----------------------------------------
---------  ,transcriber's note3         
,obvious typographic errors have been   
corrected4                              
----------------------------------------
---------      ,,tolstoy',s             
,,interpretation    ,,of ,,money ,,and  
,,property    ,by    ,,milivoy ,s4      
,,stanoyevich1 ,m4,l4    7,university of
 ,california7    ,reprinted from        
8,liberty01 ,december1 #aiaf4           
,liberty ,publishing ,co4  ,oakland1    
,cal4          ,,tolstoy',s             
,,interpretation ,,of ,,money ,,and     
,,property          ,a4 ,interpretation 
of ,money4      ,i    ,assuming that our
 society may exist without positive laws
 it could  also exist without money4    
,the ,russian reformer1 ,leo ,n4        
,tolstoy1 is  consistent with his       
doctrine of social reform#a4 ,according 
to him  enacted law is violence1 private
 property is evil1 and subsequently     
8money as a centre around which economic
 science clusters0#b cannot be  anything

 else1 but a medium of oppression#c4    
,describing the economic  nature and    
offices performed by money1 he dissents 
widely from the  politico-economists and
 disapproves of their teachings on the  
same  subject-matter4    ,at the outset 
of the seventeenth chapter of his       
notable work1 ,what  ,shall ,we ,do     
,then1 ,tolstoy inquires1 ,what is      
money8 ,and further on  he proceeds3 8,i
 have met educated people who asserted  
that money  represents the labor of him 
who possesses it4 ,i must confess that  
formerly ,i in some obscure manner      
shared this opinion4 ,but ,i had  to go 
to the bottom of what money was1 and so 
to find this out1  ,i turned to science4
 ,science says that there is nothing    
unjust  and prejudicial about money1    
that money is a natural condition of    
social life--necessary3 #a4 for         
convenience of exchange2 #b4 for  the   
establishment of measures of value2 #c4 
for saving2 and #d4 for  payments0#d4   
,are these theories true8 ,according to 

the teaching of economics they  are2    
according to ,tolstoy they are not4     
,many writers even those of  the        
earliest time argued that money is a    
medium of exchange#e4  ,the founders of 
classical economics1 ,smith#f1          
,ricardo#g1 ,mill#h1  ,carey#i1         
socialist reformers1 ,lassalle#aj1 and  
,marx#aa1 all agree  in the main that   
money is an exchangeable commodity by   
means of which  people measure the value
 of other commodities4 ,professor       
,fisher  shortly and precisely defines  
money as ,what is generally acceptable  
in exchange for goods#ab4 ,more acute   
determination of the nature of  money is
 given by ,prof4 ,kinley in his         
elaborate study on ,money#ac4           
,according to this author no definition 
of medium of exchange can be  framed on 
the basis of the material of which it is
 made but on the  basis of its services1
 and its essential services are three   
fold3    ,first1 money is sometimes used
 to describe all media of               

exchange--gold1  silver1 paper1 checks1 
bank drafts or the deposits which they  
represent1 commercial bills of exchange1
 and even corporation stocks4  ,these   
things all effect exchanges2 in a way   
they all relieve the  difficulties of   
barter4 ,but this definition1 however1  
is too inclusive1  ,prof4 ,kinley       
contends4 ,it is inclusive because all  
mentioned articles  do not attain the   
character of media of exchange because  
there is a  demand for them for that    
purpose primarily4 ,the medium of       
exchange  includes money but its content
 is greater than that of money4 ,all    
money  can be a medium of exchange but  
all medium of exchange is not money#ad4 
,second1 at the other extreme is a set  
of definitions which would  restrict    
money to what may be called commodity   
money4 ,those who hold  this view insist
 that money is an article of direct     
utility with  specific value based on   
its direct services for consumption4    
,they hold  that it must have value due 

to a demand for other than a monetary   
system4 ,the implication is that in the 
absence of this other demand  the       
article would not have any value and    
therefore could not properly  serve as a
 measure of value4 ,this view of the    
nature of money is  definite and        
clear-cut1 but it is not correct because
 the article has  value if there is a   
demand for it1 whatever the reason for  
that demand4    ,third1 between these   
two extremes fluctuates the view that   
all media of  exchange and payment1     
whose acceptance the law requires in    
discharge  of debts1 may properly be    
called money4 ,this definition confines 
to  standard money1 or inconvertible    
paper1 if it were legal tender4 ,both   
kinds of money circulate without        
reference to the possibility of         
recovering their value from the payer if
 they should fail to pass1  and their   
value as money depends entirely on the  
fact that they are  generally acceptable
 in exchange#ae4    ,taking now in view 

these three standpoints of the nature of
 money1 we  could define it in these    
words3 ,legal tender1 inconvertible     
paper1 and  all commodities which are   
used as general circulating and paying  
media1  are properly called money4      
,this is one of the most typical        
definitions including nearly all others 
supported by current political economy4 
,tolstoy as always disagrees  with the  
teaching of economics and he simply says
 that money is a new  and terrible form 
of slavery#af4 ,his full definition is  
as follows3  ,money is a conventional   
token which gives the right1 or more    
correctly1  the possibility1 to exploit 
the labor of other people#ag4 ,to       
explain  this inadequate definition of  
money more appropriately and in its     
fuller extent1 it is necessary to turn  
our attention to the functions  of money
 as they are enunciated by ,leo         
,tolstoy4    ,one of many other         
functions which money performes1        
according to  ,tolstoy1 is the          

representation of labor4 ,there exists a
 common opinion  that money represents  
wealth1 but money is the product of     
labor1 and  so money represents         
labor#ah4 ,this opinion1 says ,tolstoy  
sneeringly1  is as correct as that other
 opinion that every political           
organization  is the result of a pact   
7contrat social74 ,yes1 money represents
  labor#ai1 there is no doubt about     
that1 but whose1 labor of the owner  of 
the money1 or of the other people8 ,in  
that rude stage of society1  ,tolstoy   
goes on1 when people voluntarily        
bartered the fruits of their  products1 
or exchanged them through the medium of 
money1 substantially  money represented 
their individual labor4 ,that is        
incontestably true1  and this was only  
so long as in society where this        
exchange took place1  has not appeared  
the violence of one man over another in 
any form3 war1  slavery1 of defence of  
one's labor against others4 ,but as soon
 as any  violence was exerted in        

