#Vehicle Accident Insurance Claim

[stateclaims]

Essential Precautions for Filing Your Third Party Insurance Claim: What You Need to Know

In the analysis of a car crash, navigating the process of getting a claim of car insurance can be complex. Knowing how to proceed and what to expect can make the claiming process much more manageable. This understanding gives you the confidence to handle the complexities involved. Being prepared and taking proactive steps can help prevent delays and lead to a smoother resolution of your claim.

Moreover, it's essential to document all communications with insurance companies and others involved to keep a clear record. Stay updated on any deadlines or specific requirements in your insurance policy to avoid issues that could affect your claim. This guide will teach you some essential precautions while filing your Third Party Insurance Claim. Understanding Third Party Insurance Claims When you're involved in a car accident where you're not at fault, claiming third party insurance becomes crucial. This type of insurance covers damages to the other party's vehicle and any injuries they sustain. Gathering all relevant details at the scene, including contact information, insurance details, and witness accounts, is essential. Steps to File Your Claim Filing your insurance claim involves ensuring everything goes smoothly and fairly. Knowing these steps can make it easier for you to handle things after an accident.

Gather Information-Collect details such as the other driver's insurance policy number and contact information.

Document the Incident-Take photos of the accident scene, including vehicle damage and any visible injuries.

File a Police Report-In many jurisdictions, filing a police report is mandatory for insurance claims involving significant damage or injuries.

Contact Your Insurance Provider-Inform your insurance company promptly about the accident and provide them with all collected information.

Key Precautions to Take It's crucial to be cautious and thorough when claiming from car insurance to avoid potential delays or complications. Here are some essential precautions-

● Avoid Admitting Fault-Refrain from admitting fault or making statements that could be interpreted as accepting responsibility. This helps protect your rights and ensures a fair evaluation of the accident by insurance companies.

● Be Honest and Accurate- Provide accurate information when reporting the incident to your insurance company to avoid potential issues with your claim. This honesty helps build trust and ensures a smoother process for promptly resolving your claim.

● Understand Policy Limits- Familiarize yourself with your insurance policy’s coverage limits and what is and isn't covered under third party insurance. This understanding will help you avoid surprises and make informed decisions when filing a claim, ensuring you're prepared for potential outcomes. Dealing with Claim Management Companies Some individuals use claim management companies to assist with their insurance claims. These companies are experts in handling insurance procedures, providing helpful advice and support throughout your claim. They can guide you through the process and ensure you get the compensation you're entitled to. Summary Navigating a claim for car crash after a car accident requires attention to detail and a clear understanding of your rights and responsibilities. By following these steps and precautions, you can ensure a smoother process and a fair resolution. Moreover, getting professional help can ease your process. If you are considering such professional services, then experienced firms like State Claims can help you with this. They blend expertise with a commitment to ensure your claim process is as smooth as possible.You can save you time and effort as they contacts the insurance companies on your behalf.

[seemabhatnagar]

"Lucknow High Court Upholds Insurable Interest Despite Pending Vehicle Transfer"

The right to claim insurance is not negated till the ownership is formally transferred.

The High Court upheld the Permanent Lok Adalat’s decision and held that the Respondent-Govind Gupta retained an insurable interest in the truck, despite the pending transfer to Sanjeev Kumar.

Background

Govind Gupta, the owner of a truck insured by New India Assurance Company for ₹13,00,000, filed a claim after the truck was involved in an accident on November 1, 2020. He submitted repair bills amounting to ₹4,85,768. The insurance company rejected the claim, citing the truck’s transfer to Sanjeev Kumar, who was paying the loan installments but had not formally transferred the vehicle.

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Lakhimpur Kheri v. Permanent Lok Adalat, Lakhimpur Kheri And Another

WP 3907/2024

Before the Allahabad High Court

Heard by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhash Vidyarthi J

Legal Issue

Whether the Respondent - Govind Gupta, having transferred possession of the truck to Sanjeev Kumar through an agreement but without formally completing the ownership transfer, retained an "insurable interest" in the truck, making him eligible to claim insurance?

Argument of parties

Petitioner's Argument (Insurance Company)

Since the petitioner had transferred possession of the truck to Sanjeev Kumar, he no longer had an insurable interest, making him ineligible to claim compensation.

Respondent's Argument (Govind Gupta)

The formal transfer of the truck had not yet occurred, as the loan, had not been fully repaid, and he remained the registered owner.

Court's Observation

Under Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the transfer of ownership and the insurance policy are deemed to transfer together, provided the ownership is legally transferred.

In this case, the truck had not been formally transferred, as the loan repayment was still ongoing.

Seema Bhatnagar

[alltradeventures]

Choosing the right accident management company is crucial for a smooth recovery after an accident. This blog provides ten tips to help you select a reliable company that handles everything from insurance claims to vehicle repairs. Following these guidelines ensures a stress-free experience and peace of mind during a challenging time.

[thisisbjoeblog]

Driving Skills 101: Experiencing with a Painful Car Accident

According to the Royal Malaysian Police, there were 402,626 road accidents recorded from January to September 2022, resulting in 4,379 fatalities. This marked an increase from the previous year. In 2023, nearly 600,000 road accidents were reported, with 12,417 resulting in fatalities. Image source: WIRED Continue reading Driving Skills 101: Experiencing with a Painful Car Accident

[whitherwanderyouspirit]

Beginning to think my car is cursed. This is the second time an uninsured driver has hit it while it was parked.

Shout out to my stand-in backbone, my coworker, for pressuring me to call the cops when they refused to provide insurance info.

[rvcrash]

The Importance of Understanding RV Diminished Value After an Accident

The Diminished Value of an RV After an Accident

An RV purchase is usually only second to the purchase of a home in regards to major family expenses.  The memories made on the road are cherished for a lifetime. Most RV owners are not even aware of the repercussions of a single accident. The insurance company is not required to notify you about state case law that recognizes diminished value. Diminished value is the difference between what your RV or automobile was worth prior to the accident and its resale value after it has been repaired. An accident can negatively affect the actual cash value of your RV the same as it would to a car or truck. The widespread use of car history reports such as Carfax put a big spotlight on the dents and blemishes from every accident. The RV might look perfect after repairs are completed but the past problems are now front and center for any potential buyer to see. In some instances, a potential buyer may not purchase an RV simply because it has been involved in a prior crash, even though it has been repaired properly.

Several factors are involved when determining whether an RV has sustained any inherent diminished value. Just like any vehicle purchase, you would need to consider the year, make, model, condition, estimate of repairs and any previous damage. These factors and others are taken into consideration when evaluating whether an RV has inherent diminished value. The RV’s age and the severity of the damages are the primary concerns. Most vehicles experience depreciation regularly, and so does an RV. As an RV gets older, it experiences normal depreciation from everyday driving. The diminished value potential continues to decrease as the vehicle ages to the point where it is virtually nonexistent.

State law does not require an insurance company to tell you about your right to aggressively pursue a diminished value claim. However, they are required to make you whole again and that may involve their compensating you for the loss in value of your RV. Some nuances in state law regarding diminished value do present challenges and requirements that must be addressed. To qualify for diminished value several prerequisites must be established for a successful claim.

Diminished value is a subjective loss, and not every RV or automobile will qualify for a settlement. Each case is unique, just like each vehicle. Legal representation can make a serious impact on your chances of procuring the highest claim possible in the shortest period of time.  To establish diminished value a professional opinion must be obtained. The expert appraiser will verify that the accident negatively affected the value of your damaged vehicle. The question surrounds the calculation by the appraiser as to how much of the value decreased because of the at fault driver’s negligence.

Legal Assistance and RV Diminished Value Appraisal Reports

A professional appraiser will not reduce the calculations to a simple formula for determining the diminished value. First, they will determine the actual cash value of the vehicle prior to the accident to determine a base price. Secondly, the appraiser will conduct a forensic review of the estimate and any damage photos provided. Appropriate weighting will be given to the extent of the damages. For example, frame, structural and safety systems will carry heavy weighting, since potential buyers will often not consider buying an RV or automobile that has sustained these types of damages. The appraiser will then use their professional opinion to determine what, if any, is the actual diminished value.

Having legal representation and the right appraiser working on your claim is crucial for a successful outcome. Furthermore, we have set up a free RV Registry that assists our law firm in expediting any future diminished value claims. By registering your vehicle today, you lock in benefits that reduce the costs and expenses associated with diminished value claims. At RVCrash.com our lawyers and appraisal team have years of experience handling RV’s, cars, exotic cars, motorcycles, trucks and boats. You can visit our website or call us for a free consultation:  1-855-RVGUARD (784-8273)

Protecting your RV and ensuring your rights to any diminished value claim is our priority.

[vsrlawcanada]

Motor Vehicle Accident Lawyer in Ontario

Understand the importance of hiring a motor vehicle accident lawyer in Ontario to handle your case and ensure that you receive the compensation you des.

Visit : https://www.vsrlawfirm.com/motor-vehicle-accident-lawyer

[darkficsyouneveraskedfor]

Summer Breeze 8

Warnings: age gap (reader is 22, Andrew is mid 40s), dad’s friend, Andy being Andrew, other dark elements. As usual, be mindful of your content consumption.

I also beg of you to leave me some tuppence in the form of a comment and/or reblog. You are cherished!

Enjoy, my loverlies.

