[628] Propriété, 1er Mémoire, p. 133.
[629] L. von Stein, Geschichte der sozialen Bewegung in Frankreich, vol. iii, p. 362 (Leipzig, 1850). A remarkable piece of work altogether.
[630] It is true that Proudhon’s attack is entirely directed against the ethics of private property. He shows how every justification that is usually offered, such as right of occupation, natural right, or labour, cannot justify the institution as it is to-day. Private property as we know it is confined to the few, whereas on these principles it ought to be widely diffused. Criticism of this kind is not very difficult, perhaps, but it does nothing to weaken the arguments of those who would justify property on the grounds of social utility. The criticism of the Saint-Simonians, who approach it from the point of view of utility and productiveness rather than from the ethical standpoint, seems to be much more profound. This is why we have regarded them as the critics of private property.
[631] “This is the fundamental idea of my first Mémoire.” (Quoted by Sainte-Beuve, P. J. Proudhon, p. 90.) Later on he complains that the suggestion was never even discussed.
[632] Propriété, 1er Mémoire, p. 94.
[633] Ibid., p. 91.
[634] Blanqui’s letter dated May 1, 1841, in reply to a communication from Proudhon concerning the second Mémoire on property.
[635] Cf. Sainte-Beuve, P. J. Proudhon, pp. 202, 203; and see on this point Proudhon’s amusing letters to Guillaumin (Correspondance, vol. ii).
[636] Propriété, 1er Mémoire, p. 203.
[637] An article in Le Peuple, in 1848. Proudhon’s attacks are more especially directed against Fourier. Fourier’s was at this time the only socialist school that had any influence, and this was largely due to the active propaganda of Victor Considérant. See Contradictions, vol. ii, p. 297, and Propriété, 1er Mémoire, pp. 153 et seq.