society1 the money at once lost for the 
owner  its significance as a            
representative of labor1 and assumed the
 meaning  of a right which is not based 
on labor1 but on violence#bj4 ,this is  
one of the functions of the medium of   
exchange in the pages of ,tolstoy4      
,the second function of money is the    
representation of the standard  value4  
8,catallactics0 admits this function of 
money4 ,tolstoy himself  should         
recognize it in an ideal state of       
society1 in a society where  extortion  
has not made its appearance#ba4 ,if     
people exchanged directly  commodity for
 commodity2 if they themselves          
determined the standards  of values by  
sheep1 furs1 hides1 and shells#bb1 then 
one could speak  of money as an         
instrument of exchange1 as an ideal     
standard of value  in an ideal state of 
society4 ,but in such a society there   
would be no  money as such1 as a common 
standard of values1 as it has not       
existed  and cannot exist#bc4 ,the      

standard value of money is determined by
 law  and government1 and these         
institutions are based chiefly on       
deceit#bd1  or represent the organized  
force#be4 ,what in recent time receives 
a  value is not what is more convenient 
for exchange1 but what is demanded  by  
government4 ,if gold is demanded gold   
will be a common denominator1  if       
knuckle-bones are demanded1             
knuckle-bones will have value#bf4 ,if   
this were not so why has the issue of   
this medium of exchange always  been the
 prerogative of the government8 ,in such
 a state of society in  which we live1  
the standard of values ceases to have   
any significance1  because the standard 
of value of all articles depends on the 
arbitrary  will of the oppressor#bg4 ,by
 this reason we could speak only on     
arbitrary and conventional value of     
money1 not of its intrinsic1 nor of  its
 standard value4    ,passing now to the 
third function of money1 enumerated by  
,tolstoy1  we see that he attributes to 

it a new contingent service which is    
not mentioned as such in any political  
economy4 ,in modern civilised  society1 
he says1 all the governments are in     
extreme need for money1  and always in  
insolvable debt#bh4 ,wherefore they     
issue monetary  tokens in the different 
countries#bi4 ,these tokens3 legal      
tender1  inconvertible paper1 coin1     
bills1 and other governmental fiats1    
are distributed among the people1 in    
order that later they could  be         
collected as direct1 indirect1 and land 
taxes#cj4 ,the debts of  the present    
monetary state grow from year to year in
 a terrifying  progression4 ,even so    
grow the budgets#ca4 ,a state which     
should not  levy taxes1 for a           
comparatively short time would go to    
bankruptcy4 ,the  taxes and imposts     
required from people may be paid in form
 of cattle1  corn1 furs1 skins1 and     
other natural products1 but this        
8natural  economy0 never practices in a 
civilised state4 ,governments force     

people  to pay those taxes usually in   
8hard0 or 8soft0 cash1 because this kind
  of money best suits the purposes of   
rewarding the military and civil        
officials1 of maintaining the clergy1   
the courts1 the construction of         
prisons1 fortresses1 cannon#cb1 and     
supporting those men who aid in  the    
seizure of the money from the people#cc4
 ,so we have the third  function of     
money as the third method of            
enslavement#cd1 by means of  tribute and
 taxes#ce4 ,in modern times1 since the  
discovery of ,america  and the          
development of trade and the influx of  
gold1 which is accepted  as the         
universal money standard1 the monetary  
tribute becomes1 with  the enforcement  
of the political power1 the chief       
instrument of the  enslavement of       
men#cf1 and upon it all the economic    
relation of men  are based#cg4      ,,ii
    ,discussing money1 ,tolstoy cannot  
separate the economic question from  the
 political4 ,to him it appears          

inevitable that money performes a       
social service equivalent to the        
instrument of extortion4 ,he does not   
take into consideration those inumerable
 utilities which circulating  medium    
renders to the community and            
particularly to the commercial  world1  
facilitating the transfer as well as    
aggregation of capital4                 
8,chremmatistics0 teaches us that money 
is the most general form of  capital1   
capital in the fluid state1 so that it  
can be immediately  turned to new       
enterprises and transfered for          
investment to distant  places4 ,on the  
other hand1 capital in the form of money
 is the most  convenient vehicle of     
production and distribution of wealth4  
,tolstoy1  as a medieval canonist1      
regards capital and wealth to be        
shameful  and criminal things4 ,he      
absolutely repudiates the theory that in
 all  production only three factors take
 part3 land1 capital and labor4  ,his   
disconcerting controversy in these      

matters contains nothing  fundamentally 
new in political economy1 but it is an  
odd manner in  which he couches the     
notion of money in relation to          
production4    ,it seems strange1       
,tolstoy's theory runs1 that economists 
do not  recognize the natural objects in
 production of wealth4 ,the power of    
the sun1 water1 food1 air1 and social   
security1 are the requisites of         
production as much as the land or       
capital4 ,education1 knowledge1 and     
ability to speak are certain agents of  
production4 ,i could fill a  whole      
volume1 says ,tolstoy1 with such omitted
 factors1 and put them at  the basis of 
science#ch4 ,the division into three    
factors of production  is not proper to 
men4 ,it is improper1 arbitrary1 and    
senseless4 ,it does  not lie in the     
essence of things themselves4    ,by its
 division of the factors of production1 
proceeds our author1  science affirms   
that the natural condition of the       
laborer is that  unnatural condition in 