You leave your dad as the doctor goes through some tests with him. You sit out in the hall and stare at the panted brick. It’s so bad. He looks so vacant. He recognises you but he didn’t even remember the cottage. It took him a while to pick out Andy and he just called him the new neighbour. 

Your chest feels constricted and your head pounds each time you catch yourself holding your breath. A gentle weight on your leg startles you. You didn’t even realise Andy was sitting right there with you. 

“You okay?” He asks. You’re getting tired of that question. You’re not. 

“Yeah, uh,” you shake your head and swallow, “I... should call the insurance. The nurse mentioned something about it.” 

“Sure, sure, well, we can go grab your phone and I already gave all your dad’s info at the desk. His wallet’s in the room.” 

“Okay, yeah, I... need all that.” 

You’re just moving through the motions. Those walls are maddening. It’s all you’ve seen for the last day, almost two. You’re going to go crazy from the noise of alarms and call bells and beeping and whirring and everything. 

When you have your dad’s wallet and your phone, you leave Andy. It’s as good an excuse to have some space as it is to actually do something useful. You sit outside on the curb and breathe in the open air. It doesn’t taste like sanitizer and latex. It’s refreshing but chilling. 

You dial out to the number on the back of your father’s insurance card and smooth out the first night’s invoice. You wait on hold, the droning music itchy in your ears. When at last an agent picks up, you answer their questions. 

“Mm, yes, I see here the hospital submitted the claim. The admitting paper work is here on file,” the agent says, “it says the patient had a blood alcohol content above the legal limit. Some sort of motorized vehicle accident?” 

“A jet-ski, yeah,” you answer, blinking as acid brews in your stomach. 

“Right, right, so reviewing everything, the details we got from the healthcare provider and yourself, the cost of the room will be covered up to sixty percent and any diagnostics and testing do not qualify for coverage.” 

“What?” You puff out, “that doesn’t make sense. He has insurance.” 

“His insurance doesn’t cover injuries sustained under the influence of intoxicating substances. It’s typical insurance policy. You can access the terms under his account number through our app. If you have an email, I would be happy to forward a copy--” 

“No, no, this can’t--” You press your palm to your forehead as panic swirls in your chest and chokes you, “how... how are we going to pay for all this?” 

“Ma’am, I’m sorry, I wish I had an answer for that, but I can only speak on eligibility--” 

“I know,” you cut off sharply, “I know. I’m not—I'm sorry, I’m upset. Thank you. Thanks. I... have a good day.” 

You hang up and have to keep from throwing the phone. God, you always knew your dad’s drinking would get him hurt and now it’s going to bankrupt him. You nearly keel over at the thought of your tuition washing down the drain. It’s a selfish concern but you have three years behind you, you’re so close to the finish line. 

Who cares about a degree. You can’t lose your dad. You rub your eyes until they stop tingling and get up. You tamp down your distress and head inside. 

You approach your father’s room and find Andy waiting outside. He sits up as you near. He gives a tight-lipped expression, somewhere between a frown and a smile. You fold up the bill and and your dad’s wallet and clutch it against your phone. 

“Everything okay?” He asks. 

You’re so tired. You blow out between your lips. He’s done enough. He doesn’t need to worry about this. 

“Yeah, uh, yeah, just sitting on hold forever,” you grumble. “How’s dad?” 

“I think he’s doing alright. They said they need to do a bit more. Do some scans. X-rays, MRI, stuff like that. He’s going to be here for a while.” 

“Oh, I... makes sense,” your lips trembles and you make it stop. Each night is more money. You tuck the wallet and phone into your pocket. “I’m going to check on him.” 

“Okay, want me to come?” 

“No,” you say abruptly. “No, I just... want a moment.” 

“Sure, sweetheart, whatever you need.” 

You go inside the room and find your dad with his eyes closed. You stop beside his bead and stare. The large bandage around his head reminds you of the damage done. Damage that likely can’t be undone. 

“What’re you staring at?” He opens his eyes. 

You give a start and cough, “sorry, dad, I... I was checking on you.” 

“You look like crap,” he says in his blunt way. That makes you laugh. “Andy says you been chasing your tail all around.” 

“I... I’m worried.” 

“I hit my noggin, I’ll be fine. Don’t worry, I’ll have you back in time for prom.” 

You shy away as if you’ve been slapped. You search his face. He’s not kidding. 

“Dad, I... I finished high school three years ago.” 

His face slackens and fear ripples over him, “three years?” 

You touch his arm, “it’s okay. The doctor said it will take you some time to get back to normal.” 

“Mmm,” he hums, “yeah, I don’t feel very normal.” 

You’re quiet. What can you say? You’re as scared as he looks. 

“You gotta go,” he says suddenly, “get some sleep.” 

“What? No, I’ll stay and sleep here.” 

“On the floor? Nah, don’t be dumb,” he looks towards the door. You follow his gaze and find Andy watching, “Andy, you take her and make her get some sleep. You can come back tomorrow, kiddo.” 

“But--” 

“Now don’t be stubborn. You get that from me,” he points at you but his hand is weak and shaky. “’sides, I’m tired.” 

“No problem, Doug,” Andy says as he breaks the threshold, “we all need to rest up, huh?” 

You look between them and hide your chagrin. You don’t appreciate Andy listening in like that. You’re sure he’s just concerned but his help is starting to turn suffocating. 

[rookfeatherrambles]

Hey Tumblr, its been a hell of a few days for me. For those that don't know, on Sunday (June 2nd), I was in a car accident that really traumatized me, and I don't know if its going to affect me for another week or another 10 years. Details under the cut, as well as pictures of my injuries (no blood but bruises and scrapes, will be tagged appropriately).

My friend came up from Washington state to see me and wanted me to meet her at the hotel she was staying at. No problem. I'd just take an uber, from where I was located it would be an under 10$ trip. The uber gets there, I introduce myself, I place my purse into the car, and as I'm getting in, my earbud falls out and bounces off into who knows where. So I pause, one foot in the vehicle, one foot out, as I'm sort of stooping to look for this missing earbud. (It was important to me, more on that later). The back seat door is still wide open, but then, the driver decides to start driving. My foot is dragged back and twisted, and the rest of my body follows, and I'm screaming as I hit the ground and feel the wheel going over my leg. I think my first thought was that it had been ripped from my body. I was dragged a few feet down the street while passengers screamed to the driver to stop the car, and I don't think I've ever felt that kind of pain before. My throat is raw from screaming and crying. The car stops, people come and the driver tries to control the situation. All I ask through my sobs is 'is my leg still there?' and yes, miraculously, it is still there. I'm offered hands, but I lift myself up under my own power, extremely in shock. I'm not bleeding. Just scraped to hell with a tire track on my skin like a brand and terrified. Other parts of me also were scraped up, but I didn't notice until later. People are talking to me, all I want to do is be with my friend, so I look the driver in the face and tell him to take me to my destination, where I meet up with my friend. I am in shock all night. The driver asked me if I was okay, and upon me saying yeah, fine (I was not fine) he tells me he's not going to report this to Uber because its just a few scrapes. Anyway, I visit with my friend, and under guidence of my great roommate, I go to a walk in clinic and wait for nigh on 4 hours to get my injuries documented and get checked out. The verdict? Whiplash, no broken bones. I ache like I'm 90 but that's to be expected. I'm off work for a week, I'm given a 200$ physiotherapy prescription, but unless I want to pay out of pocket, I need to contact uber and start an insurance claim. I do that. They tell me they're going to put me in touch with an insurer. I don't believe them. I get a consultation with a personal injury lawyer set up for this friday, and now we come to here and now. I need headphones to cope with sensory hell outside of my apartment, and they were not on me when I left, so they're long gone. 180$ earbuds. Truthfully, I have this gut feeling that Uber is going to do their best to discredit me and what happened, just like that driver. I can't get into a car now without remembering that agony of my leg being crushed under the wheel, and when I'm in any vehicle now, I'm plagued by panic and horrid images of gruesome demise. I genuinely think I might have PTSD, though I'll be looking into a formal diagnosis when i can get to it. When I can AFFORD it. I hate to do this so soon after asking about my back, but I'm out of work for I don't know how long now, I don't know how many physio appointments or THERAPY appointments i will need to get over this. I need to recoup my headphones, I need to get groceries delivered now (which is really pricy), I need to keep myself afloat until Uber decides to (or decides not to) make amends. I don't even know if they fired the driver. I just want to feel safe and I just want something done. Anyway, if you can donate, please do. I know I'm just the silly AU person (one of many) but I have to ask. I have no other choice. I'm just sorry I don't have anything to give in return. Paypal.me/xcannibal Proof of injuries below.

[cy-cyborg]

Don't you just love dealing with insurance as a disabled person?

in august, someone driving a company vehicle hit my car and wrote it off. This car was modified to allow me to drive it, it had old mechanical hand controls that were nothing special but they got the job done. I can't drive without hand controls, physically or legally.

They f*cked us around with the claims process for so long that we decided we needed to go and try to get a car, paying out of pocket (putting ourselves in dept to do so) because public transport where we live is shit and I need to be able to go to appointments, not to mention my partner is a door dasher who depends on a car for our income.

In early November the insurance of the company the at-fault driver belonged to finally answered us back (but only after my partner and I AND the towing company who took the car threatened legal action because they were ghosting everyone) and they finally admitted they were at fault and asked for our terms. We only asked for the hand controls to be covered and that they pay the towing company and other costs associated with the accident (I think there were fees from council or something because oil spilled on the road but I don't remember details).

