Saturday, November 22, 2008


I've been shuffling real-world commitments, cutting back some projects, and preparing myself for what looks like a steady "speed-up" through the retail holiday season. (In retail, as elsewhere, increased worker productivity is supposed to make up for general decline, and "more with less" is the watchword for the season, meaning more promotions requiring more special effort, more contrived contests, more competition for hours, etc.) I left the radical bookstore collective I had been working with a week or so back, and have dodged a couple of other commitments in the meantime, while taking some time to figure out what's worth doing, here in the waning days of Babylon. It's the first major reassessment I've made since the move west, and it's been good.

For those of you (both of you?) waiting for LeftLiberty, you'll have to wait a little longer, but it will be worth it. I had initially intended to just collective and translate texts "good to think with." I have decided to adopt a more elaborate approach, with much more in the way of commentary. For the other two of you who have been waiting for my long-promised thoughts on property, you have probably already learned to appreciate the maxim "be careful what you wish for," but I will be forging ahead gradually with my current exploration of the possible implications of mid-19th century radical property theories. I'm studiously not publishing any release dates for awhile, since who knows what will be the important issues in a few months, but I have been writing again, pretty steadily, on the Distributive Passions stories, and hope to have something to show there soon.

Some other proposed projects will sink, largely unmissed, like a stone. I think it's important for us all to test the waters, regularly, but also not to kid ourselves about the urgency of anything that doesn't seem bound to find its public.

Collective Reason, the translation site, is finding a public, and should be good fun.

Anyway, I aim to keep working away at the things which seem to keep left-libertarians partitioned off from our potential allies among the syndicalists and anarchist communists, as well as from our neighbors, and elaborating the Proudhonian basis of the broad, loose coalition I'm ultimately in favor of. I'm not quite sure where I'm going with it all, but it should be fun to find out.

What could justify property?

The shift in Proudhon's work, from critique of property to arguments in favor of it (despite and based on the critiques), is hard to work through, perhaps because Proudhon was himself a little uncomfortable with the whole affair. We know that, to some extent, the defense of property ran counter to his personal desires. Theory of Property, which seems to turn his earlier work on its head, ends with this passage:
A small, rented house, a garden to use, largely suffices for me: my profession not being the cultivation of the soil, the vine, or the meadow, I have no need to make a park, or a vast inheritance. And when I would be a laborer or vintner, the Slavic possession will suffice for me: the share falling due to each head of household in each commune. I cannot abide the insolence of the man who, his feet on ground he holds only by a free concession, forbids you passage, prevents you from picking a bluet in his field or from passing along the path.
When I see all these fences around Paris, which block the view of the country and the enjoyment of the soil by the poor pedestrian, I feel a violent irritation. I ask myself whether the property which surrounds in this way each house is not instead expropriation, expulsion from the land. Private Property! I sometimes meet that phrase written in large letters at the entrance of an open passage, like a sentinel forbidding me to pass. I swear that my dignity as a man bristles with disgust. Oh! In this I remain of the religion of Christ, which recommends detachment, preaches modesty, simplicity of spirit and poverty of heart. Away with the old patrician, merciless and greedy; away with the insolent baron, the avaricious bourgeois, and the hardened peasant, durus arator. That world is odious to me. I cannot love it nor look at it. If I ever find myself a proprietor, may God and men, the poor especially, forgive me for it!
Notice that property is described as a "free concession," a concession gratuite. The use of "concession" here may imply something of privilege, but it is a consistent and important aspect of Proudhon's thoughts about property that its materials come to us as something gratuitous. In his debates with Bastiat, and again in Theory of Property, the relation between land that comes as a "free gift" and rent that is extracted from its possessors by proprietors is an issue. Interestingly, one of the other places where Proudhon talks consistently about "free gifts" is in his discussions of voluntary "taxation," in part because he links voluntary taxes and economic rent in a number of places.

We are, in some ways at least, not far from the Georgist theory of obligation, or from the "gift economy" proposed by some anarchist opponents of private property. If we understand materials as a sort of gift, then perhaps we should also feel that strange, disseminative obligation associated with the gift-economy as well. To merely appropriate a gift would be, under those circumstance, bad form, and potentially worse business, as gifts (anthropologically speaking) as renowned for the poisons they carry within themselves, the prices they impose on those who fail to respond to their basic "logic." This is one way to reframe the relationship between Georgist land economics and those of the various anarchist schools, though I don't expect it is one LVT enthusiasts will rush to embrace. It might also help in rethinking the material on property and the gift economy I posted here awhile back. Just hold that thought. . .