which he is2 just as in the ancient     
world  they affirmed1 in dividing people
 into citizens and slaves1 that  the    
unnatural condition of the slaves is a  
natural property of man4  ,this         
division1 which is accepted by science  
only in order to justify  the existing  
evil1 which is placed by it at the basis
 of all its  investigations1 has had    
this effect1 that science tries in vain 
to  give explanations of existing       
phenomena1 and denying the clearest and 
simplest answers to questions that      
present them1 it gives answers which    
are devoid of content4 ,the question of 
economic science is as follows3  ,what  
is the cause of this1 that some men1 who
 have land and capital1  are able to    
enslave those who have not land1 and no 
capital8 ,the answer  which presents    
itself to common sense is this1 that it 
is due to the  money1 which has the     
power of enslaving people4 ,this is not 
due to the  property of money1 but      
because some have land and capital1 and 

others  have not4 ,we ask1 why people   
who have land and capital enslave those 
who have none1 and we are told3 because 
they have land and capital4  ,but that  
is precisely what we want to know4 ,the 
privation of the land  and of the tools 
of labor is that very enslavement4 ,the 
answer is like  this3 ,facit dormire    
quia habet virtutem dormitiva4 ,to      
simple people  it is indubitable that   
the nearest cause of the enslavement of 
one  class of men by another is         
money#ci4 ,they know that it is possible
 to  cause more trouble with a rouble   
than with a club2 it is only political  
economy that does not want to know      
it#dj4    ,these theories on money      
respecting production do not appear of  
such  nature that they could be applied 
in the other countries besides  ,russia4
 ,the ,russian enlightened feudalism of 
the nineteenth century  gave ,tolstoy   
excellent material and a good reason to 
attack it with  all his strength1 and he
 was right4 ,but his assault on         

political  economy for its 8omission0 to
 treat the natural objects in production
  of wealth1 are not justifiable1 and   
could not be admitted4 ,in the first    
place1 any better political economy does
 not consider these objects at  length1 
because nobody lays claims on them1 as  
,tolstoy himself avowed  this fact#da4  
,the gifts of nature cannot be          
appropriated by any one4  ,they are     
inexhaustible and unlimited as compared 
with the wants of men4  ,therefore they 
never have a direct value to be taken as
 factors of  productions#db4    ,in     
modern industrial society the essential 
factors of production1 among  the       
others1 are money and wealth4 ,wealth is
 usually regarded as the  object of     
consumption1 and as an agent of         
production#dc4 ,the idea  of wealth1    
however1 is often confounded with the   
idea of money4 ,john  ,s4 ,mill has     
justly remarked that most people regard 
money as wealth1  because by that means 
they provide almost all their           

necessities4 ,in  the same sense is the 
assertion of the ,french economist      
,charles ,gide1  when he noted that in  
all times and in all places except among
 savages1  money has occupied an        
exceptional place in the thoughts and   
desires of  men4 ,people regard it1 if  
not as the only wealth1 at any rate1 as 
by  far the most important form of      
wealth4 ,they appear to measure the     
value  of all other wealth by the       
quantity of money that can be obtained  
in  exchange for it4 ,etre riche1 c'est 
avoir soit de l'argent1 soit les  moyens
 de s'en procurer#dd4    ,tolstoy of    
course has no clear distinction either  
of wealth1 or of  money4 ,he also       
confuses these notions1 as many authors 
before and  after him4 ,to define wealth
 exactly is verily a difficult task2 and
 to  dwell upon it impartially is       
perhaps still more difficult4 ,there are
  two theories in 8,plutology0 regarding
 the definition of wealth3 first1  that 
wealth is all exchangeable and valuable 

commodities and second1  that it is     
power4 ,representatives of the first    
theory are ,henry ,fawcet  and ,john ,s4
 ,mill1 of the second1 ,hobbes and      
,carey4 ,tolstoy is nearer  to those    
theorizers who teach that wealth is     
power1 than to those  who define it as  
commodity4 ,yet1 we should err gravely  
if we assumed  that between ,tolstoy's  
interpretation of wealth and that of    
other  economists exists any conformity4
 ,for instance ,carey defines wealth  as
 the power to command nature4 ,tolstoy  
defines it as the power to  command     
other people who have neither wealth nor
 8the signs0 of wealth4  8,only in the  
,pentateuch1 wealth is the highest good 
and reward0#de4 ,in  everyday life      
wealth is evil1 deception and cause of  
enslavement4 ,to  be honest and at the  
same time to work for ,mammon1 is       
something quite  impossible#df4 ,this   
ethical principle may be true4 ,but our 
theorist  forgets that questions of what
 people ought to do1 and questions  of  

what it will profit men and nations to  
do1 belong to different  categories of  
sciences4 ,he forgets that ethical ideas
 should not be  read into the           
conceptions of wealth and money when    
they are employed in  their everyday    
sense4 ,prof4 ,s4 ,chapman#dg justly    
says 8,if our aim is  to indicate what  
people ought to want instead of what    
they do want1 we  had better speak of   
ethical wealth and ethical value04      
,tolstoy was very near to those reform  
writers who taught that political       
economy must be regarded as a part of   
moral philosophy4 ,but he was  not the  
first social reformer who has introduced
 the moral elements  into the study of  
economic phenomena4 ,as it is known     
,aristotle's  interpretations of money  
are written in the ,nichomachean        
,ethics4  ,the political economy of     
,plato and ,xenophon rests on moral     
bases#dh4  ,medieval scholastics and    
theologians raised many problems which  
were in  connection with the searching  

inquire as to what constitutes a just   
price1 and this inquiry belonged to the 
ethics of political economy4  ,adam     
,smith and ,john ,s4 ,mill adopted the  
double role to be economists  and at the
 same time ethical teachers#di4 ,french 
economists ,rossi1 ,de  ,laveley1 and   
,le ,play1 introduced ethical principle 
in the science of  wealth as well4      
,there are several such examples of     
8ethical interpretation0 of  economics  
among the most illustrious thinkers4    
,they may be exculpated  for their      
disagreements only on the ground that   
they lived in times  when social science
 was in incumbent stage1 when scientific
 ideas  were intermingled from one      
sphere of science into another4 ,good1  
gentle ,tolstoy1 may also be pardoned   
for his 8blunders of expression0        
because he made them in his fanatic love
 of truth1 and truth although  it is    
truth1 does not always seem true1 says a
 ,french proverb4 ,to  treat the        
delicate and intricate complexity of    

