The World in 2000 Years

by Georges Pellerin

  “When will it open?”

  “At two o’clock.”

  “And what time is it?”

  “Quarter to two.”

  “Where can you see that?”

  “On your watch, in your pocket.”

  Hobson took his watch out of his fob pocket; it was, indeed, quarter to two. “While we wait for the hour to chime,” he said to the savant, “have a rest.”

  “Something unusual is happening. The representatives are walking in the corridors, conversing with great agitation. The ministers are anxious. The session promises to be stormy.”

  Hobson squeezed the savant’s hand. “Rest,” he repeated. “You’ll have need of new strength to follow the parliamentary debates of 2000 years hence attentively.”

  The savant seemed to yield to the magnetizer’s advice, but the long relation he had just made had dried his throat. “I’m thirsty,” he murmured.

  Hobson prepared a cognac toddy and held it out to him.

  Monsieur Landet seized the glass without hesitation, as if he were awake, and drained it in a single draught. Then he got up and walked to the window.

  “Where are you going?” Hobson asked.

  “To open the window—it’s stifling in here.”

  “Don’t do that—the fluid will escape from the room as the air is renewed. You’ll lose the essence of your precious lucidity.”

  Monsieur Landet uttered a profound sigh, passed his hand over his brow and meekly came back to sit down. The immobility of death spread over his features. Not a muscle in his face quivered; his lowered eyelids seemed like a leaden cloak over his eyes. One might have thought that he was plunged into a lethargic sleep.

  Hobson chatted with the stenographers, hastily riffling through the loose sheets of paper on which they had recorded the communication word for word.

  “It’s two o’clock!” the savant suddenly exclaimed, emerging from his prostration.

  Hobson turned round; although accustomed to the prodigies accomplished under his empire, Monsieur Landet’s lucidity astonished him, almost frightening him, especially after his audacious attempt to sent the savant into free space. He took out his watch.

  “Two o’clock, indeed—you have a military precision.”

  The stenographers, eyes fixed on the wall clock, took up their posts again. The communication had never been so attractive; this time, it was a matter of a parliamentary session anticipated by 20 centuries.

  Hobson sat down again facing the savant and took him by the hands, not without having darted an investigative glance at the stenographers, like the captain of a ship from his quarter-deck.

  A Parliamentary Session 2000 Years Hence

  “The representatives are taking their places,” Monsieur Landet began. “The benches are filing up; the president is going up to his armchair.

  “A secretary is giving him the minutes of the last session to read. They’re proceeding to ministerial reports.

  “This isn’t very interesting; I’ll wait until it’s over...”

  After a pause, he resumed: “The president is shaking his hand-bell. Silence falls. He gets up. ‘Messieurs’ he says, ‘an unexpected incident has occurred. The Minister of Finance has taken advantage of the parliamentary vacation to modify the law relating to the taxation of income, on his own authority, in spite of the opposition of the cabinet. I appeal to your loyalty and your patriotism to judge this affair with the strictest impartiality. The law is for you, gentlemen, use it—but don’t exceed it. Moderation in all things is the secret of wisdom.’

  “There is applause; the president rings his bell again to call for order.

  “‘I ask to speak!’ exclaims the Minister of Finance.

  “‘The Minister of Finance has the floor.’

  “The Minister launches himself toward the podium, an immense portfolio under his arm. He is very pale.

  “I can’t quite catch the first words of his speech. Emotion is paralyzing his voice. From to what I can grasp, a ministerial crisis is reaching its final phase. The minister’s speech will decide the survival or the fall of the cabinet.”

  The savant paused. He listened attentively. Then he continued:

  “I’ll repeat what the minister says. ‘By overstepping my entitlements, depriving me of your collaboration and breaking with the members of the cabinet, I thought to take upon myself the responsibility for a measure that you would approve, after having seen the results, but which you would have rejected had it been submitted to you in advance. The hostility that the ministry has shown me in the circumstances drove me to that solution, for the ministry, the issue of the majority, would have obtained the vote of that majority, and the theory that I would have set out before you, gentlemen, would have not sufficient force or you to grasp its equity. Only practice could furnish me with supporting proofs.

  “‘This is a matter of the equilibration of incomes. That equilibrium, rigorously impossible, offends justice when it is made by way of apportionment. The law assigns particular suppliers to every citizen, which he cannot quit without a court judgment; but the law, dividing production equally, ought not to annex the excess quantity of that production by levying upon it an exorbitant tax of 50%. The law cannot tax the disparity of intelligences as it taxes commercial products. Humans are endowed with more or less laborious natures; it is therefore not just that the more active should share the benefits of their excess of labor with those who restrict themselves to the strict measure of their obligations.

  “‘Now, this is what I have done. Instead of collecting annually half of the excess of income to the advantage of the state, thus preventing people from accumulating wealth. I published, on my own authority, a decree that imposes a progressive tax small enough to permit them to build capital, on the assumption that the primary raw material of industry and commerce is capital, and I fixed the enjoyment of that capital for a duration of 30 years, at the end of which the State becomes its owner. To facilitate that redemption, I have had a register of annuities drawn up my department’s offices, from which, after the annual deductions of a review commission, the inscribed sums will emerge in turn, 30 years offer their inscription. I have based this on the system once employed with respect to railway shares. By this means, the capital belongs in principle to the State, and the temporary possessor only has a life interest in it. Every year, according to the determination of the Finance Commission, the State will deliver to anyone who possesses excess income a dividend of 4½% in exchange for the sum granted to the treasury. The difference of one tenth between 5%, which would be the normal rate of interest, and 4½%, which is the effective interest, constitutes, to the profit of the State, a tax of 10%, which progresses according to the sum deducted by the Finance Commission, which is converted into shares. That bond bears the date of the day on which it has been delivered and is immediately inscribed in numerical order on the list of annuities. When the 30 years is up, it will expire naturally. However, as the objective of this new measure is to encourage the development of commerce and industry by the circulation of capital, the bond is negotiable on the Bourse until it become valueless, not at the price on the day that it has been delivered, but at the price on the day when it is traded. That price is quoted to the nearest centime on a decreasing scale that gradually reduces it to zero on the expiration date.

