to　the　advocates　of　property？　　〃A　square　league　hardly　suffices　for　the　support　of　a　savage；〃　says　M。　Charles　Comte。　　Estimating　the　wretched　subsistence　of　this　savage　at　three　hundred　francs　per　year；　we　find　that　the　square　league　necessary　to　his　life　is；　relatively　to　him；　faithfully　represented　by　a　rent　of　fifteen　francs。　　In　France　there　are　twenty…eight　thousand　square　leagues；　the　total　rent　of　which；　by　this　estimate；　would　be　four　hundred　and　twenty　thousand　francs；　which；　when　divided　among　nearly　thirty…four　millions　of　people；　would　give　each　an　INCOME　OF　A　CENTIME　AND　A　QUARTER。　　That　is　the　new　right　which　the　great　genius　of　Fourier　has　invented　IN　BEHALF　OF　THE　FRENCH　PEOPLE；　and　with　which　his　first　disciple　hopes　to　reform　the　world。　　I　denounce　M。　Considerant　to　the　proletariat！
  If　the　theory　of　M。　Considerant　would　at　least　really　guarantee　this　property　which　he　cherishes　so　jealously；　I　might　pardon　him　the　flaws　in　his　syllogism；　certainly　the　best　one　he　ever　made　in　his　life。　　But；　no：　that　which　M。　Considerant　takes　for　property　is　only　a　privilege　of　extra　pay。　　In　Fourier's　system；　neither　the　created　capital　nor　the　increased　value　of　the　soil　are　divided　and　appropriated　in　any　effective　manner：　the　instruments　of　labor；　whether　created　or　not；　remain　in　the　hands　of　the　phalanx；　the　pretended　proprietor　can　touch　only　the　income。　　He　is　permitted　neither　to　realize　his　share　of　the　stock；　nor　to　possess　it　exclusively；　nor　to　administer　it；　whatever　it　be。　　The　cashier　throws　him　his　dividend；　and　then；　proprietor；　eat　the　whole　if　you　can！
  The　system　of　Fourier　would　not　suit　the　proprietors；　since　it　takes　away　the　most　delightful　feature　of　property；the　free　disposition　of　one's　goods。　　It　would　please　the　communists　no　better；　since　it　involves　unequal　conditions。　　It　is　repugnant　to　the　friends　of　free　association　and　equality；　in　consequence　of　its　tendency　to　wipe　out　human　character　and　individuality　by　suppressing　possession；　family；　and　country；the　threefold　expression　of　the　human　personality。
  Of　all　our　active　publicists；　none　seem　to　me　more　fertile　in　resources；　richer　in　imagination；　more　luxuriant　and　varied　in　style；　than　M。　Considerant。　　Nevertheless；　I　doubt　if　he　will　undertake　to　reestablish　his　theory　of　property。　　If　he　has　this　courage；　this　is　what　I　would　say　to　him：　　〃Before　writing　your　reply；　consider　well　your　plan　of　action；　do　not　scour　the　country；　have　recourse　to　none　of　your　ordinary　expedients；　no　complaints　of　civilization；　no　sarcasms　upon　equality；　no　glorification　of　the　phalanstery。　　Leave　Fourier　and　the　departed　in　peace；　and　endeavor　only　to　re…adjust　the　pieces　of　your　syllogism。　　To　this　end；　you　ought；　first；　to　analyze　closely　each　proposition　of　your　adversary；　second；　to　show　the　error；　either　by　a　direct　refutation；　or　by　proving　the　converse；　third；　to　oppose　argument　to　argument；　so　that；　objection　and　reply　meeting　face　to　face；　the　stronger　may　break　down　the　weaker；　and　shiver　it　to　atoms。　　By　that　method　only　can　you　boast　of　having　conquered；　and　compel　me　to　regard　you　as　an　honest　reasoner；　and　a　good　artillery…man。〃