money and wealth1 and  never mislead1   
one should be a higher-man1 a superman4 
,but supermen  are not yet born in this 
sordid earth as fitly objected a        
well-known  philosopher4    ,,footnotes3
    #a 8,if ,tolstoy's teaching is not  
systematic1 two facts may be urged in   
extenuation3 his doctrines1 so far as he
 expounds them1 are consistent  in      
themselves0--says ,t4 ,s4 ,knowlson in  
his biographical and critical  study on 
,leo ,tolstoy1 ch4 ,,vii1 p4 #adc4      
,london1 #aijd4    #b ,see ,j4 ,w4      
,harper1 ,money and ,social ,problem1   
ch4 ,v1 sec4 ,i1 p4 #ih4    #c ,what    
,shall ,we ,do ,then1 ch4 ,,xix1 p4     
#abg4 ,wiener's ed4 #aijd4    #d ,loc4  
cit41 ch4 ,,xvii1 p4 #ajj4    #e ,cf4   
for instance1 ,plato1 ,laws1 ch4 ,,xi1  
and ,aristotle's  ,politics1 bk4 ,i1 ch4
 #i2 ,nicomachean ,ethics1 by           
,aristotle1 bk4 ,v1  ch4 #e4--,roman    
authors defined money as a 8just medium 
and measure  of commutable things0      
,moneta est justum medium1 et mensura   

rerum  commutabilium1 quoted in ,h4 ,c4 
,black1 ,dictionary of ,law1 p4 #ghe4   
#ahia4    #f ,wealth of ,nations1 bk4   
,,ii1 ch4 ,,ii4    #g ,principles of    
,political ,economy and ,taxation1 ch4  
,,xxi4    #h ,principles of ,political  
,economy1 bk4 ,,iii1 ch4 ,,vii4    #i   
,principles of ,social ,science1 vol4   
,,ii1 ch4 ,,xxx1 #a4    #aj ,die        
,philosophie ,heracleitos des ,dunkeln1 
vol4 ,i1 p4 #bb4 #ahde4    #aa ,capital1
 ,english ed4 part ,i1 ch4 ,,iii4    #ab
 ,the ,purchasing ,power of ,money1 ch4 
,,ii1 ces4 #a4 ,new ,york1 #aiaa4    #ac
 ,d4 ,kinley1 ,money1 a ,study of the   
,theory of the ,medium of  ,exchange1   
ch4 ,v1 #f4 ,new ,york1 #aiac4    #ad   
,some excellent hints as to the         
money-commodity1 compare ,h4 ,white1    
,money and ,banking1 bk4 ,i1 ch4 ,i4    
,new ,york1 #aijh4    #ae ,valuable     
suggestions on standard money1 see ,w4  
,a4 ,scott1 ,money  and ,banking1 ch4   
,i1 sec4 ,i4--,j4 ,l4 ,laughlin1 ,the   
,principles of  ,money1 ch4 ,,iii4--,j4 

,b4 ,clark1 ,the ,ultimate ,standard of 
,value1  in ,yale ,review1 ,nov4 #ahib1 
vol4 #a1 p4 #beh-gd4--,the same subject 
is well treated by ,c4 ,manger in an    
article entitled 8,geld0 in the         
,handwoerterbuch der                    
,staatswissenschaften1 bd4 ,,iv4 #aijj1 
and  ,l4 ,nasse1 8,das ,geld und        
,muenzwesen0 in ,schoenberg1 ,handbuch  
der  ,politischen ,oekonomie1 bd4 ,i4   
#ahif4    #af ,what ,shall ,we ,do      
,then1 ch4 ,,xxi1 p4 #afd4 ,wiener's ed4
    #ag ,id4 ,ibid4 ch4 ,,xxii1 p4 #afa4
    #ah ,what ,shall ,we ,do ,then1 ch4 
,,xxi1 p4 #aeh4    #ai ,op4 cit41 p4    
#afj4    #bj ,loc4 cit4 ch4 ,,xxi1 p4   
#aei4    #ba ,id4 ,ib4 ch4 ,,xix1 p4    
#abf4    #bb ,op4 cit4 ch4 ,,xviii1 p4  
#abb4    #bc ,id4 ib4 ch4 ,,xix1 p4     
#abf4    #bd ,patriotism and            
,government4 ,complete ,works1 vol4     
,,xxiii1 p4 #ech4  ,wiener's ed4 #aijd4 
#be ,the ,slavery of ,our ,times4 ,comp4
 ,works1 vol4 ,,xxiv1 p4 #abh4    #bf   
,what ,shall ,we ,do ,then1 ch4 ,,xviii1

 p4 #abb4    #bg ,id4 ,ibid4 ch4 ,,xix1 
p4 #abg4    #bh ,loc4 cit4 ch4 ,,xviii1 
p4 #aba4    #bi ,op4 cit4 ch4 ,,xx1 p4  
#ade4    #cj ,loc4 cit4 ch4 ,,xx1 p4    
#ade4    #ca ,id4 ,ibid4 ch4 ,,xviii1 p4
 #aba4    #cb ,the ,kingdom of ,god is  
,within ,you1 ch4 ,,ix1 p4 #bcg4    #cc 
,the ,slavery of ,our ,times1 ch4 ,x1 p4
 #da4    #cd ,the first method of the   
enslavement of men is by means of       
personal  violence1 according to        
,tolstoy1 and second is by depriving    
people of  their land4 ,cf4 ,what ,shall
 ,we ,do ,then1 ch4 ,,xx1 p4 #adb-dc4   
#ce ,what ,shall ,we ,do ,then1 ch4     
,,xx4 p4 #add4    #cf ,id4 ,ibid4 ch4   
,,xviii1 p4 #aaa4    #cg ,for the sound 
discussion on function of money1 which  
is avowedly  opposite to ,tolstoy's     
theory1 see ,w4 ,s4 ,jevons1 ,money and 
the  ,mechanism of ,exchange1 ch4       
,,iii4--,j4 ,l4 ,laughlin1 ,the         
,principles  of ,money1 ch4 ,i4--,f4 ,a4
 ,walker1 ,money1 ch4 ,i4 #ahhc4--;,e4  
,b4  ,bawerk1 ,positive ,theorie des    