The question I started with today was: What could justify property for Proudhon? One answer is simple: Progress, which Proudhon describes as "the justification of Humanity by itself." Which makes the next answer easy: Humanity, that is, us, learning, through experimental trial and error, to balance our interests in institutions embodying (hopefully) steadily higher and richer "approximations" of Justice. Remember that Proudhon actually described the origin of property in these terms. In Theory of Property, he describes the general process of property's justification:
All things considered, it is a question of knowing if the French nation is capable today of supplying true proprietors. What is certain is that property is to be regenerated among us. The element of that regeneration is, along with the moral regeneration of which we have just spoken, equilibration.
Every institution of property supposes either: 1) an equal distribution of land between the holders; or 2) an equivalent in favor of those who possess none of the soil. But this is a pure assumption: the equality of property is not at all an initial fact; it is in the ends of the institution, not in its origins. We have remarked first of all that property, because it is abusive, absolutist, and based in egoism, must inevitably tend to restrict itself, to compete with itself, and, as a consequence, to balance. Its tendency is to equality of conditions and fortunes. Exactly because it is absolute, it dismisses any idea of absorption. Let us weigh this well.
Property is not measured by merit, as it is neither wages, nor reward, nor decoration, nor honorific title; it is not measured by the power of the individual, since labor, production, credit and exchange do not require it at all. It is a free gift, accorded to man, with a view to protecting him against the attacks of poverty and the incursions of his fellows. It is the breastplate of his personality and equality, independent of differences in talent, genius, strength, industry, etc.
Here is property as a "free gift," "accorded to man," though it is not clear who could make this gift. And this is, ultimately, the weakness of many of the economic approaches that begin with a natural "gift;" they seem to mix up a pre-economic "free" access (itself perhaps a bit confused, for reasons we'll have to come back to) with an an- or anti-economic "gift beyond exchange." Generosity and prodigal indifference get balled up together with magic and protestant guilt about unearned wealth. In Georgism, we seem to have an example of the application of a practical anthropological practice, useful for levelling the economic playing field, to more modern circumstances, but without exercising all the spirits. And the "obligation" requires a kind of conversion, "seeing the cat," as they say.

Anti-propertarian gift-economy communism probably makes most sense if it is simply stripped of the anthropological trappings. Looked at from the "objective" side, and discounting our "subjective" sense of ourselves as enjoying simple property in our persons and personalities, and as being capable of being proprietors, it's all a matter of givens, of flows, and it's hard to justify a basic right to obstruct the flows. But, honestly, I don't think even the primitivists honestly look at things that way. Instead, sharing resources is posited as post-economic activity and as a social good. Such sharing seems to try to mix the qualities associated with giving something you own into a relation where the initial ownership never happens, or is never allowed to be acknowledged.

I've argued elsewhere, and I still believe, that "gifts" presuppose property. We can only give what is ours to give. Anything else is a confusion or a sham. Does that mean that Proudhon, the notorious skeptic about property, is simply wrapped up in a confusion? There are certainly those who have suggested it. To be fair, though, my definitions of "gift" here are not his, and I am imposing them for presentist purposes. At the same time, I think the imposition raises interesting questions.

Who can give the "gift of property," not a gift of a particular property, but the gift of a right or an institution, a shield granted "with a view to protecting him against the attacks of poverty and the incursions of his fellows"? The obvious Proudhonian answer seems to be: Humanity, his fellows. But how? What is it that "humanity," or the individual human beings that compose it, possesses and can give? And in what spirit and under what terms to give?

In What is Property?, Proudhon wrote, regarding the participation of each in the "daily social task:
Shall the laborer who is capable of finishing his task in six hours have the right, on the ground of superior strength and activity, to usurp the task of the less skilful laborer, and thus rob him of his labor and bread? Who dares maintain such a proposition? . . . If the strong come to the aid of the weak, their kindness deserves praise and love; but their aid must be accepted as a free gift, — not imposed by force, nor offered at a price."
If we are going to talk about property, rather than the equal wage of 1840, resulting from such labor, how is "humanity" to come to its own aid, if not by granting, through the mediation of its strongest members, concession, privilege, charity, etc? Is there a way to think of a reciprocal gifting as a matter for relative equals? Then again, we have still not answered the most troubling question: What, prior to the gift of property, do we have to give to one another?

