On page 180 of the same book:
“Although the factory inspectors never weary, and rightly too, of setting forth the favorable results of the legislation of 1844 and 1850, they are nevertheless forced to admit that the shortening of the day has already caused an intensification of labor which attacks the health of the worker and, of course, his productive energy itself.
“In the majority of cotton and silk manufactures the excessive strain exacted by machine work, (the speed of machinery having been accelerated to an extraordinary degree of late years), appears to be one of the causes of the extreme mortality resulting from pulmonary affections which Dr. Grennhown has noted in his last admirable report. There is not the slightest doubt that the tendency of capital to catch up, through the systematic intensification of labor, for what it has had to relinquish (since the lengthening of the day is forbidden by law), and to transform every improvement in mechanical contrivance into a new means of exploitation, must lead to a condition in which a fresh diminution of hours will be inevitable.”
The displacing of the worker by the machine, increase of liability to sickness for those who remain in the workshop, annihilation of the reform to the point of bringing back the situation to the identical place it started from—without counting additional aggravations—such are the advantages of this blessed reform! Is this sufficiently conclusive?
But the advocates of the eight-hour system interrupt us, saying: “Yes, but this progress in mechanics would go on just the same if we were working twelve hours; and since the shortening of the day must bring about some temporary relief, enabling us to stay only eight hours in the workshop instead of twelve, there is in fact some moral progress with which we content ourselves while waiting for more.”—This evinces their natural kindheartedness and proves that the partisans of this so-called reform are not hard to please; but we Anarchists, who are more exacting, consider it a waste of time to bother with reforms which can reform nothing. What is the use of becoming propagandists of a thing which is good only so long as it is not applied, and when it is, is bound to turn against its proposed object? Of course the development of machinery will go on, but at present it is fettered by the everlasting red tape it encounters, forever dragging out its weary length. Everybody knows what an amount of effort it requires to get a new invention adopted. The exploiters being put into the dilemma of losing their profits or doing away with the red tape, the result will be to hasten the march of events and further the social revolution which we feel to be near. Now, as this revolution is inevitable we do not want to be surprised by it, but to be ready to profit by it to the best of our knowledge when it comes. We therefore seek to make the workers understand that they have nothing to gain by such childish efforts, and that society is transformable only on condition that the institutions which govern it be destroyed.
Oh, the organization of this exploiting society which is crushing us is too well combined! It is not enough to modify its machinery, to improve its mode of acting, for us to believe its results can thereby be changed. Have we not seen how every new improvement, every development of machinery immediately turns against those who toil, becoming a means of exploitation to those who have set themselves up as masters of social wealth? If you desire progress to benefit all, if you want the worker to succeed in emancipating himself, commence by destroying the cause of those effects you would suppress. The poverty of the workers is caused by their being obliged to produce for a lot of parasites who have been clever enough to turn the best part of all products to their own profit. If you are sincere do not waste time in trying to conciliate antagonistic interests; do not seek to ameliorate a condition which can never be productive of good; destroy parasitism. But as this cannot be expected on the part of those who are parasites themselves; as it cannot be the work of any law, the whole system of exploitation must be destroyed, not modified.
Aside from these two reforms there is a third to which certain thinkers, enlightened at that, attach some efficacy, viz., an increase of the tax upon inheritances, where collateral heirs are concerned. Increase this tax and the same effects heretofore stated as regards the progressive income tax would speedily manifest themselves. Moreover such a measure would scarcely be possible outside of real estate, and even then it would be rendered perfectly useless by the impetus it could not fail to give to anonymous societies and to the system of “stock held in trust.” Property-owners would get around it by renouncing family domains, contenting themselves with becoming lessees or tenants of their castles, mansions, and hunting-grounds, while anonymous associations would spring up to take charge of the leasing or renting of such immovable property, and have the laugh on the State. It is readily understood that under this system the number of inherited estates over which the State would have control would be very much reduced, and the law rendered useless. Consequently the suppression of collateral heirships would be likewise restricted, seeing that a lot of previous agreements between the testator and those whom he wishes to favor, may accord the latter certain claims upon the fortune of the former otherwise than by way of inheritance. To prevent this hundreds of laws would be required—laws which would interfere with every act, with every relation of life, depriving people of the free disposition of their fortune; and, worse still, under such an inquisitorial system should we not inevitably come to the inquisition itself? Either a revolution or a coup d’état would be