,capitals1 bch4 ,,ii1 abt4 ,,ii-,,iii4  
#aijb4--;,c4 ,jannet1 ,capital1 ch4     
,,ii-,,iii4 ,for a different and        
sounder interpretation of taxes and     
taxation1 see the excellent book1       
,introduction to ,public ,finance1 by   
,prof4 ,c4 ,c4 ,plehn4 ,n4 ,york1 #ahif4
    #ch ,what ,shall ,we ,do ,then1 ch4 
,,xvii1 p4 #ajb4    #ci ,loc4 cit4 ch4  
,,xvii1 p4 #aji4    #dj ,id4 ,ibid4 ch4 
,,xviii1 p4 #abd4    #da ,op4 cit4 ch4  
,,xviii1 p4 #aag4    #db ,cf4 ,w4       
,roscher1 ,system der ,volkswirtschaft1 
bd4 ,i1 kap4 ,i1 #ca4  #aijf4 ,j4 ,s4   
,mill1 ,political ,economy1 bk4 ,i1 ch4 
,i1 sec4 #a4    #dc ,cf4 ,a4 ,marschal1 
,principles of ,economics1 bk4 ,,iv1 ch4
 ,,vii1 sec4  #a4 p4 #cjj4 ,london1     
#ahih4    #dd ,cours d',economie        
,politique1 p4 #caj4 ,paris1 #aiaa4     
#de ,cp4 ,the ,complete ,works1 vol4    
,,xiv1 p4 #aji4 ,wiener's ed4 #aije4    
#df ,id4 ,ibid4 p4 #bhh4    #dg         
,political ,economy1 ch4 ,,ii1 p4 #fj4  
,london1 #aiab4    #dh ,cf4 ,histoire de

 ,l',economie ,politique en ,europe1 par
 ,j4 ,a4  ,blanqui1 ch4 ,,iii4--,see    
also ,des ,raports de ,l',economie      
,politique et de  la ,morale1 par ,m4   
,h4 ,baudrillard1 lec4 ,,ii4 ,paris1    
#ahhc4    #di ,see ,j4 ,n4 ,keynes1 ,the
 ,scope and ,method of ,political       
,economy1 ch4  ,,ii1 sec4 #a1 p4 #fb4   
,london1 #ahig4          ,b4            
,interpretation of ,property4      ,i   
,when two ,greek law-givers1 ,lycurgus  
and ,solon1 imposed their laws  upon the
 ,greek nation1 they both had the same  
purpose--to establish  the equal right  
of all men to the use of land and other 
properties4  ,plutarch1 speaking of     
,lycurgus1 observes that at that time   
8some were  so poor that they had no    
inch of land1 and others1 of whom there 
were  but few1 so wealthy that they     
possessed all04 ,lycurgus persuaded the 
citizens to restore the land to common  
use1 and they did so4 ,solon had  no    
other end in giving laws to the         
,athenians but to set up justice  among 

all his fellow-citizens4 ,he says that  
ambition of the rich  knows no bounds1  
that they respect neither sacred        
property nor public  treasure1          
plundering all in defiance of the holy  
laws of justice4 8,i  had commanded the 
wealthiest and most powerful to refrain 
from harming  the weak10 says he        
further1 8,i had protected great and    
humble with  a double buckler1 equally  
strong both sides1 without giving more  
to  one than to the other4 ,my advice   
has been disdained4 ,today they are     
punished for it0#ej4    ,taken as a     
whole this doctrine of ,lycurgus and    
,solon is not in  accordance with       
,tolstoy's teaching on laws and         
property4 ,but  nevertheless it shows   
clearly that law and property are two   
indivisible  civil institutions which   
can not exist separately#ea4 ,tolstoy is
 in  opposition to both of them1 law and
 property1 because they offend  against 
humanity1 especially against the        
commandment not to resist evil  by      

force4    ,under the term of property   
here must be understood private or      
individual property4 ,the notion of     
property1 however1 is not clear  either 
in ancient or modern writers4 ,in the   
course of human evolution  property has 
many times changed its form and its     
substance1 its meaning  and its scope4  
,in the societies that preceded ours1   
property embodied  itself in a form of  
oppression which has been definitely    
abolished  once for all4 ,as it is known
 slavery was one of the forms of private
  property#eb4 ,in ,greece and ,rome    
there were public slaves1 i4e4  slaves  
of the city1 and slaves of the state2   
but most of the slaves  were simply a   
part of the patrimony of the citizens4  
,masters had the  right to use them for 
cultivation of land1 or to give them    
away as  presents1 or to sell them1 or  
to leave them to their heirs4 ,they had 
the legal right of imprisoning and      
fettering the slaves1 or separating     
them from their wives1 or forbidding    

them to marry4 ,the slaves were  part of
 the master's private ownership1 and he 
disposed of them as he  pleased4 ,in the
 ,roman laws1 and also in the laws of   
,athens1 we find  that a father could   
sell his son4 ,this was because the     
father might  dispose of all the        
property of the family1 and the son     
might be looked  upon as property1 since
 his labor was a source of income#ec4   
,the  best ,greek and ,roman            
philosophers saw nothing unlawful in    
that4 ,their  conceptions of the        
respective rights and duties of masters 
and slaves  would not clash in the least
 with the ideas even now in equatorial  
,africa1 and some other ,european       
colonies elsewhere4    ,between these   
old institutions of slavery and modern  
capitalistic  systems1 ,tolstoy was not 
able to find any great differences4 ,to 
him the  institution of slavery existed 
even in his time only in other form than
  it was in ,greece1 ,india1 and ,rome4 
,and the reason why this slavery        