In "The Gift Economy of Property," I suggested one possibility. Let me suggest it again, in a different context and a slightly different way. It appears that what we have, in a relationship much like, and also troubling to, anything like "self-ownership," is each other, the collective being Humanity. Despite their other disagreements, Proudhon and Pierre Leroux (and William B. Greene, who attempted to synthesize their views) seem to have agreed on this. Leroux wrote:

The life of man then, and of every man, by the will of his Creator, is dependent upon an incessant communication with his fellow beings, and with the universe. That which we call his life, does not appertain entirely to him, and does not reside in him alone; it is at once within him and out of him; it resides partially, and jointly, so to speak, in his fellows and the surrounding world. In a certain point of view therefore it may be said, that his fellow beings and the world appertain also to him. For, as his life resides in them, that portion of it which he controls, and which he calls Me, has virtually a right to that other portion, which he cannot so sovereignly dispose of, and which he calls Not Me.
This is, among other things, a discussion of property. Individual human beings have at least two "sides," Proudhon's particular and collective, Leroux's objective and subjective. Both sides are incomplete, absolutist. But the particular is where we live, subjectively, though, objectively, we may live in, or on, one another, in a way that makes Leroux suspect that we belong, in some sense, to one another. Those who try to pursue theories of property as the extent of our projects, the reach of our labors, frequently run up against some sense of this, which is why some sort of sovereign self-ownership sometimes has to be simply assumed. It is, at least, in line with one-half of our experience of life. And, perhaps more importantly, it is in line with our sense that individuals are responsible for themselves, for their actions.

Proudhon never talks explicitly about a gift of property in these terms, but what he does say about the gift of a shield, of a space to err and to learn seems to me consistent with the move to found individual property in a generalized "gift" of self-ownership. We may be bound together in various ways, in various collective entities (and I do not want to discount the importance of that element of Proudhon's thinking, which, odd as it may at first seem, only emphasizes the importance of individual liberty), we may even be "proper one to another" in a descriptive sense; but our sense of our separateness opens up the possibility of a kind of quasi-gift, a relinquishing of our stake in others in the realm (which we thereby create) of property, without thereby denying our connections.

I say we can do this, though, in a sense, it is perhaps what we already do. But it is not, I think, the way we think about "self-ownership" and the basis of property. It's not necessarily nice for anti-propertarians to think of gifts as dependent on property, or for propertarians to consider an "original gift" as the foundation of self-ownership. But it might be useful, particularly in bringing various schools and discourses into dialogue. I suppose we'll see...

(For longtime readers and friends, yes, this is the beginnings of the promised "Walt Whitman Theory of Political Economy"...)

Sunday, November 16, 2008

Replies and revisions

News too good to be buried in the comments: Rafael Hotz has been at work translating another section of Proudhon's System of Economic Contradictions.

And I'll take this opportunity to make and note a small revision in my last post, where I let myself be hurried a bit towards the wrap-up. I'm starting to poke at some questions about "freedom" and "justice," and the extent to which they are synonymous, or even compatible, with the reduction of conflict. The trick, ultimately, is to fill out a balanced account of relations in a free society, a task made difficult by Proudhon's uneven development of his own analysis.

Here's the rewritten paragraph:
It appears, in a strange turn, that the danger inherent in a free market, built on systems which reduce conflict, might well be "communism"--not the communism of goods-in-common, not the systems of Marx or Kropotkin (except to the extent that they fail in non-economic ways), but the "community of interests" that Proudhon and Josiah Warren both warned against. Dejacque suggested anarchist-communism as a logical product of individual egoisms. Indeed, most of the attempts to downplay the individualist element in communist anarchism are ignorant smears. So the suggestion is not so far from ones made by "communists" of one sort or another. But there's a tough knot to be unraveled here, one that tangles up communism and free markets, pits despotism against anarchism, in the interest, ultimately, of the latter.
In the original, of course, it is followed (perhaps a little abruptly), by speculation on the questions that Proudhon might have for present-day anarchists. Untangling the indicated knot is a task for other days, but perhaps it is useful today to point it out, highlight it as one of those places to which it will be necessary to return shortly.

