Why is the English workmen of 1840 not twenty-seven times richer than the workman of 1770? In putting such a question one would naturally suppose that the English had been able to produce these riches without the historical conditions in which they were produced—such as: the private accumulation of capital; the modern division of labor; the automatic workshop; anarchic competition; the wage-system, and, in fine, all that which is based upon the antagonism of classes—having to exist. But these were precisely the necessary conditions for the development of the productive forces and of the surplus of labor. Thus, it was necessary, in order to obtain this development of the productive forces, and this surplus of labor, that there should be some classes which thrive and others which perish.
What then, in the last place, is this Prometheus resusciated by M. Proudhon? It is society, it is the social relations based on the antagonism of classes. These relations are, not the relations of individual to individual, but of workman to capitalist, of farmer to landlord, &c. Efface these relations and you have extinguished the whole of society, and your Prometheus is nothing more than a phantom without arms or legs, that is to say without the automatic workshop, without the division of labor, wanting, in fine, all that you have originally endowed him with in order to enable him to obtain this surplus of labor.
If then, in theory, it suffices to interpret, as M. Proudhon does, the formula of the surplus of labor in the sense of equality without taking account of the actual conditions of production, it must suffice, in practice, to make among the workers an equal distribution of wealth without changing anything in the actual conditions of