existed lies in the institution of      
private property4 ,if it be true1       
,tolstoy suggests1 that property has its
 origin only in labor1 why so  many     
combats1 revolutions1 and wars8 ,why so 
many luxuries1 robberies1  and          
debaucheries8 ,are these vices not      
originated in personal or  private      
property8 ,is it true that property and 
money represent labor8  ,by no means1   
answers our philosopher4 ,property may  
be represented by  money1 and vice      
versa1 but money has in our time        
completely lost  that desirable         
significance as a representative of     
labor2 such a  significance it has only 
exceptionally1 for as a general rule it 
has  become a right or a possibility for
 exploiting the labor of others4  ,money
 is a new form of slavery1 which differs
 from the old only in  being impersonal1
 and in freeing people from the human   
relations of the  slave#ed4    ,in a    
revolutionary article1 ,to the ,working 
,people1 written in  #aijb1 three years 

before the ,russian ,revolution1        
,tolstoy attempted  to open the eyes of 
the people stating that they were       
deprived of  the land which they        
formerly possessed and were forced to   
come to  the cities1 as wage-workers1 or
 practically1 as slaves4 ,the working   
people in manufacturing cities are in   
complete slavish dependence on  their   
masters4 ,these slaves may be liberated 
from the chains in which  they are      
fettered in no way1 except by the       
abolition of private and  capitalistic  
property1 that is1 giving the land to   
the people who work1  and not to the    
people who live by the unearned         
increment4 ,he adds  that rural laborers
 have nothing to do with socialistic    
doctrinaires  who propose the diminution
 of hours of work and raising of wages1 
by  strikes1 unions1 and childish       
processions with flags on the first of  
,may4 ,they need not send into          
parliaments the representatives who     
fight  there 8about words1 with words1  

and for words01 as sometimes ,lassalle  
reproached the 8bourgeois0              
representatives4 ,the working men who   
leave  the land and live by factory     
labor must find some other means to rid 
themselves of the slavery4 ,they should 
ask and demand of their masters  and    
rulers the right to settle on the land1 
and to work there4 ,in  demanding this1 
they will not be demanding something not
 their own1 not  belonging to them1 but 
the restitution of their most           
unquestionable and  inalienable right1  
which is inherent in every living being1
 to live on  the land and get their     
sustenance from it1 without asking      
permission  from anyone else to do so4  
,to be sure1 masters and rulers will not
 give  the people the land which they   
demand4 ,governments are in power to    
prevent this claim4 ,but governments    
have no power without police and  army1 
and who are the constituents of this    
army and police8 ,people1  workingmen4  
,when these laborers refuse to serve the

 unchristian and  brutal commands of the
 governments1 then people can divide and
 take as  much land as they need for    
cultivation and their living4    ,should
 it not be robbery to take the          
possessions of people who  accumulated  
them for hundreds and thousands of      
years8 ,yes1 but how  did these upper   
classes accumulate their property and   
riches8 ,tolstoy  replies on this       
question together with his teacher      
,proudhon3 ,they  heaped up their       
properties by theft from other people4  
,la proprit  c'est le vol1 said         
,proudhon#ee4 ,sobstvenost est koren zla
 7,property  is the root of evil71      
continues his disciple1 by the same     
axiomatic  language as the master#ef4   
,is this statement categorical8 ,from   
the standpoint of ,proudhon and         
,tolstoy it is1 but from the point of   
view of economists this doctrine  is at 
fault4 ,the ,russian iconoclast1        
,tolstoy1 like the ,american  advocate  
of ,single ,tax1 ,george1 maintains that

 the land question may  be solved simply
 by restoration of the land to the      
people who work on  it4 ,this is1       
undoubtedly1 the best1 the easiest1 and 
quickest way to  make private property  
common and equitable1 but what do       
history and  economics say of this      
quaestio vexata4      ,,ii    ,it is not
 needful here to go with historians and 
jurists far beyond the  ,greek and      
,roman lawyers in this inquiry4 ,let us 
begin the discussion  with ,plato and   
,aristotle4 ,we know already that ,plato
 in his ,republic  is a communist4 ,he  
permits no citizen to have any property 
of his own  beyond what is absolutely   
necessary4 ,the land is divided into    
equal  parts among all the citizens1 in 
order that all may be interested in  the
 defence of the country#eg4 ,this       
communism of ,plato was vigorously      
combated by ,aristotle in a brief       
passage of ,the ,politics1 which        
contains many of the best arguments     
since used on that side of the          

controversy#eh4 ,however1 ,aristotle was
 not an exclusive individualist4  ,he   
wants in a state1 ,private property and 
common use4 ,in ,plato's  judgment1 the 
state should be governed in the reverse 
way1 ,common  property and private use4 
,in ,greek history we find a constant   
struggle  about these questions of      
inequality among people and private     
dominion  of land4 ,but the ideas of    
communism and social possessions among  
ancient nations are prevalent4 ,the     
learned historian1 ,theo4 ,mommsen1 in  
his ,roemische ,geschichte stated that  
in the earliest times the arable  land  
was cultivated in common1 and it was not
 till later that land  came to be       
distributed among the burgesses as their
 own property#ei4  ,mommsen's thesis is 
based on the quotations of ,cicero#fj1  
,dionysius  of ,halicarnassus1 and      
,plutarch4 ,in later time it is         
supported by the  historian1 ,p4        
,viollet#fa1 economist ,e4 de           
,laveley#fb1 sociologists  ,ch4         