Saturday, November 15, 2008

Unexpected dangers of the free market?

We know the standard anti-market concern, that even the truly free relations which mutualists and other market anarchists propose (free-market anti-capitalism, equitable commerce, etc...), will lead inevitably (through a fatal flaw in contract theory, or a fatal flaw in human nature, etc...) to (bad) "capitalism," rule by the possessors of capital, and the state. Answers to the problem (if it is such) generally involve rejections of "contract" and/or "commerce" tout court, along with, of course, "property" conceived on any model that includes exclusive, individual ownership. There seem to be problems with these answers, whether it is the dependence of a "gift economy" on the notion of individual property (though maybe also vice-versa), objections to broad construals of "commerce" and "markets" that seem to be largely aesthetic in character, or vague proposals for how distribution will actually be accomplished (and what sort of participation will be expected) in a non-market society. And one of the things at stake in the debate is validity of the story by which collectivist and communist anarchisms claim to be not only the more popular forms of anarchism, but the true philosophical standard-bearers of the tradition.

We won't settle the debate easily, and certainly not today. There's a lot to clarify before we can move forward much. If you're reading this you probably have a pretty good sense of the importance I place on bringing figures like Proudhon, Fourier, Bellegarrigue, Dejacque, Warren, Greene, Ingalls, Kimball, Molinari, Bastiat, Colins, Emerson, Whitman (etc...) fully into our shared history, so we agree or disagree with them in an informed and intelligent manner. It should also be obvious that I consider the revolutionary period around 1848 to have a particular importance, if only as fertile ground from which to gather ideas of a sort that no longer seem to flourish among us. But even if you don't agree with me on these general points, perhaps you can see the advantages of looking at familiar ideas in a setting which makes them strange for us.

Consider the mutualist critique of the free market: It's one of those well-known, but barely-understood facts of anarchist history that Proudhon, the "property is theft" guy, came around to embrace property, in part because it would serve as a necessary counter-balance to "the State." In "1848 origins of agro-industrial federation," I pointed to a couple of apparent oddities in Proudhon's "Revolutionary Program:" 1) his embrace of property and "laissez faire," and his proposal of "absolute insolidarity" as a principle of organization; and, 2) his assertion that this absolutely egoistic approach would lead naturally to "a centralization analogous with that of the State, but in which no one obeys, no one is dependent, and everyone is free and sovereign."

Cool. The free market works. Someone like Bellegarrigue could, at roughly the same time, describe "the Revolution" as "purely and simply a matter of business," and describe (in the second issue of Anarchy: Journal of Order (translation forthcoming)) the scene after the deposing of Louis-Philippe as if someone had pushed that infamous Libertarian Button that makes government go away in a flash. With the king gone, everyone just had to get on with it, and let the "flux of interests" do its work. But there are some complications, at least from the mutualist point of view, not the least of which is that Proudhon never stopped being the "property is theft" guy. He never stopped thinking of exclusive, individual property as being based in individual "absolutism," as despotic in tendency, and as involving a "right to abuse" potentially more self-refuting with regard to "property" than anything his critics have poked at in his claims. But he also believed, consistently, that "community [of goods] is theft," just another form of absolutism. And by "Theory of Property" he had some hard things to say about possession, which is the half-way form that anarchists have frequently claimed was his choice: "It is a fact of universal history that land has been no more unequally divided than in places where the system of possession alone has predominated, or where fief has supplanted allodial property; similarly, the states where the most liberty and equality is found are those where property reigns." [p. 142]

Hmmm. Proudhon's antinomies complicate things considerably, if what we're after is a system, of property or of no-property, which simply works, and reduces or eliminates conflict. In a lot of the discussions I'm in these days, as interest in mutualism increases, the concern seems to be to find what sorts of arrangements mutualists would think are justified. But if Proudhon is our guide, justification is our permanent revolution, William B. Greene's "blazing star," which retreats every time we make an advance.

