Capitalism & Enlightenment:

Commerce and Virtue

Alexandre Sánchez

Final Paper:

Thieves and burglars

 

 

« O marche implacable des sociétés humaines ! Pertes d’hommes et d’âmes chemin faisant ! Océan où tombe tout ce que laisse tomber la loi ! Disparition sinistre du secours ! O mort morale ! »

Victor Hugo, Les Misérables (II, 8)

 

 

Aimé Voisin[i], the man sitting in the dock, had been arrested for having perpetrated numerous burglaries (larcenies, burglaries, robberies, frauds, etc.)[1] and for taking part in a criminal conspiracy, a gang of thieves who called themselves « The Invisible Hand ».      

The man in the witness box, Prosper Legros was visibly shaken. He had started his testimony with the assurance of those children who never hesitate to go to the teacher whenever they feel they’ve been mistreated by one of their classmates, offended but confident that they will get their revenge and with the vindictive reasonableness of those who denounce and think that by doing so, they are serving the good of the community. But when the prosecutor asked Mr. Legros how much he had been robbed of, the latter burst into tears and started in French :

Legros : On m’a coupé la gorge : on m’a dérobé mon argent. (…) Mon esprit est troublé, et j’ignore où je suis, qui je suis, et ce que je fais. Hélas ! mon pauvre argent ! mon pauvre argent ! mon cher ami ! on m’a privé de toi ; et, puisque tu m’es enlevé, j’ai perdu mon support, ma consolation, ma joie : tout est fini pour moi et je n’ai plus que faire au monde. Sans toi, il m’est impossible de vivre. C’en est fait ; je n’en puis plus ; je me meurs ; je suis mort ; je suis enterré.[2]

The courtroom was full of journalists who had been eagerly following the affair ever since the first burglaries and Legros’ cries of despair had just given them the perfect headline. It was probably for that reason that when the judge, Lord Ham, told Legros to pull himself together, many of them left the room, ready to write their front-page article, « “They’ve cut my throat !!!”, Voisin’s victim cries ».

Seeing that Legros was not apt to continue with his testimony, the prosecutor called another witness to the stand, a friend of Mr. Legros’ who had come all the way from Scotland to help his friend as an expert witness in the trial, Dr. Adam Smith.

Smith : I stand here as an impartial spectator.[ii] Although I can not deny that I’ve known Mr. Legros for a long time, I speak here as an expert on the psychology of our commercial societies. The utter despair in which we’ve seen Mr. Legros just now, can not possibly leave any of us indifferent and by seeing him thus attacked we can not but feel affected as well. We are deeply moved by such distress and sympathize because the victim’s social status is one which we all aspire to reach one day and the violation imputed onto him sheds a gloomy light on all our dreams of success.[iii]

The accused claims to have committed the villainous crimes he’s committed out of necessity and for a good cause. His arrogance goes as far as to pretend that he is repossessing what was his due! To put an end to such nonsense, it is imperative to define the moral boundaries within which someone can claim to have justly taken what was formerly in the hands of someone else. In short, it is indefensible to take what pertains to someone else unless that possession had been somehow formerly abandoned, dropped or lost by its owner, and even then, this would be a proof of incivility.[iv]What has been taken from my fr…, I mean Mr. Legros is the usufruct of his hard work as the CEO of Domtar, a chief actor of the wealth and prosperity of Canada…

Voisin : Yes! it must be backbreaking to sit on your puffy arse all day at your desk, or even worse, to spend the whole day playing golf with people like you, to give orders, hiring people for ridiculous wages, draining them and then firing them for ridiculous reasons! Legros is only worthy of contempt!…

Ham: You’re the one who will be held in contempt if you don’t behave, sir. Shut up or I will have you sent back to your cell.

Voisin: Sir! The lawyer your state has imposed on me is sleeping when he should be objecting to such a partial and irrelevant testimony. I am getting rid of this nuisance and hereby announce that I will be defending myself in the face of this institution of social vindication which you call justice ![v]

Ham: As you like. Nevertheless, let me advise you to make some efforts to respect the protocol of the courtroom. You should not be wearing your hat and from now on you’d better stand up when you are asked to. Let the witness resume his testimony.