,letourneau#fc1 ,sir ,henry ,main#fd1   
and almost all socialist  writers#fe4   
,during the ,middle ,ages the idea of   
common ownership was theoretically      
maintained by church ,fathers and their 
followers1 on the basis of  ,christ's   
teaching which perpetually sympathized  
with the poor4 ,st4  ,fathers regarded  
community of goods as the ideal order of
 society1  private property as a        
necessary evil1 trade as an occupation  
hardly  compatible with the character of
 a devout ,christian1 and the receipt   
of interest for the use of money as     
altogether sinful4 ,they said that      
individual property is contrary to the  
,divine ,law1 therefore ,omnia  debent  
esse communia4 ,these principles could  
never be applied with  logical severity4
 ,ecclesiastics theoretically preached  
equality of men1  and in practice they  
were the wealthiest class among other   
classes4  ,roderigo ,borgia1 later ,pope
 ,alexander ,,vi1 was one of the richest
 men of  his time#ff4 ,the luxury1      

immorality and privileged wealth of     
clergy  caused the ,reformation1 but the
 ,reformation could not restrain the    
clergy from acquiring immense private   
possessions4 ,communism of the  ,middle 
,ages was then a pure utopia1 as it is  
today4    ,in the philosophy of the     
#agth1 #ahth1 and #aith centuries the   
institution  of private property was    
justified by many jurisconsults1        
reformers1  and philosophers who1 based 
their teachings on human nature4 ,among 
these are significant theories of       
,grotius1 ,locke1 ,hobbes1 ,thiers#fg1  
and ,coulanges#fh4 ,in opposition to    
these writers we find1 throughout  the  
,french ,revolution and later on1 the   
writers who assailed private  property  
as pernicious4 ,rousseau expressed      
himself with all his fervid  eloquence  
upon this theme1 and he found a large   
public to sympathize  with his          
declamations4 ,rousseau was the inspirer
 of those revolutionary  writers1       
inferior in genius but equally daring1  

who helped to diffuse  his doctrines4   
,mirabeau and ,robespierre were also    
,rousseau's adherents4  ,even the       
socialists1 though they have dropped    
some of his first  principles and have  
adopted some of the conclusions of      
modern science1  have inherited no small
 portion of his spirit#fi4    ,in       
,america we find many of ,rousseau's    
followers who were inspired  by         
philosophers of the ,french ,revolution4
 ,among these followers is  ,henry      
,george#gj1 and in ,russia1 ,tolstoy4   
,the difference between these  two      
reformers is that ,george would put the 
rent of real property  in the hand of   
government for better and more righteous
 taxation  than is now the case4        
,tolstoy1 meanwhile1 is against all     
taxation1  because it can only be       
collected by force1 and all force is    
forbidden  by ,christ4 ,george is for   
nationalization of land1 ,tolstoy for   
full  communalization1 against all      
government and all state ownership#ga4  

,tolstoy is1 indubitably1 influenced by 
,rousseau1 ,proudhon1 and               
anarcho-communistic writers of the      
nineteenth century4 ,his teaching  of   
property has many elements of chimerical
 schemes1 sometimes  confounded with    
mediaeval communism and ,christian      
primitive utopias1  sometimes with      
anarchistic principles which reject both
 private and  social property4 ,the     
labor question is solved by ,tolstoy    
simply in the  destruction of private   
ownership and in the distribution of    
land to  the people who work manually4  
,mental labor and intellectual          
production  are ignored and disdained4  
,in many books printed during ,tolstoy's
 life  we find 8no rights reserved04    
,literary property1 accordingly1 is the 
common property of mankind4 ,ideas and  
facts are free to all men4 ,there  are  
no patents and copyrights of mental     
exertions cum privilegio4  ,the author  
of a work has no right of property in   
the book he has made2  he took the      

common stock and worked it over1 and one
 man has just as  good a right to it as 
another4 ,if the author is allowed to be
 the owner  of his works1 the public are
 deprived of their rights4 ,the         
immaterial  property in writing is in   
the same degree a robbery as it is      
material4    ,finally1 literary labor   
does not belong to this question4       
,according to  ,tolstoy's               
interpretation1 inventions1 arts1       
literature1 and science1  are privileged
 only to the higher classes4 ,the class 
of people  exclusively occupied with    
physical labor nowhere read books1      
neither  have the masses learned from   
books to plough1 to make kvas1 to weave1
  to make shoes1 to build huts1 to sing 
songs1 or even to pray4    ,of this     
,tolstoy's criticism of literature1     
science1 and private  property1 were    
cogent objections4 ,he was called an    
utopian1 a sophist1  an inconsistent    
author who speaks one thing and works   
something else4  ,some called him       

charlatan1 destroyer of sacred          
institutions1 and a  man who did not    
know what he was preaching4 ,these      
epithets remind one  of that which ,jean
 ,bodin gave to ,machiavelli calling him
 a 8butt of  invective01 and 8wretched  
man01 or of those names which ,voltaire 
gave  ,rousseau honoring him as a       
8,punchinello of letters01 8the fanfaron
  of ink01 8arch-madman01 8scoundrel01  
8mountebank01 and other choice          
epithets4    ,such criticism might be   
valuable and apropos to a certain sort  
of  newspapers1 but not to serious      
investigators and critics4 ,throwing    
this kind of adjectives at an author1   
does not mean that he is really  wrong4 
,indeed1 ,tolstoy's doctrine of         
abolishing individual ownership         
constitutes no valid grounds for        
criticism of the historic right of      
private property in land4 ,most of his  
great expectations would not  be        
realized4 ,the problems of wealth       
distribution1 land1 and money1  are much

 deeper and more complex than he        
presumed4 ,they cannot be  explained    
solely by a theory1 nor solved by       
refusing to serve in  military and state
 obligations4 ,they are the inheritance 
of the present  generation from a long  
past1 the resultant of a complex of     
forces1  material and spiritual1        
political1 economic1 moral1 and social4 
,they  can only be unraveled by a most  
minute and careful study of historical  
records1 interpreted by the aid of the  
best results of the thought  of         
economists1 sociologists1 and           
politicians4 ,and yet1 in many ways1    
,tolstoy aided the solution of these    
problems4 ,he helped to accelerate  it  
by the example he set of earnestness1   
altruism1 and intense devotion  to      
ideals which he made the creed of future
 society4    ,illustration3 ,line       
,,footnotes3    #ej ,see these          
quotations on ,solon and ,lycurgus in   
,property1 by ,ch4  ,letourneau1 ch4    
,,xiv1 sec4 ,v1 #f4    #ea ,that        