What if we had a "free market," equitable "commerce" in the broadest sense, and a truly just system for dealing with the "mine and thine"? To my knowledge, Proudhon never posed the question in this way. For him, the absolutist character of every one-sided element or approach only became more and more prominent, and necessary. In the conclusion of Theory of Property, he writes: "The principle of property is ultra-legal, extra-legal, absolutist, and egoist by nature, to the point of iniquity: it must be this way. It has for counter-weight the reason of the State, which is absolutist, ultra-legal, illiberal, and governmental, to the point of oppression: it must be this way." Add one more wrinkle here: We are not talking about "the State" as we know it, the governmentalist State. Instead, this is an essentially anarchist State, a collective being which does not rule, which has no standing above the individual, but which, if we are to take seriously Proudhon's descriptions, nevertheless marks a real peril, the loss of all individuality, precisely because it marks the extent to which the "flux of interests" has, through egoistic commerce, resulting in unity of interests, in the elimination of conflict.

It appears, in a strange turn, that the danger inherent in a free market, built on systems which reduce conflict, might well be "communism"--not the communism of goods-in-common, not the systems of Marx or Kropotkin (except to the extent that they fail in non-economic ways), but the "community of interests" that Proudhon and Josiah Warren both warned against. Dejacque suggested anarchist-communism as a logical product of individual egoisms. Indeed, most of the attempts to downplay the individualist element in communist anarchism are ignorant smears. So the suggestion is not so far from ones made by "communists" of one sort or another. But there's a tough knot to be unraveled here, one that tangles up communism and free markets, pits despotism against anarchism, in the interest, ultimately, of the latter.

If Proudhon could answer back to the criticisms of his successors in the anarchist tradition, I suspect they might have looked a bit like Nietzsche's attacks on the anarchists and socialists of his own day. In particular, to the tradition of Kropotkin (and to some degree many of us, myself included, get our anarchism in large part from Mutual Aid), I think he might feel the need today to say: Mutual aid, yes, as well as the struggle for life. In Kropotkin's own ethics, or at least that part drawn from Guyau, there is an understanding that it is neither optimism nor pessimism that drives the anarchist towards better approximations of justice, but elements in play, the pressure of life.

The Proudhonian question to economic communists seems to be: how, in a human society, in human "commerce," is that absolutist element that appears to be part of our nature, that may indeed be the hungry thing that (however reluctantly at times) pushes on after the blazing star, how is that kept in play? How does it render aid, and express its ethical fecundity, if it has nothing of its own to give? And how does community-of-property avoid being the narrow, then narrower-still, community of interests that seems to be the death or coma-state of society, or at least of its collective intelligence?

For the market anarchist, perhaps the question is still: What is property? What is its relation to a free market? Is the freedom we are seeking only a lack of impediments to the flux of interests, or is there perhaps something else, supplemental to or even opposed in some sense to that first market freedom, which we require for a free society? If we were able to complete our justification of property, would that get us what we ultimately want? We know how counter-economics works within the given context, in part because the anarchist entrepreneur has more than a whiff of brimstone about hir, but what happens if and when we win?

Sunday, November 09, 2008

Digital drudgework for the revolution, anyone?

The collaborative translation project at promises to be a good deal of fun and to bring some wonderful material to new audiences. There is, however, a certain amount of not-quite-so-fun copy/paste/reformat work that needs to be done to really get the ball rolling for the potential translators. There are volumes of French works by Proudhon, Bakunin, the French syndicalists, Pierre Leroux, Molinari, etc. which need to be entered, page by page, into the translation wiki, so that the translators can work their collaborative magic on them. There are works in other languages as well, including English, that will need the treatment, as our pool of translators expands. Much of this work involves little more than taking text available in existing archives and formatting it for MediaWiki. It ain't glamorous, but it also isn't all that taxing. I'm trying to spend most of my time translating, working on tools for the site, or trancribing material not already in plaintext form. If you're interested in helping with any of this, get in touch.

Saturday, November 08, 2008

An absolutely essential bit of anarchist philosophy

I finally picked up a copy of Daniel Colson's 2001 Petit lexique philosophique de l’anarchisme - De Proudhon à Deleuze. It is simply remarkable; easily one of the best works of contemporary anarchist theory out there. As the title suggests, it takes the form of a lexicon, with entries ranging from "Action" to the "Will to power," with a heavy emphasis on Proudhon's mature work and its connections to, and elaborations in, philosophical and sociological works, from Bakunin up to Deleuze. Colson adds a few novel names to the mix: Gabriel Tarde and Gilbert Simondon feature prominently in the work. Deleuze's usual references--Bergson, Spinoza, Liebniz, Nietzsche--also play important roles. Of course, Spinoza and Liebniz were also important references for Proudhon. This work does, with a delightful seriousness and care, what the "postanarchist" writings of Todd May and Saul Newman barely gestured at, bringing together anarchism and poststructuralism, and without the wrongheaded criticisms of "classical anarchism" which pretty well doom those works.