Smith: Thank you m’Lord. As I was saying, it is by now well established that theft is not only morally wrong but illegal. It is not civil and what civility is demanding of us, whether mister Voisin likes it or not, is that we go along  with the flowering of our nation’s prosperity and wealth. Every man thus lives by exchanging, or becomes in some measure a merchant, and the society itself grows to be what is properly a commercial society.[3] Now, the principle of the division of labour makes it possible to distribute the various steps of a process of production among the different participants and according to their abilities. That is why Mr. Legros’ task is restricted to supervising the activities and maintaining the public relations. Moreover, let us not forget that as the owner of the company he legitimately buys labour force in exchange for a wage. That’s the deal. This is the commercial dynamic of our society. In any case, I don’t know if Mr. Voisin has been to school, but judging by his total lack of discipline and clear-mindedness, I must say that I am afraid your nation still has a lot to learn about the education of the lower-classes… The poor should be told what is in their best interest, that is what schools are for, to avoid that their ignorance should impel them to commit thoughtless actions such as those committed by the accused.[vi]

Ham : Sir, you are not here to comment upon our system of education. Please briefly state your point.

Smith: Of course m’Lord. In a nutshell, what I mean is that Mr. Voisin should have given more heed to the « man within his breast » or, if too ignorant, he should have contented himself with following the law, which serves for those who do not know what is in their interest and might act foolishly. In our very complex property-structures we absolutely need such laws and those who do not follow them should be isolated from the rest of society lest they should corrupt others and propagate their foolishness.[vii] Finally, I would reiterate that as the impartial spectator that I am, I absolutely go along with Prosper Legros’ attempt to recuperate his stolen property, and so should anyone else who is at least been to elementary school. This injury to Canada’s economic prosperity should by no means be left unpunished.

Voisin : Mister Judge, I would like to answer to this.[4]

Ham: I will have to let you do so since you are assuming your own defence…

Voisin: If I understood correctly what Mr. Smith just said in his testimony, what I have done is wrong and should be punished because the « man within his breast » has told him so ?! I guess the man can’t be blamed for not having read Sigmund Freud, but I’ve read it even though I haven’t been to school, and it is clear to me that not only is Smith’s theory rather strange but that if there is such a thing, the man within the breast is far from being impartial. The man within the breast, or super-ego as we call it today, is no more impartial than a policeman, or a judge for that matter. It is a combination of all the social interdictions, the expression of the conflict between our desires and society’s repressive conventions. The man within the breast is not an internalisation of someone else’s feelings, it is an invasion of social rules inside our minds, social control creeping under our flesh. Nothing impartial, nothing relevant there. What Mr. Smith says was also contended by an anarchist theoretician, Élisée Reclus, only that the latter was honest enough to add that conscience as a basis for moral judgement is a political tool and can not possibly claim to be impartial, it is invariably inserted in a political context which has always been that of a class-war.[viii]

Furthermore, I wonder if Mr. Smith is aware that his buddy’s company makes paper with trees that are literally pulled out of the earth indiscriminately, without a chance of growing back, and all this in the forests that pertain to the people of Canada. They are razing entire public forests everywhere in the country and they’re making huge profits because they virtually don’t have to pay anything for those trees they cut off. That’s “laissez-faire” for you ! By the way, the government who pays the judge of this court is the same who has decided to let Mr. Legros’ company take all these acres of forest for nothing. Who will win this trial ? Will the nation really prosper thanks to Prosper ? Finally, Mr. Smith claims that Legros is an honest citizen who’s been unjustly injured and must be avenged. Of course, I say, the man is an honest and respectable citizen ! He never had to break into other people’s houses to steal, he has the privilege of getting them to hand over the little they’ve got. The man does not have to spoil his hands to kill his victims, they die of hunger by themselves… Indeed, Mr. Smith, the man is honest because he’s rich, and in this society to be rich is to be honest.[ix]

Members of the audience applauded and this seemed reason enough for judge Ham to evacuate the courtroom right before the following witness called to the stand by the prosecution, John Locke (one of Legros’ oldest friends).

Locke: As Aimé Voisin admits it, in fact the fool even brags about it, he is a rebel, he does Rebellare, that is, he brings back again the state of war.[x] Since he attacked Mr. Legros’ property, nothing tells us that he wouldn’t attack his liberty or even his life. In such a case, Mr. Voisin, by thus taking away another man’s money, has renounced to the protection provided to him by the social compact, and it would even have been legitimate for Mr. Legros to kill him if he had caught him because Voisin could very well have hurt him, he had numerous accomplices and they all had blunt objects ! How could Mr. Legros not feel severely threatened ? By using force against another member of the society he lives in, Voisin has forfeited his life.[xi] Anyhow, as the one who reintegrated the state of war, Mr. Voisin must be punished not only to avenge Mr. Legros’ injuries but to defend the social compact he’s attacked.