property was created by law it is proved
 by ,montesquieu and  ,bentham4 ,in the 
,spirit of ,laws1 ,montesquieu argues   
that civil law  is ,paladium of         
property1 and as the people acquired by 
political laws  liberty1 so they        
acquired by the civil laws property4    
,the ,spirit of  ,laws1 book ,,xxvi1 ch4
 #ae4--;,in ,the ,principles of ,civil  
,code1 by ,j4  ,bentham1 we find the    
same idea expressed in these words3     
8,property is  entirely the creature of 
law4444 ,property and law are born and  
must die  together4 ,before the laws1   
there was no property2 take away the    
laws1  all property ceases04 ,the       
,principles of the ,civil ,code1 pt4 ,i1
 ch4  ,,viii4    #eb ,cf4 ,ch4          
,letourneau1 ,property1 ch4 ,,xiv and   
,,xv4 ,see also  ,aristotle's ,politics1
 bk4 ,i1 ch4 ,,viii4    #ec ,cf4 ,f4 de 
,coulange1 ,cit ,antique1 ,english by   
,w4 ,small1 #aija1  book ,,ii1 ch4      
,,viii1 p4 #abj4    #ed ,what ,shall ,we
 ,do ,then1 ch4 ,,xxi4 p4 #afc4    #ee  

,cf4 ,qu'est ce que la ,proprit1 #ahdj1 
,english translation by  ,b4 ,tucker1   
#ahgf1 ,first ,memoir1 ch4 ,i4    #ef   
,what ,shall ,we ,do ,then1 ch4 #ci4    
,wiener's ed4 p4 #cah4    #eg ,plato's  
view on property is expressed in ,the   
,republic1 bk4  ,,iii1 ,,iv1 ,v and     
,,viii4 ,then in ,the ,laws1 bk4 ,,iii1 
where he speaks of  distribution of land
 and equalizing of property4 ,in the    
same work1 he  further on says that     
property does not belong to the         
individual but to  the whole family1 and
 property and family alike belong to the
 ,state1  ,the ,laws1 b4 ,,xi4    #eh   
8,i do not think01 says ,aristotle1     
8that property ought to be  common04    
,the ,politics1 bk4 ,,vii1 ch4 #aj4 ,on 
the other place he  argues that there   
are two things which principally inspire
 mankind  with care and affection1      
namely1 the sense of what is one's own1 
and  exclusive possession4 ,the         
,politics1 bk4 ,,ii1 ch4 ,,iv    #ei ,in
 aeltester ,zeit das ,ackerland         

gemeinschaftlich1 wahrscheinlich  nach  
den einzelnen                           
,geschlechtsgenossenschaften bestellt   
und erst  der ,ertrag unter die         
einzelnen dem ,geschlecht angehoerigen  
,haeuser  vertheilt ward 444 erst       
spaeter das ,land unter die ,buerger zu 
,sondereigenthum aufgetheilt ward4      
,roemische ,geschichte1 #bte ,auflage1  
#ahef1 bd4 ,i1 st4 #aga-gb4    #fj ,tum 
zur ,zeit des ,romulus erat res in      
pecore et locorum  possessionibus1 ex   
quo pecuniosi et locupletos             
vocabantur4--,numa  primum agros1 quos  
bello ,romulus ceperat1 divisit viritim 
civibus4  ,cited by ,mommsen from ,de   
,republica1 #b1 #i1 #ad4    #fa ,du     
,caractere ,collectif des ,premieres    
,proprits ,immobilieres1  #ahgb4    #fb 
,de la ,proprit et de ses ,formese      
,primitives1 #ahgd4 ,english tr4  #ahgh4
    #fc ,l',evolution de la ,proprit1   
#ahhh4 ,english translation1 #ahib4     
#fd ,ancient ,law1 ch4 ,,viii4 ,london1 
#ahfa4    #fe ,especially ,p4 ,lafargue1

 ,the ,evolution of ,property1 #aijh4   
#ff ,on this ,pope1 ,professor ,p4      
,villari says3 8,one of his strongest   
passions was an insatiable greed for    
gold 444 he accumulated the  immense    
fortune that served to raise him to the 
papacy04444 ,see ,storia  di ,girolamo  
,savonarola e de' suvi tempi1 #ahei4    
,english by ,ll4 ,villari1  #aiji1 ch4  
,,ix1 #aeb4    #fg ,the ,rights of      
,property1 by ,a4 ,thiers1 ,london1     
#ahdh4    #fh ,the ,origin of ,property 
in ,land1 by ,f4 de ,coulanges4 ,english
  translation1 ,london1 #ahia4    #fi   
,on the private property during the     
,french ,revolution see ,le  ,socialisme
 et la ,revolution ,francaise1 par ,dr4 
,a4 ,lichtenberg1 ,paris1  #ahii1 ch4   
,,vii1 #a4 ,another valuable book on    
this subject is ,the ,french            
,revolution and ,modern ,french         
,socialism1 by ,dr4 ,j4 ,b4 ,peixotto1  
,new  ,york1 #aija1 ch4 ,i1 #d2 ch4     
,,iii1 #c2 and ch4 ,,vi1 #b4    #gj ,see
 ,progress and ,property1 by ,h4        

,george1 #ahgi1 bk4 ,,vii-,,viii4       
,tolstoy mentioned ,george in several of
 his political articles1 and  wrote ,two
 ,letters on ,henry ,george1 #ahic4 ,in 
,wiener's translations of  the ,complete
 ,works of ,count ,tolstoy1 these ,two  
,letters are published  in volume       
,,xxiii1 pp4 #cif-dja4    #ga ,a        
parallel drawn between ,george's and    
,tolstoy's theory of property  may be   
found in ,c4 ,b4 ,fillebrown1 ,the ,a ,b
 ,c of ,taxation1 ,app4 ,b4 pp4         
#afh-agj4 ,new ,york1 #aiji4