Much to my suprise, they agreed to pay for all of it, explicitly stating, in writing, that they'd pay for the cost of the hand controls and their installation in the new car. We gave them a quote from the only place "in our area" (aka 2 hours away) that could do the installation. The style I had no longer exists, and the next cheapest option is $8,800.

They answered us back today and offered us $3,000 total. That won't even cover the cost of the assessment the NSW government insists that I have to get done before they can be installed. Hell I don't even think that would cover the cost to get the old mechanical ones installed if they still existed, I paid $5,000 for them back in 2018/2019 and prices for all disability-related stuff has sky-rocketed since then. So despite them admitting their client was at fault, they still think it's fair that I should be out over $5,000 just to be able to use the car that replaced the one thier client wrecked. That's not even touching on how much we were out for the cost of the new car itself. We didn't ask for that, we just wanted the hand controls covered.

As if I don't have enough going on right now, I not get to add "fight with insurance" to the list.

[ID:A Gif showing a woman with black hair, a white shirt and blue skirt angrily flip over a small plastic table/End ID]

[dangerous-disposition]

so i was watching some of my dashcam footage that i deliberately saved bc of Calgary Driver Shenanigans taking place in proximity to me and i straight up hate people who brake-check so much

pulling that shit is so dangerous, even at "low" speeds. and even if someone is riding your asshole hard, you don't brake-check them. as soon as you do a brake-check, you have now made yourself the more reckless driver in that equation.

you should never, ever do something to deliberately cause a collision when operating heavy machinery.

like, i cannot even fathom the kind of self-absorbed loser you have to be to play chicken like that in a way that could get someone fucking killed.

just... like... i keep thinking back to this accident that happened here one or two years ago, where a pick-up truck brake-checked a minivan on the highway in less than ideal driving conditions and the van spun out, and then rolled multiple times into the ditch, and one of the children in the van was ejected. the pick-up truck didn't even stop and as far as i'm aware was never even found. like that driver fucking killed a kid.... and for what? the driver of the van maybe pissed them off? was driving a bit too close? like please, if you are someone who brake-checks because you assume you'll be just fine if you get hit bc "lol i'm insured" you should always assume that the worse possible outcome could happen. when operating heavy machinery going more than 20mph around other people also operating heavy machinery going the same or higher speeds, you should always be thinking about the worst case scenario of pulling a dumbass move that affects multiple ppl.

like when you brake-check someone, you think this is a tussle that's just between you and that person, yeah? and you feel justified because maybe this person is driving too close, or they seem distracted, or maybe they pissed you off earlier, right? Oh, but I bet you looked all around, considered all of the variables, and determined that should an accident occur, it's only the two of you that's gonna have your day ruined, right? I'm sure you're cocky enough to think that. Like I'm positive (sarcastic) you've thought about all of these things before brake-checking:

the other vehicles in the road other than you and the person behind you

is there a big truck behind the person behind you that is going to have a fucking heart attack trying to stop?

the road conditions in general

what if the driver behind you doesn't have new tires? what if one of their tires blows out trying to brake and they spin out?

are their pedestrians you might be endangering if your stupid move causes an accident?

what if the other driver has kids in the car? passengers in general? your beef is with the driver, but causing an accident would be punishing their innocent passengers too

what if the accident you cause totals your car? are you able to be without a car?

what if the accident totals the other person's car? what if their livelihood depends on them having a car?

what if the other person doesn't have insurance? yeah, that's illegal, but it does you no good. if you think your insurance is going to pick up the tab in that case with no fight at all, you're naive as fuck. like unless you have complete car insurance and not just liability insurance, your insurance company will fucking fight any claim you make. even with complete car insurance, they fight claims. remember, car insurance companies are in the business of hoarding the money you pay them. they do not actually want to pay out.

what if the other driver has a dashcam and can definitively prove that you braked for no reason other than to endanger literally everyone else on the road?

like that's just some of the things to fucking consider re: brake-checking. and when the list of risks is that long while incomplete, what do you even gain by brake-checking?

brake-checking is petty, stupid, and fucking reckless. it can seriously injure people that aren't even involved in your beef, and it can even kill people. brake-checking is some of the most self-absorbed behaviour to have behind the wheel, and people who do it are fucking losers.

period.

even if the other driver is following too close, or driving aggressively. you don't make an already dangerous situation even more dangerous oh my fucking god like why isn't that common fucking sense.

[dailyanarchistposts]

Chapter XIV. Summary and Conclusion

It has been said of Newton, to express the immensity of his discoveries, that he has revealed the abyss of human ignorance.

There is no Newton here, and no one can claim in economics a part equal to that which posterity assigns to this great man in the science of the universe. But I dare to say that there is here more than Newton has ever guessed. The depth of the heavens does not equal the depth of our intelligence, within which wonderful systems move. It looks like a new, unknown region that exists outside space and time, like the heavenly realms and infernal abodes, and on which our eyes plunge, with silent admiration, as in a bottomless abyss.

Non secùs ac si quâ penitùs vi terra dehiscens

Infernas reseret sedes et regna recludat

Pallida, Dis invisa, superque immane barathrum

Cernatur, trepidentque immisso lumine Manes.

Virgil. Aeneid. lib. viii.[51]

Here the throng, collision, swing of eternal forces; there the mysteries of Providence are revealed, and the secrets of fate appear uncovered. It is the invisible making itself visible, the intangible rendered material, the idea becoming reality, and reality a thousand times more wonderful, more grandiose than the most fantastic utopias. So far we do not see, in its simple formula, the unity of that vast machine: the synthesis of these gigantic gears, in which the well-being and misery of generations are ground, and which are shaping a new creation, still evades us. But we already know that nothing that happens in social economy has a copy in nature; we are forced to constantly invent special names, to create a new language, for facts without analogues. It is a transcendent world, whose principles are superior to geometry and algebra, whose powers derive neither from attraction nor from any physical force, but which use geometry and algebra as subordinate instruments, and takes as material the very powers of nature; a world finally freed from the categories of time, space, generation, life and death, where everything seems both eternal and phenomenal, simultaneous and successive, limited and unlimited, ponderable and imponderable… What more can I say? It is even creation, caught, so to speak, in the act!

And this world, which appears to us as a fable, which inverts our judicial habits, and never ceases to deny our reason; this world which envelops us, penetrates us, agitates us, without us even seeing it in any other way than the mind’s eye, touching it only by signs, this strange world is society, it is us!

Who has seen monopoly and competition, except by their effects, that is, by their signs? Who has felt credit and property? What is collective force, division of labour and value? And yet, what is stronger, more certain, more intelligible, more real than all that? Look in the distance at this carriage drawn by eight horses on a beaten field, and driven by a man dressed in a old smock: it is only a mass of matter, moved on four wheels by an animal form. You discover there, in appearance, only a phenomenon of mechanics, determined by a phenomenon of physiology, beyond which you perceive nothing more. Penetrate further: ask this man what he does, where he goes; by what thought, what title, he drives this vehicle. And presently he will show you a letter, his authority, his providence, as he himself is the providence of his equipment. You will read in this letter that he is a carter, that it is in this capacity that he carries out the transportation of a certain quantity of merchandise, so much according upon the weight and distance; that he must carry out his journey by such a route and within such a time, barely covering the cost of his service; that this service implies on the part of the carter the responsibility for the losses and damages that result from other causes than force majeure and an inherent defect of the objects; that the price of the vehicle includes or not includes insurance against unforeseen accidents, and a thousand other details which are the hazard of the law and the torment of jurists. This man, I say, in a piece of paper as big as the hand, will reveal to you an infinite order, an inconceivable mixture of empiricism and pure reason, and that all the genius of man, assisted by the experience of the universe, would have been powerless to discover, if man has not left individual existence to enter collective life.

Indeed, these ideas of work, value, exchange, traffic, responsibility, property, solidarity, association, etc., where are the architypes? who provided the exemplars? what is this world half material, half intelligible; half necessity, half fiction? What is this force, called work, which carries us along with ever greater certainty that we believe we are more free? Which of our joys and torments does this collective life, which burns us with an inextinguishable flame, cause? As long as we live, we are, without our being aware of it, and according to the extent of our faculties and the speciality of our industry, the thinking springs, thinking wheels, thinking gears, thinking weights, etc., of an immense machine that thinks and goes by itself. Science, we said, is based on the accord of reason and experience; but it creates neither one nor the other. And here, on the contrary, a science appears to us, in which nothing is given to us, a priori, neither by experience nor by reason; a science in which humanity draws everything from itself, noumenon[52] and phenomena, universals and categories, facts and ideas; a science, finally, which instead of simply consisting, like any other science, of a reasoned description of reality, is the very creation of reality and reason!

Thus the author of economic reason is man; the creator of economic matter is man; the architect of the economic system is again man. After having produced reason and social experience, humanity proceeds to the construction of social science in the same way as for the construction of the natural sciences; it brings together in agreement the reason and the experience it has given itself, and by the most inconceivable marvel, when everything in it takes after utopia, principles and actions, it only comes to know itself by excluding utopia.

Socialism is right in protesting against political economy and saying to it: You are nothing but a routine that does not understand itself. And political economy is right to say to socialism: you are only a utopia without reality or possible application. But both denying in turn, socialism the experience of humanity, political economy the reason of humanity, both lack the essential conditions of human truth.

Social science is the agreement of reason and social practice. Now, this science, of which our masters have only seen rare sparks, will be given to our century to contemplate it in its sublime splendour and harmony!