I also think it is important to explain to all the people here once and for all why Voisin’s contention that Mr. Legros is stealing his workers is absolutely incorrect. I see some people have borrowed from my own labour theory of value which appears in the twenty-seventh paragraph of my second treatise, to elaborate deluded views of the world and of history as the history of class-struggles or something like that. It is as though Voisin and the likes of him had only read paragraph 27 of my treatise without bothering to read paragraph 28 in which I explain why it is that Mr. Legros’ company shouldn’t ask for every Canadian’s consent before cutting the trees in the public forests[xii], and in which I explicitly say that as a propertied man and an employer I have a right to my servant’s work. The invention of money, the value and use of which we all tacitly agreed to by entering this society, makes it possible for someone to own a large piece of land, larger than what he needs, and to exchange the surplus with those who do not own land for their own labour force. You know, when I wrote this, the lands of America were owned by no one but I thought that it would not be too long before this system would be established here too. I am rather surprised to see that there are still some people who do not get it.

Finally, I would like to deconstruct the self-righteous attitude of groups of criminals such as « The Invisible Hand », in which the accused seems to be playing the role of leader. They pretend it is only justice, they call themselves « righters of wrongs », and claim to be recuperating what has been taken away from them and their people. I understand that such a discourse is necessary to justify their criminal actions, such a dogma serves to hold the gang together,[xiii] but such an artificial so-called ethic is comparable to religious superstition, it is not based on the sensation, it merely claims to be innate and absolute. Their morality can not be demonstrated[xiv] and their principle of justice is biased, they rob and violate other person’s property because they pretend these persons are guilty of the same crime. Either I am confused or you are inconsistent, is theft good or bad according to you, Mr. Voisin ?

Ham: Thank you for this enlightening testimony, sir. Mr. Voisin I can hear you grumbling. Say what you have to say.

Voisin: It’s a shame that we, anarchists must be told when to talk in these horrendous courtrooms, I shouldn’t be playing this little game but I do enjoy having an opportunity to answer to the founding fathers of the system I am convinced will be soon destroyed. You are not confused Mr. Locke, but neither am I inconsistent. What is confused and inconsistent is the world which we live in. I would want to live in a society where there is no theft, but theft is a symptom of the inherent injustices and inequalities which you pretend we have tacitly agreed to. Well, you see, I have never openly or tacitly agreed to anything like that, in fact my actions are my way of pointing out that I do not agree, and that most people have never been asked and don’t agree either. Theft is there because the people who produce the most are those who have nothing for them because the product of their labour is stolen from them by people like Mr. Legros. This form of theft used by those who have the power to legalize their rapine[xv] and turn it into private property has to be fought against by theft. Private property must be revealed as what it is through theft and theft will disappear only when private property will have disappeared. Until then the war will continue.[xvi] And I am not preposterous to the point of pretending that I am the one who’s declared this war, it was declared long before your time Mr. Locke, when the first man to enclose a piece of land and to say « This is mine » found people stupid enough to believe him.

As to what you have said about our ethics, I would like to quote someone whom you would probably have gotten along well with, had you known him, John Stuart Mill said  himself about what you think is moral arithmetic :  « Wherever there is an ascendant class, a large portion of the morality of the country emanates from its class interests and its feelings of class superiority ».[5] I’ve memorized this quotation because to me it represented a confession, pseudo-liberal bourgeois hypocrisy revealed by one of its founding fathers ! There is only a pretension of civility among you people, and you are only pretending not to understand what we are saying when we break into your houses and take back what you’ve stolen. I don’t know if it is because I am superstitious but I am convinced that as human beings, we all have a right to live and the ruling bourgeois class is denying this right to all those it exploits. When you are denied the right to exist, you must take it and not waste your time asking for it[xvii] as trade-unions and other charity organisations spend their time doing. À la guerre, comme à la guerre, as they say.[xviii]

Ham : Aimé Voisin, you have succeeded in turning this legal court into a political arena and I don’t like all this anarchist buffoonery on my courtroom. Nevertheless, I must answer to what you have said because as a judge, my duty is, as Dr. Smith said it, to protect the social compact which unites us all. You say you are being denied the right to exist. Yes, as a thief you are, but not as an honest worker. And even if your wage as a worker is not sufficient due to an economic recession, or another factor of the type, those whom you attack in your crimes would be more than happy to be charitable and offer you alms. Why, don’t you know that Mr. Legros is the chief-donor of organisations such as Centraide, he even goes once a month at the Old Brewery Mission to do voluntary work and help homeless people. How can you say such hostile things ?! I can’t admit your saying that you steal out of necessity when you haven’t tried the legal options offered to you by society.

