moment, against those who wish
to change nothing in the present situation, because they find their
advantage in it, and against those who dream of an economic
revolution of which they have calculated neither the extent nor the
significance." (_National_ of October 16.)
We do not desire, however, to hide from your Majesty the fact that our
plan has a vulnerable side. They may say to us: In twenty years all left
hands will be as skilled as right ones are now, and you can no longer
count on _left-handedness_ to increase the national labor.
We reply to this, that, according to learned physicians, the left side
of the body has a natural weakness, which is very reassuring for the
future of labor.
Finally, Sire, consent to sign the law, and a great principle will have
prevailed: _All wealth comes from the intensity of labor._ It will be
easy for us to extend it, and vary its application. We will declare,
for instance, that it shall be allowable to work only with the feet.
This is no more impossible (for there have been instances) than to
extract iron from the mud of the Seine. There have even been men who
wrote with their backs. You see, Sire, that we do not lack means of
increasing national labor. If they do begin to fail us, there remains
the boundless resource of amputation.
If this report, Sire, was not intended for publication, we would call
your attention to the great influence which systems analogous to the one
we submit to you, are capable of giving to men in power. But this is a
subject which we reserve for consideration in private counsel.
XVII.
SUPREMACY BY LABOR.
"As in a time of war, supremacy is attained by superiority in arms, can,
in a time of peace, supremacy be secured by superiority in labor?"
This question is of the greatest interest at a time when no one seems to
doubt that in the field of industry, as on that of battle, _the stronger
crushes the weaker_.
This must result from the discovery of some sad and discouraging analogy
between labor, which exercises itself on things, and violence, which
exercises itself on men; for how could these two things be identical in
their effects, if they were opposed in their nature?
And if it is true that in manufacturing as in war, supremacy is the
necessary result of superiority, why need we occupy ourselves with
progress or social economy, since we are in a world where all has been
so arranged by Providence that one and the sa
|