But what am I doing? Alas! It is a question, at this moment when quackery and prejudice share the world, of raising our hopes. It is not incredulity that we have to fight, it is presumption. Let us start by noting that social science is not finished, that it is still in a state of vague premonition.

“Malthus,” says his excellent biographer, M. Charles Comte, “had the profound conviction that there exists in political economy principles which are true only insofar as they are contained within certain limits; he saw the main difficulties of the science in the frequent combination of complicated causes, in the action and reaction of effects and causes with each other, and in the necessity of setting limits or making exception for many important proposals.”

This is what Malthus thought of political economy, and the work we have published at this moment is only a demonstration of his idea. To this testimony we add another just as worthy of belief. In one of the final sessions of the Academy of Moral Sciences, M. Dunoyer, as a truly superior man, who does not allow himself to be dazzled either by the interest of a clique, nor by the disdain that inspires ignorant opponents, made the same confession with as much candour and nobility as Malthus.

“Political economy, which has a number of certain principles, which rests on a considerable mass of exact facts and well deduced observations, nevertheless seems far from being a set science. There is no complete agreement on the extent of the field in which its research should be extended, nor on the fundamental object which it must suggest. It is not suitable for all the work it embraces, nor the means to which the power of its work is linked, nor the precise meaning to be attached to most of the words that form its vocabulary. The science, rich in truths of detail, leaves a great deal to be desired as a whole, and as a science it still seems far from being constituted.”

M. Rossi goes further than M. Dunoyer: he formulated his judgement in the form of a reprimand addressed to the modern representatives of the science.

“Every thought of method now seemed abandoned in economics,” he cries, “and yet there is no science without method.” (Compte-rendu par M. Rossi du cours de M. Whateley [Report by M. Rossi of M. Whateley’s course])

Messrs. Blanqui, Wolowski, Chevalier, everyone who has glanced every so briefly on the economy of societies speaks the same. And the writer who best appreciates the value of modern utopias, Pierre Leroux, writes on every page of the Revue sociale [Social Review]: “let us seek the solution of the problem of the proletariat; let us keep looking for it until we find it. It is the entire work of our epoch!...” Now, the problem of the proletariat is the constitution of social science. There are only short-sighed economists and fanatical socialists, for whom the science is summed up entirely in a formula, Laissez faire, laisses passer, or else, To each according to his needs as far as social resources allow, who boast of possessing economic science.

What then causes this delay of social truth, which alone maintains the disappointment of the economist and gives credit to the operations of the alleged reformers? The cause, in our opinion, is the separation, already very old, of philosophy and political economy.

Philosophy, that is to say metaphysics, or if it is preferred, logic, is the algebra of society; political economy is the realisation of this algebra. This was not noticed by J.B. Say, nor Bentham, no anyone else who, under the names of economists and utilitarians, created a split in morals and rose against almost at the same time politics and philosophy. And yet, what more secure control can philosophy, the theory of reason, wish for than work, that is, the practice of reason? And conversely, what more certain control could economic science wish than the formulas of philosophy? It is my dearest hope, that the time is not far when the masters in the moral and political sciences will be in the workshops and [behind] counters, as today our most skilful builders are all men formed by a long and arduous apprenticeship…

But on what condition can there be a science?

On the condition of recognising its field of observation and its limits, to determine its object, to organise its method. On this point the economist expresses himself as the philosopher: the words of M. Dunoyer, recounted earlier, seem literally taken from the preface of Jouffroy to the translation of Reid.

The field of observation of philosophy is the self [le moi]; the field of observation of economics is society, that is to say again the self. Do you want to know man, study society; do you want to know society, study man. Man and society reciprocally serve each other as subjects and objects; the parallelism, the synonymy of the two sciences is complete.

But what is this collective and individual self? What is this field of observation, where strange phenomena are going on? To find out, let us look at the analogues.

All the things we think seem to exist, to succeed one another or to be in three transcendent CAPABILITIES, outside of which we can only imagine and conceive absolutely nothing: these are space, time and intelligence.

Just as every material object is conceived by us necessarily in space; just as phenomena, connected with each other by a relationship of causality, seem to follow each other in time; thus our purely abstract representations are recorded by us to a particular receptacle, which we call intellect or intelligence.

Intelligence is in its species an infinite capacity, like space and eternity. There are restless worlds, of numberless organisms with complicated laws, with varied and unexpected effects; equal, for magnificence and harmony, to the worlds sown by the creator through space, to the organisms that shine and die out over time. Politics and political economy, jurisprudence, philosophy, theology, poetry, languages, customs, literature, fine arts: the field of observation of the self is more vast, more fecund, more rich in itself than the double field of observation of nature, space and time.

The self, as well as time and space, is infinite. Man, and what is the product of man, together with the beings thrown through space and the phenomena that follow one another in time, constitutes the triple manifestation of God. These three infinites, indefinite expressions of infinity, penetrate each other and support one another, inseparable and irreducible: space or scale not being conceived without movement, which implies the idea of force, this is to say a spontaneity, a self.

The ideas of things which are presented to us in space form for our imagination tableaus; the ideas which we place objects in time unfold in histories; finally, ideas or relations which do not fall under the category of time or space, and which belong to the intellect, are co-ordinated in systems.

Tableau, history, system, are thus three analogous expressions, or rather equivalents, by which we make known that a certain number of ideas appear to our mind as a symmetrical and perfect whole. That is why these expressions may, in certain cases, be taken for each other, as we have pursued from the beginning of this work, when we presented it as a history of political economy, no longer according to the date of the discoveries, but according to the order of the theories.

We conceive then, and we cannot not conceive of a capacity for things of pure thought, or, as Kant says, for noumena, in the same way that we conceive two others for sense things, for phenomena.

But space and time are nothing real; they are two forms imprinted on the self by external perception. Similarly intelligence is also nothing real: it is a form that the self imposes on itself, by analogy, in the context of the ideas that experience suggests to it.

As for the order of acquisition of ideas, intuitions or images, it seems to us that we start with those whose types or realities are included in space; that we continue by stopping, so to speak, the flight of ideas that time carries, and that we finally discover, with the help of sense perceptions, the ideas or concepts, without external model, which appear to us in this ghost capacity we call our intelligence. Such is the progress of our knowledge: we start from the sense to rise to the abstract; the ladder of our reason has its foot on the earth, crosses the sky and is lost in the depths of the mind.

Let us now reverse this series, and we envision creation as a descent of ideas from the higher sphere of intelligence into the lower spheres of time and space, a fall during which the ideas, originally pure, have taken a body of substratum that realises them and expresses them. From this point of view all created things, the phenomena of nature and the manifestations of humanity, will appear to us as a projection of the mind, immaterial and immutable, on a plane sometimes fixed and straight, space, sometimes inclined and moving, time.

It follows from this that ideas, equal to each other, contemporaneous and co-ordinated in the mind, seem thrown haphazardly, scattered, localised, subordinate and consecutive in humanity and in nature, forming tableaus and histories without resemblance to the original design [dessin primitif]; and all human science consists in finding this conception the abstract system of eternal thought. It is by a restoration of this kind that naturalists have found systems of organised and unorganised beings; it is by the same process that we have tried to re-establish the series of phases of social economy, which society makes us see isolated, incoherent, anarchic. The subject we have untaken is really the natural history of work, according to the fragments collected by the economists; and the system which has resulted from our analysis is true in the same way as the systems of plants discovered by Linné and Jussieu, and the system of animals by Cuvier.

The human self manifested by work is thus the field for the exploration of political economy, a concrete form of philosophy. The identity of these two sciences, or rather these two scepticisms, has been revealed to us throughout the course of this book. Thus the formation of ideas appeared to us in the division of labour as a division of elementary categories; then, we have seen freedom being born from the action of man upon nature, and, following freedom, arise all the relations of man with society and with himself. As a result, economics has been for us at the same time an ontology, a logic, a psychology, a theology, a politics, an aesthetics, a symbolism and a morality…

The field of science recognised, and its operation delimited, we had to recognise its method. Now, the method of economic science is still the same as that of philosophy: the organisation of work, we believe, is nothing but the organisation of common sense…

Among the laws that make up this organisation we have noticed the antinomy.

All true thought, as we have observed, arises in one time and two moments. Each of these moments being the negation of the other, and both of which must disappear only within a superior idea, it follows that antinomy is the very law of life and progress, the principle of perpetual motion. Indeed, if a thing, by virtue of the power of evolution which is in it, is repaired precisely of all that it loses, it follows that this thing is indestructible, and that movement supports it forever. In social economy, what competition is constantly occupied making, monopoly is constantly occupied unmaking; what labour produces, consumption devours; what property appropriates to itself, society gets a hold of: and from this results continuous movement, the unwavering life of humanity. If one of the two antagonistic forces is hindered, [so] that individual activity, for example, succumbs to social authority, organisation degenerates into communism and ends in nothingness. If, on the contrary, individual initiative lacks a counterweight, the collective organism is corrupted, and civilisation crawls under a regime of castes, iniquity and misery.