Voisin: There seems to be some misunderstanding. What I want is not to be rich. As a matter of fact, if I hadn’t already redistributed the money I have stolen from Legros, I would throw it back at his face for him to shove it where he seems to need it so much. But I would go back to get his money, and I will continue stealing from the rich as long as I live, or until the revolution comes. You say I should work ? Stretch out my hand and wait for a charitable soul to throw some pennies in it ? It would be much too easy for the rich. If all poor people were beggars, it would not only secure their property and guarantee their tranquillity, it would also give them the occasion to flatter their conscience every time they throw a crumb of bread.[xix] You say I should find a job ? A job is not a more honest way to live one’s life. You see, in a society built around private property and theft, it is not more honest to work for someone, to take the little the employer deigns to leave to you and then to take it for what ? To buy consumer goods[6] manufactured by other exploited people, and to give what you have to live on, to another employer who exploits his workers. I prefer stealing what I need and steal to distribute among my comrades. Not because it is more honest, no, but because it is a weapon against the ruling-class and it is a revolutionary way of living, not like hiding behind books or sitting in front of a television and complaining about the way thing are. We must attack property until we arrive at a world where one can take anything and it will not be called theft, and one can have an activity and it won’t be called wage-labour.[xx] Which brings me to our particular situation. I don’t know what got me into playing this game, I know the dice are loaded. I thought it might be an opportunity to use a large audience tribune to transmit my message, but look who is here ! some dead bourgeois writers, policemen, a few journalists who work for some bourgeois media… There is no point in trying to prove to you that I am innocent, I committed the burglaries and I know why. I am accused of using the same means as my accuser for different ends, I guess my point was not to prove my innocence but rather to prove Legros’ guilt, and this court’s partiality. Mister judge, please note that I hereby plead guilty to your accusations. An anarchist revolutionary, I have done my revolution.

May anarchy rise up.

 

 

 

 

 



[1] Considering that the peoples of the Arctic regions have dozens of names to designate snow because it is at the centre of their lives, it may be far-fetched but, in such a light, revealing to point out that there are so many names to designate theft in our society.

[2] Molière, L’avare, (acte IV, scène 7, p.455)

 

[3] Smith, Adam, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (I.iv.1), p.17

[4] This is definitely not the way things are handled in court, I know, but then again, with witnesses like Adam Smith on the stand, who could expect things to proceed as usual ?

[5] Mill, John Stuart, On Liberty, p.65

[6] It is the first time I notice the unsettling homonymy between « goods » and « good ». It is even more distressing in French because « un bien » is a private possession , a good, and good. Talk about a commercial ethic (which is not the same as an ethical commerce…) !



[i] The character Aimé Voisin is largely borrowed from that of Alexandre Jacob (1879-1954), a French anarchist who practiced what is called in French « la reprise individuelle », which could be translated into « repossession ». He was part of a group called « les travailleurs de la nuit » and together they accumulated the product of about 150 burglaries in three years of activity, which they redistributed among various anarchist groups. He was arrested in 1905 and was sent to a penal colony, condemned to life imprisonment, where he spent 22 years of his life before being liberated thanks to a petition.

[ii] « The cause of this sympathy or concurrence betwixt the spectator and the possessor is, that he enters into his thoughts and concurrs in his opinion that he may form a reasonable expectation of using the fruit or whatever it is in what manner he pleases. This expectation justifies in the mind of the spectator, the possessor both when he defends himself against one who would deprive him of what he has thus acquired and when he endeavours to recover it by force. » Smith, Lectures on Jurisprudence (i.37) , p. 17

[iii] « Every calamity that befals them, every injury that is done them, excites in the breast of the spectator ten times more compassion and resentment than he would have felt, had the same thing happened to other men. It is the misfortunes of Kings only which afford the proper subjects for tragedy. » Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (I.iii.2.2) , p. 52

[iv] « If after I had got the apple into my hand I should happen to let it fall, and an other should snatch it up, this would be still more uncivil and a very heinous affront, bordering very near on a breach of the right of property. » Smith, Lectures on Jurisprudence (i.42) , p. 19