  I　should　have　no　excuse　for　tarrying　longer　with　these　phalansterian　crotchets；　if　the　obligation　which　I　have　imposed　upon　myself　of　making　a　clean　sweep；　and　the　necessity　of　vindicating　my　dignity　as　a　writer；　did　not　prevent　me　from　passing　in　silence　the　reproach　uttered　against　me　by　a　correspondent　of　〃La　Phalange。〃　　〃We　have　seen　but　lately；〃　says　this　journalist；＇1＇　〃that　M。　Proudhon；　enthusiast　as　he　has　been　for　the　science　created　by　Fourier；　is；　or　will　be；　an　enthusiast　for　any　thing　else　whatsoever。〃
  ＇1＇　　〃Impartial；〃　of　Besancon。
  If　ever　sectarians　had　the　right　to　reproach　another　for　changes　in　his　beliefs；　this　right　certainly　does　not　belong　to　the　disciples　of　Fourier；　who　are　always　so　eager　to　administer　the　phalansterian　baptism　to　the　deserters　of　all　parties。　　But　why　regard　it　as　a　crime；　if　they　are　sincere？　　Of　what　consequence　is　the　constancy　or　inconstancy　of　an　individual　to　the　truth　which　is　always　the　same？　　It　is　better　to　enlighten　men's　minds　than　to　teach　them　to　be　obstinate　in　their　prejudices。　　Do　we　not　know　that　man　is　frail　and　fickle；　that　his　heart　is　full　of　delusions；　and　that　his　lips　are　a　distillery　of　falsehood？　　_Omnis　homo　meudax_。　　Whether　we　will　or　no；　we　all　serve　for　a　time　as　instruments　of　this　truth；　whose　kingdom　comes　every　day。
  God　alone　is　immutable；　because　he　is　eternal。
  That　is　the　reply　which；　as　a　general　rule；　an　honest　man　is　entitled　always　to　make；　and　which　I　ought　perhaps　to　be　content　to　offer　as　an　excuse；　for　I　am　no　better　than　my　fathers。　　But；　in　a　century　of　doubt　and　apostasy　like　ours；　when　it　is　of　importance　to　set　the　small　and　the　weak　an　example　of　strength　and　honesty　of　utterance；　I　must　not　suffer　my　character　as　a　public　assailant　of　property　to　be　dishonored。　　I　must　render　an　account　of　my　old　opinions。
  Examining　myself；　therefore；　upon　this　charge　of　Fourierism；　and　endeavoring　to　refresh　my　memory；　I　find　that；　having　been　connected　with　the　Fourierists　in　my　studies　and　my　friendships；　it　is　possible　that；　without　knowing　it；　I　have　been　one　of　Fourier's　partisans。　　Jerome　Lalande　placed　Napoleon　and　Jesus　Christ　in　his　catalogue　of　atheists。　　The　Fourierists　resemble　this　astronomer：　if　a　man　happens　to　find　fault　with　the　existing　civilization；　and　to　admit　the　truth　of　a　few　of　their　criticisms；　they　straightway　enlist　him；　willy…nilly；　in　their　school。　　Nevertheless；　I　do　not　deny　that　I　have　been　a　Fourierist；　for；　since　they　say　it；　of　course　it　may　be　so。　　But；　sir；　that　of　which　my　ex…associates　are　ignorant；　and　which　doubtless　will　astonish　you；　is　that　I　have　been　many　other　things；in　religion；　by　turns　a　Protestant；　a　Papist；　an　Arian　and　Semi…Arian；　a　Manichean；　a　Gnostic；　an　Adamite　even　and　a　Pre…Adamite；　a　Sceptic；　a　Pelagian；　a　Socinian；　an　Anti…　Trinitarian；　and　a　Neo…Christian；＇1＇　in　philosophy　and　politics；　an　Idealist；　a　Pantheist；　a　Platonist；　a　Cartesian；　an　Eclectic　（that　is；　a　sort　of　_juste…milieu_）；　a　Monarchist；　an　Aristocrat；　a　Constitutionalist；　a　follower　of　Babeuf；　and　a　Communist。