164 THE POVERTY OF PHILOSOPHY
destructive of bourgeois relations in proportion as it exites to a feverish creation of new productive forces— that is to say, of the material conditions of a new society. In this connection, at least, the evil side of competition should have its good.
“Competition, as an economic position or phase, con- sidered in its origin, is the necessary result . . . . of the theory of the reduction of the general cost.”
“For M. Proudhon, the circulation of the blood must be a consequence of the theory of Harvey.
“Monopoly is the fatal term of competition, which the latter engenders by an incessant negation of itself. This generation of monopoly is already the justification of competition . . . . Monopoly is the natural opposite of competition . . . . but from the time that competition is necessary it implies the idea of monopoly, since mon- opoly is as the seat of each competing individuality.”
We rejoice with M. Proudhon that he can for once, at least, properly apply his formula of thesis and antithesis. Everybody knows that modern monopoly is engendered by competition.
As to the content, M. Proudhon devotes himself to some poetic images. Competition makes “of each sub- division of labor a sort of sovereignty in which each individual reposes in his strength and his independence.” Monopoly is “the seat of each competing individuality.” The sovereignty is at least worthy of the seat.
M. Proudhon speaks only of modern monopoly en- gendered by competition. But we all know that competi- tion was engendered by feudal monopoly. Thus primar- ily competition has been the contrary of monopoly, and not monopoly the contrary of competition. Therefore modern monopoly is not a simple antithesis; it is, on the contrary, the true synthesis,