[v] « l’organisme de vindicte sociale que l’État nomme justice » ,dixit Soudy ,a member of the anarchist group called « la Bande à Bonnot », quoted in Jacob, Alexandre, Écrits (volume I), p.51

[vi] « The more they are instructed, the less liable they are to the delusions of enthusiasm and superstition, which, among ignorant nations frequently occasion the most dreadful disorders. An instructed and intelligent people besides, are always more decent and orderly than an ignorant and stupid one. » Smith, Adam, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (V.i.f.61), p.192

[vii] « In the age of commerce, as the subjects of property are greatly increased the laws must be proportionally multiplied. The more improved any society is and the greater length the severall means of supporting the inhabitants are carried, the greater will be the number of their laws and regulations necessary to maintain justice, and prevents infringements of the right of property ». Smith, Lectures on Jurisprudence (i.34-35) , p. 16

[viii] « Il est impossible de formuler des règles de morale applicables à tous les cas, comme le faisaient jadis les prêtres et les rois et comme le font encore les juges et les maîtres d’école. C’est la conscience intérieure qui rend l’acte moral ou immoral. (…) Si celui que l’on qualifie de voleur est en effet un « redresseur de torts », un homme qui cherche la justice, qui rend au travail ce qui appartient au travail, qui se rit des préjugés anciens pour faire sa petite révolution dans la mesure de son petit pouvoir, nous devons l’applaudir de tout cœur et comprendre le grand exemple qu’il nous donne. » Élisée Reclus quoted in Maitron, Jean, Le mouvement anarchiste en France I: des origines à 1914 (pp.192-193)

[ix] « les riches n’ont pas à commettre de délits, de crimes, puisqu’ils volent, qu’ils tuent avec l’appui des lois, légalement. Ils ne cambriolent pas, eux, ils commercent, ils agiotent ; ils n’ont pas à défendre leur liberté contre l’agression d’agents du pouvoir et que leurs valets les protègent au lieu de les attaquer. Ils ne tuent pas deux agents de police, ils exterminent patriotiquement des milliers de prolétaires. La loi n’atteint donc pas le riche, sa fortune la domine. Être riche, c’est être honnête » Jacob, Alexandre, Écrits (volume I), p.120

[x] « those who set up force again in opposition to the Laws, do Rebellare, that is bring back again the state of War » Locke, John: Two Treatises of Government (II § 226), p.416

[xi] « For it is the brutal force the Aggressor has used, that gives his Adversary a right to take away his Life, and destroy him if he pleases, as a noxious Creature; (…) His force, and the state of war he put himself in, made him forfeit his Life (…) » Locke, John: Two Treatises of Government (II § 182), p.390

[xii] « If such a consent as that was necessary, Man had starved, notwithstanding the Plenty God had given him. We see in Commons, which remain so by Compact, that ‘tis the taking any part of what is common, and removing it out of the state Nature leaves it in, which begins the Property; without which the Common is of no use. An the taking of this or that part, does not depend on the express consent of all the Commoners. » Locke, John: Two Treatises of Government (II § 28), p.288

[xiii] « Justice, and keeping of contracts, is that which most men seem to agree in. This is a principle which is thought to extend itself to the dens of thieves, and the confederacies of the greatest villains (…) I grant that outlaws themselves do this one amongst another ; (…) They practice them as rules of convenience within their own communities (…) Justice and truth are the common ties of society; and therefore even outlaws and robbers must keep fait and rules of equity amongst themselves, or else they can not hold together. » Locke, John: An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (I , iii §2), quoted in Kropotkine, Peter: Ethics, Origin and Development, p.163

[xiv] « Moral knowledge is as capable of real certainty as mathematics, our moral ideas, as well as mathematical, being archetypes themselves, and so adequate and complete ideas, all the agreement and disagreement which we shall find in them will produce real knowledge, as well as in mathematical figures. » Ibid (IV, iv §7) quoted in ibid. p. 167

[xv] « les audacieux seuls s’emparent du pouvoir et s’empressent de légaliser leurs rapines. » Jacob, Alexandre, p.59

[xvi] « Certes, moi aussi je réprouve le fait par lequel un homme s’empare violemment et avec ruse du fruit du labeur d’autrui. Mais c’est précisément pour cela que j’ai fait la guerre aux riche, voleurs du bien des pauvres. Moi aussi je voudrais vivre dans une société où le vol serait banni. Je n’approuve et n’ai usé du vol que comme moyen de révolte propre à combattre le plus inique de tous les vols : la propriété individuelle. (…) S’il y a vol, ce n’est que parce qu’il y a abondance d’une part et disette de l’autre ; que parce que tout n’appartient qu’à quelques uns. La lutte ne disparaîtra que lorsque les hommes mettront en commun leurs joies et leurs peines, leurs travaux et leurs richesses ; que lorsque tout appartiendra à tous. » Jacob, Alexandre, p.61