Antinomy is the principle of attraction and of movement, the reason for equilibrium: it is that which produces passion, and which breaks down all harmony and all accord…

Then comes the law of progression and series, the melody of beings, the law of the beautiful and the sublime. Remove the antinomy, the progress of beings is inexplicable: for where is the force that would produce this progress? Remove the series, the world is no more than a melee of sterile oppositions, a universal turmoil, without purpose and without an idea…

Even if these speculations, for us pure truth, appear doubtful, the application we have made of them would still be of immense utility. Let us think about it: there is not a single moment in life where the same man does not affirm and deny the same principles and theories at the same time, with more or less good faith, no doubt, but also always with plausible reasons, which, without soothing the conscience, suffice to make passion triumph and spread doubt in the mind. Let us leave, if you want, logic: but is it nothing to have illuminated the double face of things, to have learned to be wary of reasoning, of knowing how, the more a man has fairness in ideas and righteousness in the heart, the more he runs the risk of being a dupe and absurd? All our political, religious, economic, etc. misunderstandings come from the inherent contradiction of things; and this is even the source from which flow the corruption of principles, the venality of consciences, the charlatanism of professions of faith, the hypocrisy of opinions…

What is, at present, the object of economics?

The method itself tell us. Antinomy is the principle of attraction and balance in nature; antinomy is therefore the principle of progress and equilibrium in humanity, and the object of economic science is JUSTICE.

Considered in its purely objective relations, the only ones which social economy deals with, justice is expressed in value. Now, what is value? It is the labour performed.

“The real price of everything,” says Mr Smith, “what everything really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it… What is bought with money or with goods is purchased by labour as much as what we acquire by the toil of our own body. That money or those goods indeed save us this toil. They contain the value of a certain quantity of labour which we exchange for what is supposed at the time to contain the value of an equal quantity. Labour was the first price, the original purchase-money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased; and its value, to those who possess it, and who want to exchange it for some new productions, is precisely equal to the quantity of labour which it can enable them to purchase or command.”[53]

But if value is the embodiment of labour, it is at the same time the principle of the comparison of products with one another: hence the theory of proportionality which dominates all economic science, and to which A. Smith would have raised, if it had been in the spirit of his time to pursue, with the aid of logic, a system of experiments.

But how is justice manifested in society, in other words, how is proportionality of values established? Say said it: by an oscillatory movement between value in utility and value in exchange.

Here appears in political economy, with regard to work, its master and all too often its executioner, the arbitral principle.

At the outset of the science, work, devoid of method, without understanding of value, barely stammering its first attempts, appeals to free will to build wealth and set the price of things. From this moment two powers enter into struggle, and the great work of social organisation is inaugurated. For work and free will is what we will later call labour and capital, wage-labour and privilege, competition and monopoly, community and property, plebe and nobility, state and citizen, association and individualism. For anyone who has obtained the first notions of logic, it is obvious that all these oppositions, eternally reborn, must be eternally resolved: now, that is what the economists do not want to hear, to whom the arbitral principle inherent in value seems resistant to all determination; and it is, with the horror of philosophy, what causes the retardation, so fatal to society, of economic science.

“It would be as absurd,” says [John Ramsay] McCulloch, “to speak of absolute height and depth as of absolute value.”

Economists all say the same thing, and we can judge by this example how far they are from each other, and on the nature of value, and on the meaning of the words they use. The absolute expression carries with it the idea of wholeness, perfection, or plenitude, on the basis of precision and accuracy. An absolute majority is a true majority (half plus one), it is not an indefinite majority. In the same way absolute value is the precise value, deduced from the exact comparison of products together: there is nothing in the world so simple. But the consequence of this critical effect is that since values measure one another, they must not oscillate at random: such is the supreme wish of society, such is the significance of political economy itself, which is nothing else, in its totality, but the picture of the contradictions whose synthesis infallibly produces true value.

Thus society is gradually established by a sort of swinging between necessity and arbitrariness, and justice is constituted by theft. Equality does not occur within society as an inflexible standard; it is, like all the great laws of nature, an abstract point, which oscillates continually above and below, through arcs more of less large, more or less regular. Equality is the supreme law of society; but it is not a fixed form, it is the average of an infinity of equations. That is how equality appeared to us from the first epoch of economic evolution, the division of labour; and such has been constantly manifested from the legislation of Providence.

Adam Smith, who had a kind of intuition on almost all the great problems of social economy, after having recognised labour as the principle of value and described the magical effects of the law of division, observes that, notwithstanding the increase of the produce resulting from this division, the wages of the worker do not increase; that often, on the contrary, they diminish, the gains of collective force not going to the worker, but to the master.

“The profits of stock, it may perhaps be thought are only a different name for the wages of a particular sort of labour, the labour of inspection and direction. They are, however, altogether different, are regulated by quite different principles, and bear no proportion to the quantity, the hardship, or the ingenuity of this supposed labour of inspection and direction. They are regulated altogether by the value of the stock employed, and are greater or smaller in proportion to the extent of this stock... In this state of things, the whole produce of labour does not always belong to the labourer. He must in most cases share it with the owner.”[54]

That, A. Smith tells us coldly, is how things happen: everything for the master, nothing for the worker. Whether we call it injustice, plunder, theft, the economist is not moved. The robber proprietor seems to him in all this as an automaton as the worker is robbed. And the proof that they deserve neither envy nor pity is that the workers only demand when they are dying of hunger; it is that no capitalist, entrepreneur or proprietor, neither during life nor at the moment of death, has felt the slightest remorse. They accuse ignorant and distorted public consciousness; they may be right, they may be wrong. A. Smith limits himself to reporting the facts, which is much better for us that declamations.

So by designating amongst workers a select [privilégié], nazarœum inter fratres tuos, social reason personified collective force. Society proceeds by myths and allegories. The history of civilisation is a vast symbolism. Homer summarises heroic Greece; Jesus Christ is suffering humanity, striving with effort, in a long and painful agony, to freedom, to justice, to virtue. Charlemagne is the feudal type; Roland, chivalry; Peter the Hermit, the crusades; Gregory VII, the papacy; Napoleon, the French Revolution. In the same way the industrial entrepreneur, who exploits a capital by a group of workers, is the personification of the collective force whose profit he absorbs, as the flywheel of a machine stores force. This is really the heroic man, the king of work. Political economy is a whole symbolism, property is a religion.

Let is follow A. Smith, whose luminous ideas, scattered in an obscure clutter, seem a repetition [deutérose] of primitive revelation.

“As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce. The wood of the forest, the grass of the field, and all the natural fruits of the earth, which, when land was in common, cost the labourer only the trouble of gathering them, come, even to him, to have an additional price fixed upon them. He must then pay for the licence to gather them; and must give up to the landlord a portion of what his labour either collects or produces [without him].”[55]

Here is monopoly, here is interest on capital, here is [economic] rent! A. Smith, like all the enlightened, sees and does not understand; he recounts and has not the intelligence. He speaks under the inspiration of God without surprise and without pity; and the meaning of his words remain for him a closed letter. With what calm he recounts proprietor usurpation! As long as the land seems good for nothing, as long as labour has not loosened, fertilised, utilised, created VALUE [mise en VALEUR], property gives it no thought. The hornet does not alight on the flowers, it falls upon the hives. What the worker produces is immediately taken; the worker is like a hunting dog in the master’s hand.

A slave, exhausted from work, invents the plough. With a hardened wooden hook dragged by a horse, he opens the ground, rendering him capable of making ten times, a hundred times more. The master, at a glance, grasps the importance of the discovery: he seizes the land, he appropriates the revenue, he attributes the idea to himself, and makes himself adored by the mortals for this magnificent gift. He walks the equal of the gods: his wife is a nymph, Ceres; and he is Triptolemus. Poverty invents, and property reaps. For genius must remain poor: abundance would smother it. The greatest service that property has rendered to the world is this perpetual affliction of labour and genius.

But what to do with these heaps of grain? What a poor wealth [is] that which the boss shares with his horses, his oxen and his slaves! It is well worth being rich, if all the advantage consists of being able to gnaw a few more handfuls of rice and barley!...

An old woman, having pounded grain for her toothless mouth, realises that the dough soured, fermented, and cooked under the ashes, gives a food incomparably better than raw or grilled wheat. Miracle! The daily bread is discovered. – Another, having pressing into a jar a mass of dropped grapes, intends to boil the mash on the flame; the liquor spews out its impurities; it gleams, ruddy, bountiful, immortal. Evoe! it is the young Bacchus, the darling son of the proprietor, a child beloved of the gods, who has found it. What the master could not have devoured in a few weeks, a year will suffice for him to drink. The vine, like the harvest, like the earth, is appropriated.

What is to be done with these countless fleeces that each year provides such a large tribute? When the proprietor would raise his bed to be worthy of his pavilion, when he would duplicate thirty times his sumptuous tent, this useless luxury would do nothing but attest his impotence. He abounds in goods and he cannot enjoy; what a mockery!

A shepherdess, left naked by the avarice of the master, collects from the bushes some wool fibres. She twisted this wool, stretching it into equal and fine threads, gathering them on a spear, crisscrossing them, and making herself a soft and light dress, a thousand times more elegant than the patched skins that cover his scornful mistress. It is Arachne, the weaver, who created this marvel! Immediately the master begins to shear the hair of his sheep, his camels and his goats; he gives his wife a troop of slaves, who spin and weave under his orders. It is no longer Arachne, the humble servant; it is Pallas, the daughter of the proprietor, whom the gods have inspired, and whose jealously avenges itself on Arachne by causing her to die of hunger.