And if you don't read French, but still want to support a sharp contemporary anarchist theorist, grab Crispin Sartwell's Against the State: An Introduction to Anarchist Political Theory. Then grab another for a friend. I'm long overdue for a real review of this one, but the capsule review is this: Good anarchism + good Sartwell = damn good stuff.

Counter-development or Bust!

As it turns out, I've been welcoming in America's bright new tomorrow with a kind of seething rage against everyone and everything. Not that some substantial fraction of all that hasn't been asking for it. We are probably, thanks to the election results, a month or two further away from the Blackwater-run debtors' prisons that would most likely be our NEW New Deal, but I still don't see much of any indication that anyone in Washington has tripped to the fact that there are poor people in America. This week, my part-time job is a three-day, 16-hour (total) affair, which would be nothing short of a disaster if I wasn't temporarily dodging rent costs. I would seriously consider moving on again, but I can't even raise money for a move at this rate. Meanwhile, Portland is the very picture of relentless gentrification, and East County is becoming a rather tense, ill-prepared reservoir for the metro area's tired, poor, homeless, etc. Central Eastside, where Laughing Horse is located, is about to get its own next dose of urban renewal, the Eastside Burnside-Couch Couplet, which promises to complicate life for the next year or two with massive construction, and later, with increased rents. You can watch a nice little computer simulation of what's in store. The tour stops before completing the loop, just before you pass the methadone clinic, ahead on your left. (For a slightly out-of-date look at the terrain to be restructured, type "E Burnside St & NE Sandy Blvd Portland, OR" into Google Maps, and play with the street view feature.)

In some neighborhoods in North Portland, where the gangs are gone and the worst of the development is not yet arrived, there are a number of attempts to organize local defense against the displacement of businesses and residents. Small, independent business and poor residents are, naturally, particularly at risk. People of color will bear a disproportionate burden as previously "bad" or transitional neighborhoods start to look good to developers. Some of the efforts are pretty obviously too little, too late. We're talking about trying to secure property with rising values, at a time when pocketbooks are pretty bare for the at-risk segments of the population. And securing property has not necessarily been a priority among activists, many of whom have some basic issues with property in the first place. In Portland, motiveSpace, a radical architectural collective, promoting citizen-driven development, seems to be one of the more interesting voices in the conversation, with at least a general sense that this sort of civilian defense is going to require a variety of skills not necessarily found in the average radical toolbox, along with an ability and willingness to bring in some cold, hard cash to get things done. And they have been eager to reach out to other radical community groups. Only time will tell, I suppose, what can actually be accomplished, and to what extent the creation of new urban refugees can be stemmed.

Citizen-driven development--counter-development--is a skillset that counter-economic activists, of whatever particular school, are going to have to acquire, if we not simply to cede vast portions of the country to the other side. If we can't find a way to make securing property a part of our strategy, then all our debates about the "elasticity of land supply" and the like will be essentially academic. Mutualist occupancy and use is precisely pie in the sky until we can secure territorial control somewhere, and any sort of homesteading is as unlikely as it is likely to be a mere stop-gap, given the dimensions of the broader housing crisis. There are probably still places where stands can be made, but we should be trying to identify them, while they remain.

In the meantime, wish us luck in the Rose City, as the Burnside Bridgehead seems to be a beachhead in a new war.

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Another bit on "socialism"

Just another of those interesting definitions of "socialism," from the mid-19th century. This particular passage is from Proudhon's posthumously published study of Napoleon III:

"Qui dit socialisme, dans le bon et vrai sens du mot, dit naturellement liberté du commerce et de l'industrie, mutualité de l'assurance, réciprocité du crédit, peréquation de l'impôt, équilibre et sécurité des fortunes, participation de l'ouvrier aux chances des entreprises, inviolabilité de la famille dans la transmission héréditaire."

"Whoever says socialism, in the good and true sense of the word, says naturally liberty of commerce and industry, mutuality of insurance, reciprocity of credit, balancing out of taxes, equilibrium and security of fortunes, participation of the worker in the fortunes of businesses, inviolability of the family in inheritance."