[xvii] « je reconnaissais le droit indéniable que la nature a donné à tout être humain : le droit à l’existence (…) Quand la société vous refuse le droit à l’existence, on doit le prendre et non tendre la main, c’est une lâcheté » Duval, Clément, quoted in Maitron, Jean, Le mouvement anarchiste en France I: des origines à 1914 (p.188)

 

[xviii] « Camarades, propageons la nécessité du vol dans la société actuelle, comme un droit de guerre, et comme la plus puissante arme à employer contre la bourgeoisie capitaliste. Voilà notre plus logique moyen de combat ! Et vive le vol car il mènera sûrement à la régénération sociale. Vive l’anarchie ! » « Les Impurs universels » quoted in Maitron, Jean : Le mouvement anarchiste en France I: des origines à 1914, p.193

 

[xix] « L’honnêteté ne vit pas à genoux, prête à ronger l’os qu’on daigne lui jeter. Elle est fière par excellence. Je ne sais si je suis honnête ou non, mais je dois t’avouer qu’il m’est insupportable de supplier les riches de m’accorder, au nom de Dieu, les miettes de tout ce qu’ils nous ont volé. Je viole la loi ? C’est vrai, mais elle n’a rien à voir avec la justice. En violant les lois promulguées par la bourgeoisie, je ne fais que rétablir la justice bafouée par les riches, qui volent les pauvres au mon de la loi. (…) Les riches souhaitent ardemment que tous les déshérités aient l’âme d’un mendiant. Si tu étais vraiment un homme, tu mordrais la main qui te tend un quignon de pain. » Flores Magón, Ricardo, Propos d’un agitateur, p.16-17

 

[xx] « Dans notre société actuelle, le vol et le travail ne sont pas d’essence différente. Je m’élève contre cette prétention qu’il y a un honnête moyen de gagner sa vie ; et un malhonnête, le vol ou l’estampage. (….) tous les jours de notre vie, nous sommes volés et nous volons. L’activité de la vie que nous rêvons est également éloignée de ce qu’on nomme le vol : on prendra sans demander et cela ne sera pas le vol, on emploiera ses facultés et son activité et cela ne sera pas le travail. » Reclus, Paul, quoted in Maitron, Jean : Le mouvement anarchiste en France I: des origines à 1914,  p.192

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography

 

-Bayer, Osvaldo : Les anarchistes expropriateurs (1986). Lyon : Atelier de Création Libertaire, 1995

-Flores Magón, Ricardo, « Le mendiant et le voleur » (1915) from Propos d’un agitateur (pp. 15-17), Paris : L’insomniaque, 1990

-Hugo, Victor : Les Misérables (1862). Paris : Hachette (Grandes Œuvres ), 1978

-Jacob, Alexandre, Écrits (volume I) , Paris : L’Insomniaque, 1996

-Kropotkine, Peter,         The Conquest of Bread (1892). Montréal : Black Rose Books, 1990

Ethics, Origin and Development (1922). Montréal : Black Rose Books, 1992

-Locke, John: Two Treatises of Government (1690). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988

-Maitron, Jean : Le mouvement anarchiste en France I: des origines à 1914 (1975). Paris : Gallimard (Tel no.196), 1992

-Mandeville, Bernard, “An Enquiry into the Origin of Moral Virtue” from The Fable of the Bees: or, Private Vices, Publick Benefits (1723) ed. by F.B. Kaye. Oxford : 1924, Vol. I, pp.17-57.

-Mill, John Stuart, On Liberty (1859). London : Penguin Books, 1974

-Molière, « L’Avare » (1668) from Oeuvres complètes. Paris : Seuil (l’Intégrale), 1962

-Rousseau, Jean-Jacques : Discours sur l’origine et les fondements de l’inégalité parmi les hommes (1755), Paris : Gallimard (Folio Essais no.18), 1985

-Smith, Adam,          An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776) ed. by L. Dickey. Indianapolis : Hackett, 1993

Lectures on Jurisprudence. Indianapolis : Liberty Fund, 1982

Theory of Moral Sentiments, Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1984