What a sight this incessant struggle of labour and privilege, the first created everything out of nothing; the other always arriving to devour what it has not produced! – It is because the destiny of man is a continuous march. It is necessary that he work, that he create, multiply, perfect forever and forever. Let the worker enjoy his discovery; he falls asleep on his idea: his intelligence no longer advances. This is the secret of this iniquity which struck A. Smith, and against which, however, the unemotional historian did not find a word of reprobation. He felt, although he could not realise it, that the touch of God was there; that until the day when labour fills the earth, civilisation is driven by unproductive consumption, and that it is by rapine that fraternity is gradually established between men.

Man must work! That is why at the advice of Providence, theft was instituted, organised, sanctified! If the proprietor had tired of taking it, the proletarian would have soon be tired of producing, and savagery, hideous misery, was at the door. The Polynesian, amongst whom property has been aborted, and who enjoys in an entire community of property and love, why would he work? The earth and beauty are for everyone, children to anyone: what do you say to him about morals, dignity, personality, philosophy, progress? And without going so far, the Corsican, who is found for six months living and residing under his chestnut tree, why do you want him to work? What does he care for your conscription, your railways, your tribune, your press? What else does he need but to sleep when he has eaten his chestnuts? A prefect of Corsica said that to civilise this island it was necessary to chop down the chestnut trees. A more certain way is to appropriate them.

But already the proprietor is no longer strong enough to devour the substance of the worker: he calls his favourites, his jesters, his lieutenants, his accomplices. It is again Smith who reveals this wonderful conspiracy.

“In the progress of the manufacture, not only the number of profits increase, but every subsequent profit is greater than the foregoing; because the capital from which it is derived must always be greater. In raising the price of commodities the rise of wages operates in the same manner as simple interest does in the accumulation of debt. The rise of profit operates like compound interest. If in the linen manufacture, for example, the wages of the different working people, the flax-dressers, the spinners, the weavers, etc., should, all of them, be advanced two-pence a day; it would be necessary to heighten the price of a piece of linen only by a number of two-pences equal to the number of people that had been employed about it, multiplied by the number of days during which they had been so employed. That part of the price of the commodity which resolved itself into wages would, through all the different stages of the manufacture, rise only in arithmetical proportion to this rise of wages. But if the profits of all the different employers of those working people should be raised five per cent, that part of the price of the commodity which resolved itself into profit would, through all the different stages of the manufacture, rise in geometrical proportion to this rise of profit. The employer of the flaxdressers would in selling his flax require an additional five per cent upon the whole value of the materials and wages which he advanced to his workmen. The employer of the spinners would require an additional five per cent both upon the advanced price of the flax and upon the wages of the spinners. And the employer of the weavers would require a like five per cent both upon the advanced price of the linen yarn and upon the wages of the weavers.”[56]

This vivid description of the economic hierarchy, starting with the Jupiter-proprietor, and ending with the slave. From labour, its division, the distinction of the master and the wage-worker, the monopoly of capital, arises a caste of landlords, financiers, entrepreneurs, bourgeois, masters and supervisors, labouring to consume rents, to collect usury, to squeeze the worker, and above all to exercise policing [d’exercer la police[57]], the most terrible form of exploitation and misery. The invention of politics and laws is exclusively due to property: Numa and Egeria, Tarquin and Tanaquil, as well as Napoleon and Charlemagne, were noble. Regum tirnendorum in proprios greges, regel in ipsos irnperium est lavis, says Horace. One would say a legion of infernal spirits, rushing from every corner of hell to torment a poor soul. Pull him by his chain, take away his sleep and food; beat, burn, torture, without rest, without pity! For if the worker were spared, if we did him justice, nothing would remain for us, and we would perish.

O God! what crime has this unfortunate man committed, that you abandon him to the guards who distribute blows to him with such a liberal hand, and subsistence with a hand so miserly? … And you, proprietors, Providence’s chosen rulers, do not go beyond the prescribed measure, because rage is rising in the heart of your servant, and his eyes are red with blood.

A revolt of the workers wrings a concession from the pitiless masters. Happy day, deep joy! Work is free. But what freedom, for heaven’s sake! Freedom for the proletarian is the ability to work, that is, of being robbed again; or not to work, that is to say to die to hunger! Freedom only benefits strength: by competition, capital crushes labour everywhere and converts industry into a vast coalition of monopolies. For the second time, the plebeian worker is on her knees before the aristocracy; she has neither the possibility, nor even the right to discuss her salary.

“Masters,” says the oracle, “are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform league, not to raise wages above their existing rate. To violate this rule is an act of a false-friend. And by abhorrent legislation, this league is tolerated, while the coalitions of workers are severely punished.”[58]

And why this new iniquity, which the unalterable serenity of Smith could not help declaring abhorrent? Would such a crying injustice have been even necessary and that, without this favouritism [acception de personnes], fate would have been in error and Providence thwarted? Will we find means of justifying, with monopoly, this partial policing of the human race?

Why not, if we want to rise above societal sentimentalism, and consider higher facts, the force of things, the intimate law of civilisation?

What is labour? What is privilege?

Labour, analogous to creative activity, without awareness of itself, indeterminate, barren, as long as the idea, the law does not penetrate, labour is the crucible where value is elaborated, the great matrix of civilisation, the passive or female principle of society. – Privilege, emanating from free will, is the electric spark that determines individualisation, the freedom that realises, the authority that commands, the mind that deliberates, the self that governs.

The relation of labour and privilege is thus a relation of the female to the male, of the wife to the husband. Amongst all peoples, the adultery of the woman has always seemed more reprehensible than that of the man; it was consequently subjected to more rigorous penalties. Those who, stopping at the atrocity of forms, forget the principle and see only the barbarism exercised towards the sex, are politicisers of romances worthy of appearing in the stories of the author of Lélia. Any indiscipline of workers is comparable to adultery committed by woman. Is it not obvious then that, if the same favour on the part of the courts were to accept the complaint of the worker and that of the master, the hierarchical link, outside which humanity cannot live, would be broken, and the entire economy of society ruined?

Judge moreover by the facts. Compare the physiognomy of a workers’ strike with the march of a coalition of entrepreneurs. There, distrust of the proper law, agitation, turbulence, outside screaming and trembling, inside terror, spirit of submission and desire for peace. Here, on the contrary, calculated resolution, feeling of strength, certainty of success, calmness in execution. Where, in your opinion, is power? where is the organic principle? where is life? Without doubt society owes assistance and protection to all: I do not plead here the cause of the oppressors of humanity; may the vengeance of heaven crush them! But the education of the proletarian must be accomplished. The proletarian is Hercules arriving at immortality through work and virtue: but what would Hercules do without the persecution of Eurystheus?

Who are you? asked Pope Saint Leo of Attila, when this destroyer of nations came to set his camp before Rome.

“I am the scourge of God,” replied the barbarian. “We receive with gratitude,” continued the pope, “all that comes from God: but you, take care not to do anything that is not commanded of you!”

Proprietors, who are you?...

Weirdest thing, property, attacked on all sides in the name of charity, of justice, of social economy, has never known how to respond for its justification other than these words: I am because I am. I am the negation of society, the plundering of the worker, the right of the unproductive, the right of the strongest [la raison du plus fort], and none can live if I do not devour him.

This appalling enigma has made the most sagacious intelligences despair.

“In that original state of things, which precedes both the appropriation of land and the accumulation of stock, the whole produce of labour belongs to the labourer. He has neither landlord nor master to share with him. Had this state continued, the wages of labour would have augmented with all those improvements in its productive powers, to which the division of labour gives occasion. [...] They would have been produced by a smaller quantity of labour [...] they would have been purchased likewise with the produce of a smaller quantity.”[59]

So says A. Smith. And his commentator adds:

“I can well understand how the right of appropriating, under the name of interest, profit or rent, the product of other individuals becomes nourishment for greed; but I cannot imagine that by diminishing the reward of the worker to add to the opulence of the idle man, we can increase industry or accelerate the progress of society in wealth.”[60]

The reason for this deduction, which neither Smith nor his commentator has seen, we will repeat, so that the inexorable law that governs human society is again and for the last time brought to light.

To divide labour is to make only a production of pieces: for there to be value, a composition is needed. Before the institution of property, each is a master to take from the ocean the water from which he draws salt for his food, to gather the olive from which he will extract his oil, to collect the ore which contains iron and gold. Each is free to exchange some of what he has collected against an equivalent quantity of provisions made by another: so far, we do not go beyond the sacred right of work and the community of the earth. Now, if I have the right to use, either by my personal labour or by exchange, all the products of nature; and if the possession thus obtained is entirely legitimate, I have the same right to combine, from the various elements which I obtain by labour and exchange, a new product, which is my property, and which I have the right to enjoy exclusively of any other. I can, for example, by means of the salt from which I extract soda, and the oil I draw from the olive and sesame, to make a specific composition to clean linen, and which will be for me, from the point of view of cleanliness and hygiene, a precious utility. I can even reserve for myself the secret of this composition, and consequently take, by means of exchange, a legitimate profit.

Now, what is the difference, under relation of right, between the manufacture of an ounce of soap and that of a million kilograms? Does the greater or lesser quantity change anything of the morality of the operation? So property, as well as commerce, as well as labour, is a natural right, of whose exercise nothing in the world can steal from me.

But, by the very fact that I compose a product which is my exclusive property, as well as the materials that constitute it, it follows that a workshop, an exploitation of men is organised by me; that profits accumulate in my hands to the detriment of all who enter into business relations with me; and that if you wish to substitute yourself for me in my enterprise, quite naturally I will stipulate for myself a rent. You will possess my secret, you will manufacture in my place, you will turn my mill, you will reap my field, you will pick my vine, but at a quarter, a third, or half share.

