WCP7027

[1]

Frith Hill, Godalming

Nov 28th 1883

M. Agathon de Potter

Dear Sir

I have just finished reading with great pleasure your excellent "Examen des elements d'economie politique M Émile de Laveleye" It seems to me a most just and advisable critique and at the same time an excelent resum é of the chief point of your system of "National Socialism."

I was particulaly pleased with your refutation of the statement of Continually [?] made by all our public writers as well as by M. de Lavalege, that the condition of labourers is greatly improved and is continually improving. I doubt even if it is unfinied absolutely — on the coverage — certainly not as you so well state, relatively to the advance of conligation [?] [2] and of the needs of a decent existence.

The point however to which I here [?] with to call your attention is that of which we chiefly differ, and almost the only one in which I think your system is logically imperfect — that of the distinction between " propriété foncière" and " propriétés immobilières " In your "Examen" (p. 506) is the passage : — "Le travacul est l'agent; la matiere modifable est le patient. Cette uatiere est de deux especies; l'ime est la planete que mous habifoud, ou le sol, souvice passion indespensable de le tout ce que l'on peut produciere; l'autre consiete daus les produits mobiles reluctant de travail suz la planiete: ce souch les certifane [?]".

There we have a very clear and logical distinction between two kinds of property, the one, the earth, the other everything that is the result of human labour, (for everything so produced is measureable). The second [3] corresponds to every sound definition of ^{what may be} individual property, namely the result of human labour; the first does not correspond to this definition, and therefore is cannot justly become private property.

But this most clear and locigal divison, is not the division you adopt in determining what shall be private property & what shall not. Then you introduce the idea of attachement to the soil, a unreliability [?], as the test. Now, not only is this illogical but it is most incoveneient. It is illogical because it found a most important & fundemental distinction on the trivial matter of artificial fortune to the soil & to something which is itself fixed to the soil. It is invonvenient because it would render the States properties of [4] a vast amount of perhishable property which it could not be the interest of the occupier to repair or reform, and which would necessiate a whole array of unexpected and [1 word illeg.] to keep in order and a while complex body of conditions of agreement between the State and the occupier such as those which are to remain and doubful in the system of landlord leases in England. The houses, buildings faces, roads, windmills, watermills, factories, fixed steam-engines, bridges &c. &c. would all have to be periodically inspected & see that the tenant did not allow them to deteriorate; and besides this all the [1 word illeg.] fittings of tables, brewieres, manufactories &c. & the [2 words illeg.] of the walls, the fireplaces, and the great ornaments of the tables, would all have to be the objects of the constant care of an individual owner, and would have to be looked after by officials, or they might be not only spoilt but that actually taken away and sold in many cases.

Surely the most logical, the most simple and the most practicable [5] division, is, into land which is indestructable & things which are destructiable. The former wants no looking after, no reforms; except what it necessarily recieves in the act of use; the latter whether fixed or moveable, have all the essential characters of private property, and as such will be continually improved and added to in accordance with the tastes of the individual, which all the immense and unproductive labour of State inspection is avoided.

Each there the results of labour are incorporated in the soil, and [2 words illeg.], they are equally destructable, sooner or later; and there is practically no difficulty in escaping when needed the value of such inprovements from the value of the land [6] itself as dependent on material causes, and the state of society at the time and place.

The [1 word illeg.] caused by long succesive generations of cultivations in old countries may be fairly concluded as due to society. The fruits of such collaboration have been ^{long ago} reformed by the cultivations. But any more permanent improvement such as building a draw which could be proved to have been executed by the [1 word illeg.] of some existing private property or which have been purchased by his owner, would of course be his private property.

Another great advantage of this division would be, that if would strictly correspond to the division — land, and, captial [7] you could^then say land should always be the property of the State ; — captial alone may be private property.

I venture to hope that you will give these considerations your careful attention, & that you will find yourself compelled to give up the terms "foncière" and "immobilières" as explaining no important or logical difference and as being merely a relic of the old and bad laws of property.

I am astonished how few [1 word illeg.] in England have heard of your system of "National Socialist". I [8] shall try and get some of my friends to undertake some translations or abstracts of your writings.

Remain, Dear Sir

Yours faithfully

[signature] Alfred R. Wallace