Frederic Bastiat - Protection and Communism

This translation will not, it is hoped, be unacceptable to the Englishreader, particularly at the present moment, when it is not improbablethat, under certain circumstances, a great effort may be made inthis country to restore Protectionor, should that wild attempt beconsidered impossible, to shift the public burdens in such a manner asto effect, as far as possible, the same purpose in favour of what iscalled the 'agricultural interest.' M. Bastiat's spirited little workis in the form of a letter, addressed to M. Thiersthe archenemy offree-trade, as he was of most propositions which had for their objectthe true happiness of France. The present was only one of a seriesof efforts made by M. Bastiat in favour of the cause of freedom ofcommerce; and the English reader has already had an opportunity ofadmiring the force of his arguments and the clearness of his style, inMr. Porter's admirable translation of Popular Fallacies, which is,indeed, a perfect armory of arguments for those 'who, although they mayhave a general impression favourable to Free-trade, have yet some fearsas to the consequences that may follow its adoption.' What impression M.Bastiat may have produced on the public mind of France it is not easyto conjecture, or how far the recent violent changes in that country,presuming them to be at all permanent, may prove favourable toFree-trade or otherwise. But it is to be feared that there is an amountof prejudice and ignorance in France, among the mass of her people, moreinveterate and more difficult to remove and enlighten than was thecase in this country. However, seed thus sown cannot remain altogetherwithout fruit, and the rapidity with which correct principlesspread through a great community, under apparently most unfavourablecircumstances, is such as frequently to astonish even those mostconvinced of the vast power of truth.

The real object of M. Bastiat is to expose the unsoundness and injusticeof the system of Protection. He does this partly by a dexterousreference to the theory of Communism, and shows, with logical force andneat application, that the principles of the two are in truth the same.The parallel thus drawn, so far from being fanciful or strained, iscapable of easy demonstration. But, in drawing it, M. Bastiat ratherassumes than proves that Communism is itself wholly indefensiblethatits establishment would be destructive of security and property,and, consequently, of societyin a word, that it is another term forrobbery.

This is true, and obviously so, of Communism, in its more extravagantform; and it is to this, of course, that M. Bastiat refers. But itcannot be denied that there are many modifications of the principlewhich embrace more or less truth, and which appear to offer acorrective to that excessive competition or pressure of numbers, theevils of which are patent, admitted, and deplored. That the specificremedy proposed is vicious, that it would quickly make matters muchworse than they are, that it is, in fact, a fraud and a mockery, doesnot prevent it from being, and naturally, captivating to many who atpresent see no other way out of the difficulties and the struggles bywhich they are surrounded: and who are tempted to embrace it, not onlyas a relief to their present wants and anxieties, but because it would,in their opinion, entail other consequences, as connected with theirsocial condition, particularly grateful to their feelings. We furtheradmit that such sentimentsnot in themselves irrationalfounded ona legitimate desire for improvement, and entertained by large andimportant classesare entitled to the most respectful consideration.

Whether some considerable melioration in the condition of our labourersand artisans may not by degrees be effected by means of combined labour,or co-operation, and the principle of partnership, is no doubt one ofthe great questions to be solved by modern society, but it is much toowide a one to be entered upon, however cursorily, in this place. It isunderstood, however, that one of the most original and powerful thinkerswithin the domain of statistics is at the present moment engaged on thissubject; and, if this be so, we shall no doubt, before long, be in thepossession of views of extreme importance and interest.

We have, with deep regret, to add that M. Bastiat died during the autumnof last year, after a long illness, in the south of Italy. By his death,not only France, but the world also, has sustained a loss.

Sir,

Do not be ungrateful to the revolution of February. It may havesurprised, perhaps disturbed you, but it has also afforded you, whetheras an author, an orator, or a practised statesman, some unexpectedtriumphs. Amidst these successes, there is one certainly of no usualcharacter. We not long ago read in La Presse, 'The Association for theProtection of National Labour (the ancient Mimerel Club) is aboutto address a circular to all its correspondents, to announce that asubscription is opened for the purpose of promoting in manufactories thecirculation of M. Thiers's book upon Property. The association itselfsubscribes for 5000 copies.' Would that I had been present when thisflattering announcement met your eyes. It should have made them sparklewith joy. We have good reason to say that the ways of Providence are asinfallible as they are impenetrable. For if you will bear with me for amoment I will endeavour to prove that Protection, when fully developed,and pushed to its legitimate consequences, becomes Communism. It issufficiently singular that a champion of Protection should discover thathe is a promoter of Communism; but what is more extraordinary and moreconsoling still, is the fact that we find a powerful association, thatwas formed for the purpose of propagating theoretically and practicallythe principles of Communism (in the manner deemed most profitable toits members) now devoting the half of its resources to destroy the evilwhich it has done with the other half.

I repeat it,this is consoling. It assures us of the inevitable triumphof truth, since it shows us the real and first propagators of subversivedoctrines, startled at their success, industriously correcting with theproper antidote the poison they had spread.

This supposes, it is true, the identity of the principles of Communismand of Protection, and perhaps you do not admit this identity, though,to speak the truth, it seems to me impossible that you could havewritten four hundred pages upon Property without being struck by it.Perhaps you imagine that some efforts made in favour of commercialfreedom, or rather of free trade, the impatience of a discussion withoutresults, the ardour of the contest, and the keenness of the struggle,have made me view (what happens too often to all of us) the errors of myadversaries in exaggerated colours. But, beyond question, according tomy idea, it requires but little effort to develop the principles youhave been advocating into those of Communism. How can it be that ourgreat manufacturers, landed proprietors, rich bankers, able statesmen,have become, without knowing or wishing it, the introducers, the veryapostles of Communism in Prance? And why not, I would ask? Thereare numerous workmen fully convinced of the