All this is a necessary and indissoluble chain; there is no serpent or devil here; it is the very law of the thing, the dictum of common sense. In commerce, plundering is identical to exchange; and what is really surprising is that a regime like this one does not excuse itself only by the good faith of the parties, it is commanded by justice.

A man buys from his neighbour the collier a sack of coal, from the grocer a quantity of sulphur from Etna. He makes a mixture to which he adds a portion of saltpetre, sold by the druggist. From all this results an explosive powder, of which a hundred pounds would suffice to wreck a citadel. Now, I ask, the woodcutter who charred the wood, the Sicilian shepherd who picked up the sulphur, the sailor who transported it, the commission agent from Marseilles who reshipped it, the merchant who sold it, are they complicit in the disaster? Is there any interdependence [solidarité] between them, I’m not saying in its use, but in the manufacture of this powder?

Now, if it is impossible to discover the least connection of action between the various individuals who, each without his knowledge, have co-operated in the production of the powder, it is clear, for the same reason, that there is no more connection and interdependence [solidarité] between them as to the profits of the sale, and that the gain which may result from its use also belongs exclusively to the inventor, that the punishment, to which he might become liable for as a result of crime or imprudence, is personal to him. Property is identical to responsibility: we cannot affirm the one, without granting at the same time the other.

But admire the unreason of reason! The same property, legitimate, irreproachable in its origin, constitutes in its use a flagrant iniquity; and this, without adding any element which modifies it, but by the mere development of the principle.

Let us take as a whole the products that industry and agriculture bring to the market. These products, such as powder and soap, are all, to some degree, the result of a combination of materials which were drawn from the general store. The price of these products invariably consists, firstly of the wages paid to the different categories of workers, secondly, of the profits demanded by the entrepreneurs and capitalists. So that society is divided into two classes of people: 1) entrepreneurs, capitalists and proprietors, who have the monopoly of all objects of consumption; 2) employees or workers, who can offer only half of what these are worth, which makes their consumption, circulation and reproduction impossible.

Adam Smith tells us in vain:

“It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged.”[61]

How could this be achieved, except with the dispossession of the monopolists? And how can monopoly be prevented if it is a necessary effect of the free exercise of the industrial faculty? The justice that Adam Smith wants to establish is impractical in the regime of property. Now, if justice is impractical, if it becomes actual injustice, and if this contradiction is internal to the nature of things [intime à la nature des choses], what is the use of even speaking of equity and humanity? Does Providence know equity, or whether fate is philanthropic? It is not to destroy monopoly, any more than labour, which we must reach; it is, by a synthesis which the contradiction of monopoly renders inevitable, to make it produce in the interests of all the goods which it [currently] reserves for some. Outwith of this solution Providence remains insensitive to our tears; fate inflexibly follows its path; and while we, gravely seated, argue over the just and the unjust, God who has made us contradictory like himself in our thoughts, contradictory in our actions, answers us with a burst of laughter.

It is this essential contradiction of our ideas that, being realised by labour and expressing itself in society with a gigantic power, makes everything happen in the inverse direction of what it must be, and gives society the appearance of a tapestry seen in reverse or an inverted animal. Man, by the division of labour and by machinery, was to gradually rise to science and to liberty; and by division, by the machine he stupefies himself and becomes a slave. Tax, says the theory, must be as a result of wealth; and quite the contrary tax is because of poverty. The unproductive must obey, and by a bitter mockery the unproductive command. Credit, according to the etymology of its name, and according to its theoretical definition, is the provider of labour; in practice, it squeezes and kills it. Property, in the spirit of its most beautiful prerogative, is the extension of land; and in the exercise of this same prerogative, property is the prohibition of land. In all its categories political economy reproduces the contradiction and the religious idea. The life of man, affirms philosophy, is a perpetual emancipation from animality and nature, a struggle against God. In religious practice, life is the struggle of man against himself, the absolute submission of society to a superior Being. Love God with all your heart, the Gospel tells us, and hate your spirit [âme] for eternal life: precisely the opposite of what reason commands…

I will not push this summary further. Having reached the end of my journey, my ideas are pressing in such a multitude and vehemence, that already I would need a new book to recount what I have discovered, and that, in spite of the oratorical expedience, I see no other means of finishing than to stop abruptly. If I am not mistaken, the reader ought to be convinced at least of one thing, that social truth cannot be found either in utopia or in routine: that political economy is not the science of society, but contains, in itself, the materials of that science, in the same way that chaos before the creation contained the elements of the universe. The fact is that, to arrive at a definite organisation, which appears to be the destiny of the race on this planet, there is nothing left but to make a general equation of our contradictions.

But what will be the formula of this equation?

We already foresee that there should be a law of exchange, a theory of MUTUALITY, a system of guaranties which determines the old forms of our civil and commercial societies, and gives satisfaction to all the conditions of efficiency, progress and justice which the critics have pointed out; a society no longer merely conventional, but real, which makes of the subdivision of real estate a scientific instrument; that will abolish the servitude of the machines, and may prevent the coming of crises; that makes of competition a benefit, and of monopoly a pledge of security for all; which by the strength of its principles, instead of making credit of capital and protection of the State, puts capital and the State to work; which by the sincerity of exchange, creates a real solidarity among the nations; which without forbidding individual initiative, without prohibiting domestic economy, continuously restores to society the wealth which is diverted by appropriation; which by the ebb and flow of capital, assures political and industrial equality of the citizenry, and, through a vast system of public education, secures the equality of functions and the equivalence of aptitudes, by continuously raising their level; which through justice, well being and virtue, revives the human conscience, assures the harmony and the equality of the people; a society, in a word, which, being at the same time organisation and transition, escapes what has taken place, guarantees everything and compels nothing…

The theory of mutuality, or of mutuum, that is to say, the natural form of exchange, of which the most simple form is loan for consumption, is, from the point of view of the collective existence, the synthesis of the two ideas of property and of communism [communauté], a synthesis as old as the elements of which it is constituted, since it is nothing more than the return of society to its primitive custom, through the maze of inventions and of systems, the result of a meditation of six thousand years on the fundamental proposition that A equals A.

Everything today is making ready for this solemn restoration; everything proclaims that the reign of fiction has passed, and that society will return to the sincerity of its nature. Monopoly is inflated to world-wide proportions, but a monopoly which encompasses the world cannot remain exclusive; it must republicanise itself or be destroyed. Hypocrisy, venality, prostitution, theft, form the foundation of the public conscience; but, unless humanity learns to live upon what kills it, we must believe that justice and expiation approach....

Already socialism, feeling the error in its utopias, turns to realities and to facts, it laughs at itself in Paris, it discusses in Berlin, in Cologne, in Leipzig, in Breslau; it murmurs in England, it thunders on the other side of the ocean; it commits suicide in Poland, it tries to govern in Berne and in Lausanne. Socialism, in pervading the masses, has become entirely different: the people will not bother about the honour of schools; they ask for work, education, well being, equality; the system does not matter so much, provided that the result is obtained. But when the people want something and it is only a question of finding out how to obtain it, the discovery does not wait; prepare yourself to see the coming of the grand masquerade.

Let the priest finally get it his head that poverty is a sin, and that true virtue, that renders us worthy of eternal life, is to fight against religion and against God; – that the philosopher, lowering his pride, supercilium philosophicum, learns on his part that reason is society, and that to philosophise is to work with his hands; – that the artist may remember that he once descended from Olympus into Christ’s stable, and that from this stable, he rose suddenly to unknown splendours; that as well as Christianity, labour must regenerate it; – that the capitalist thinks that silver and gold are not true values; that by the sincerity of exchange all products amount to the same dignity, each producer will have in his house a mint [un hôtel des monnaies], and, as the fiction of the productivity of capital has plundered the worker, so organised labour will absorb capital; – that the proprietor knows that he is only the collector of society’s [economic] rents, and that if he could once, under the guise of war, put a prohibition on the soil, the proletarian can in his turn, by association, put a prohibition on harvesting, and make property expire in the void; – that the prince and his proud cortege, his soldiers, his judges, his councillors, his peers, and all the army of the unproductive, hasten to cry Thanks! to the agricultural and industrial worker [au laboureur et à l'industriel], because the organisation of labour is synonymous with the subordination of power, that it depends on the worker abandoning the unproductive to his indigence, and to destroy power in shame and hunger.

All these things will happen, not as unforeseen, unhoped novelties, a sudden effect of the passions of the people, or of the skill of a few men, but by the spontaneous return of society to an immemorial practice, momentarily abandoned, and rightly so…

Humanity, in its oscillatory march, turns incessantly upon itself: its progress is only the rejuvenation of its traditions; its systems, so opposite in appearance, always exhibit the same basis [fond], seen from different sides. Truth, in the movement of civilisation, always remains the same, always old and always new: religion, philosophy, science merely translate. And this is precisely what constitutes Providence and the infallibility of human reason; which ensures, in the very heart of progress, the immutability of our being; which renders society at once unalterable in its essence and irresistible in its revolutions; and which, continually extending perspective, always showing from afar the latest solution, establishes the authority of our mysterious premonitions.

Reflecting on these battles of humanity, I involuntarily recall that, in Christian symbolism, the militant Church must succeed on the final day a triumphant Church, and the system of social contradictions appears to me like a magic bridge, thrown over the river of oblivion.

[collision-repair-trooper]

Repairing the Road Ahead: Collision Repair Services Near Eagleville

When accidents happen, the aftermath can be overwhelming. From dealing with insurance claims to ensuring your vehicle is restored to its original condition, the process of collision repair can be daunting. If you're searching for "collision repair near me in Eagleville," look no further than Brandywine Coach Works. With a reputation built on trust, quality craftsmanship, and exceptional customer service, Brandywine Coach Works is your go-to solution for collision repair needs in Eagleville and the surrounding areas.

Why Choose Brandywine Coach Works?

At Brandywine Coach Works, we understand the stress and inconvenience that a collision can bring to your life. That's why we are committed to making the repair process as seamless and hassle-free as possible. Here’s why our Eagleville customers trust us with their vehicles:

Experienced Technicians Our team of certified technicians has extensive experience in collision repair. They are trained to handle everything from minor dents and scratches to significant structural damage. With a deep understanding of the latest repair techniques and access to state-of-the-art equipment, our technicians can restore your vehicle to its pre-accident condition efficiently and effectively.

Comprehensive Collision Repair Services Brandywine Coach Works offers a full range of collision repair services to meet all your needs. Whether your vehicle requires frame straightening, paint matching, or panel replacement, we’ve got you covered. Our comprehensive services ensure that every aspect of the repair is handled with precision and care, so you can drive away with confidence knowing your vehicle has been restored to the highest standards.

Quality Parts and Materials We believe in using only the best quality parts and materials for every repair. By using OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) parts whenever possible, we ensure that your vehicle maintains its integrity and performance. Additionally, our use of top-grade paint and materials means that your car's finish will not only look flawless but will also stand the test of time.

Insurance Claims Assistance Navigating the insurance claim process can be one of the most stressful aspects of collision repair. At Brandywine Coach Works, we work directly with your insurance company to handle the paperwork and negotiation on your behalf. Our goal is to make the process as smooth as possible, so you can focus on getting back on the road.

Lifetime Warranty We stand behind our work with a lifetime warranty on all repairs. This guarantee reflects our confidence in the quality of our services and provides you with peace of mind long after the repair is complete. Should any issues arise, we’ll address them promptly and professionally.

Customer-Centric Approach At Brandywine Coach Works, customer satisfaction is our top priority. We strive to keep our clients informed and involved throughout the repair process. Our friendly and knowledgeable staff is always available to answer your questions, provide updates, and ensure that your experience with us is positive from start to finish.

The Importance of Prompt Collision Repair Delaying collision repair can lead to more significant problems down the road. What might seem like minor cosmetic damage could be masking underlying issues that could compromise the safety and performance of your vehicle. For instance, a small dent could hide frame damage, or a chipped windshield could worsen, leading to a complete replacement.

By addressing repairs promptly, you can prevent further damage, maintain the value of your vehicle, and ensure your safety on the road. When you choose Brandywine Coach Works, you can trust that your vehicle will be thoroughly inspected and repaired to meet the highest safety standards.

Convenient Location and Service Conveniently located in the heart of Eagleville, Brandywine Coach Works is easily accessible for residents throughout the area. Our facility is equipped with cutting-edge technology, allowing us to perform repairs quickly and accurately. We understand that being without your vehicle is inconvenient, which is why we offer efficient service without compromising on quality.

For those who need assistance with transportation while their vehicle is being repaired, we offer rental car services to keep you moving.

Trust Brandywine Coach Works for Collision Repair Near Me in Eagleville When searching for "collision repair near me in Eagleville," Brandywine Coach Works is the name you can rely on. Our commitment to excellence, attention to detail, and dedication to customer satisfaction have made us a trusted choice in the community. Whether you've been in a minor fender bender or a major accident, we have the expertise and resources to restore your vehicle to its pre-accident condition.

Don't let the stress of an accident weigh you down. Contact Brandywine Coach Works today to schedule an appointment or to learn more about our collision repair services. Let us help you get back on the road safely and confidently.

[jacquesthepigeon]

Not sure if you ever got a response about this and you don’t have to publicly respond but I have my own general guide for what to look for in a used car:

Maintenance—if you’re physically able to change tires, oil, and brakes yourself, that’s ideal. Alternatively, if you know anyone with car maintenance skills, it will be a much more affordable option than bringing it to a shop. If you can’t do it yourself or don’t know a mechanic, figure out how much you’re willing to spend on taking your car in to be fixed professionally. DO NOT just trust the seller’s claims about recent maintenance. Check it yourself or have someone you trust check it.

Electronics—newer cars (2010s and newer) have more electronic components, and thus will need special types of updates to their programming. Older cars (2000s and older) are more analog and have fewer electronic features, but will cost less to repair. NEVER buy a car that has electronic issues.

Fluids—check all fluids before agreeing to purchase the vehicle. Oil, transmission, brakes, coolant, radiator, etc. Check the smell of the fluids, how clear or dirty they are, whether they are full, most recent fluid change/flush. DO NOT just trust the seller’s claims about recent maintenance. Check it yourself or have someone you trust check it.

Sounds—listen to engine sounds before AND after it has been warmed up. If there is a distinct knocking, tapping, or other suspicious sound in the engine, do NOT buy that vehicle.

Research—look up any issues specific to the vehicle you intend to buy. Look the car up specifically by make, model, year, and if possible, VIN. This includes any issues with electronics, transmission/power train, steering, brakes, tires, chassis strength, etc. This is especially important when considering survivability of an accident and the future cost of maintenance. (Most car insurance providers offer a free quoting system and, if you have the VIN, will also provide information about any previous accidents the vehicle has been in.)

Manufacturer’s Warranties—this is an extension of research, but it’s vital if you ever have a serious mechanical failure. Most manufacturers will provide a distance-based guaranteed warranty for replacement of parts. (For example, a car’s first owner may be covered for engine replacement up to 100k total miles of use. Meanwhile, any future owners will only be covered up to the original 60k miles driven on the car.) Engine, transmission/power train, and electronic warranties are the most important ones, but some manufacturers will also provide brake and tire warranties.

I have a lot more info stored in my head, but I hope this helps with the basics and what to look out for before you buy a used car!

Paperwork—before purchasing a vehicle, make sure the seller has all the necessary paperwork for you to legally own and register the car. At the very least, this means a title with the correct VIN number and make/model info. Depending on the state you live in, you’ll also need to be sure the former owner submits a bill of sale or buyer/seller form to the DMV. If the VIN number has been taken off the vehicle or the former owner does not have a title, it is likely stolen. Do NOT buy it.

—————————————————————

I love you 🫶

[alabamaworkerscomp]

In the bustling city of Huntsville, Alabama, the roadways are always busy with vehicles commuting to and fro. Unfortunately, with this constant flow of traffic, car accidents are inevitable. Whether it's a minor fender-bender or a serious collision, being involved in a car accident can be a traumatic experience, both physically and emotionally. In such challenging times, seeking the assistance of a skilled car accident attorney in Huntsville, AL can make all the difference.

1. Legal Expertise:

Navigating the complexities of car accident laws and insurance claims can be overwhelming for anyone unfamiliar with the legal system. This is where a car accident attorney steps in. With their in-depth knowledge and expertise in handling similar cases, they can provide invaluable guidance throughout the legal process.

2. Protection of Rights:

After a car accident, insurance companies may try to minimize payouts or deny claims altogether. A car accident attorney acts as a staunch advocate for their clients, ensuring that their rights are protected and that they receive the compensation they rightfully deserve.

3. Investigation and Evidence Gathering:

Proving liability in a car accident case often requires thorough investigation and gathering of evidence. From obtaining police reports to interviewing witnesses and collecting medical records, a car accident attorney has the resources and experience to build a strong case on behalf of their clients.

4. Negotiation Skills:

Many car accident cases are settled through negotiation rather than going to trial. A skilled car accident attorney knows how to negotiate effectively with insurance companies to secure a fair settlement that covers medical expenses, lost wages, and other damages.

5. Litigation Representation:

In cases where a settlement cannot be reached, having a car accident attorney who is prepared to take the case to court is essential. With their litigation experience, they can effectively represent their clients in front of a judge and jury, fighting vigorously for their rights.

6. Peace of Mind:

Dealing with the aftermath of a car accident can be incredibly stressful. By entrusting their case to a reputable car accident attorney, clients can have peace of mind knowing that their legal matters are in capable hands, allowing them to focus on their recovery.

7. Cost-Effective Solutions:

Contrary to popular belief, hiring a car accident attorney is often more cost-effective in the long run. Many attorneys work on a contingency fee basis, meaning they only get paid if they win the case. This eliminates the financial burden on clients while incentivizing attorneys to achieve the best possible outcome.

8. Local Knowledge:

Choosing a car accident attorney who is familiar with the local laws and court system in Huntsville, AL, can be advantageous. They understand the unique nuances of practicing law in the area and can leverage this knowledge to benefit their clients.

In conclusion, hiring a car accident attorney in Huntsville, AL, is not only advisable but also crucial for anyone who has been injured in a car accident. From providing legal expertise and protection of rights to negotiating settlements and representing clients in court, a car accident attorney plays a pivotal role in ensuring that justice is served. If you or a loved one has been involved in a car accident, don't hesitate to contact us for expert legal assistance.

Contact us today for a free consultation and let us help you navigate through this challenging time.