  “‘In order to give that bond the confidence necessary to trade, the State will guarantee the reimbursement of the daily price quoted on the scale. If necessary, use can be made of a letter of exchange, then realizable in immediate cash, less the depreciation that a few days delay would cause. Its output is not restricted to a designated figure; it varies in proportion to the capital declared. It is continual.

  “‘That sort of public debt has the advantage over the old one of being redeemed by means of expiration and not by way of reimbursement. It permits the State to reduce taxes, as the entitlements exit from the register of annuities. I have ordered, to that effect, a general inventory of the revenue si
tuation and an initial emission of redeemable entitlements. It is not, therefore, until 30 years from the ninth of the present month that the first entitlement will reach its expiration date.

  “‘I am not talking about hereditary capital; it is only stationary, since, by means of entitlements redeemable by expiration, it will return one day to the State. I have also left property in land out of the equation since, according to our Constitution, it is inalienable or alienable by mutation.

  “‘That everyone should be assured of a comfortable life, and that that assurance should be based in the formal prescriptions of the law is all well and good. It prevents the poverty that is only known to us through the remembrance of the barbarous times of history. But to remove the recompense of his labor from a hard-working man, no, gentlemen, that is not just; it is contrary to probity, offending the sentiment of moral satisfaction that is one of the advantages of a life usefully employed.

  “‘That every man has his daily bread is sufficient for him; if he desires superfluity, let him earn it! But the excess of his labor should not be distributed among those who have not shared in his fatigue. We shall all find our account in the annual dividends, the produce of which the State will devote to the needs of the general population, by the reduction of taxes.

  “‘Let the free citizen enjoy in peace, therefore, the fortune acquired by labor, outside of mutual obligations. Let his intelligence strive to activate progress by external commerce as well as by internal commerce. Although our duty is to aid one another, it is not to favor some with the fruits of the voluntary efforts of others. With such principles, we would remain stationary.’

  “‘We ask no more!’ shouts a voice from the right. ‘Are we not happy enough?’

  “‘We are—relatively,’ the orator goes on. ‘But ought we to savor a happiness contrary to justice?’

  “‘Justice is conventional!’ cries another voice from the right.

  “‘No, gentlemen,’ the minister continues, paying no heed to the interruption. ‘No, I repeat once again, probity is opposed to it. The taxation of income, in the cause of redistribution, was established in an epoch in which society, emerging from a painful dream, demanded a solidly-based equality. Today, however, when equality is conclusively rooted, when our improved intelligence shows us its downside, it is up to us to decrease it. It no longer answers to the needs of the moment. Equality, by dint of being absolute, has become separate from justice, although one of these gentlemen’—he points to his right—‘deems justice to be conventional. Intelligence is too fine a thing for us to risk allowing it to vegetate in inaction, by depriving it of incentives to fortune. We are not yet perfect, and life without an objective rapidly becomes tasteless. Inaction softens the vital forces of intelligence, and from that mental abasement the general interest suffers more than individual interest.

  “‘I have before my eyes the statistics of this month’s commercial and industrial operations, as well as those of the sums garnered by the state. The appreciable difference that exists with the previous month’s figures testifies in an evident manner in favor of the system that I have put into practice. I shall compare, gentlemen. In July, we made 120,218,000 francs in exports, as opposed to 74,000,496 francs in imports; industry furnished three inventions; internal commerce attained a figure of 17,000,320 francs in trade; income from all sources produced a surplus of 4,000,000 francs, redistributed by means of a deduction of ½% on every aspect of direct contributions. This month, we have made 182,417,039 francs in exports, against 38,000,000 francs in impost; industry has furnished 14 inventions, as many for the manufacture of textiles as for the simplification of machines. Internal commerce attained a figure of 13,000,000 francs in trade; the progressive tax on income produced 6,000,000 francs, redistributed by means of a deduction of ¾% on every aspect of direct contributions.

  “‘The progressive tax, as you can judge from these statistics, has poured into the State coffers two million more in a single month than the 50% tax; but that amelioration, appreciable as it may be, will only become glaring in 30 years’ time, when the redemption of capital to the profit of the State will permit an annual deduction of 20% or 30% on every aspect of direct contribution, in addition to the results obtained by the progressive tax. The proportional redistribution will still take place every year, but the State will have capital at its disposal to give rise to enterprises that, if they required increases in taxes or borrowing, would be a new charge on individuals. In finance, the indirect path is always the most onerous. Better to head straight for the goal. That which profits the State profits individuals; the converse is not the case.

  “‘There, gentlemen, is the powerful motive that persuaded me to overstep the law. I have only taken action against equality in order to affirm that equality. It is a fault, I agree, but the results are there; they speak in my favor. It is now up to you to decide whether the law should be avenged, or whether the amelioration acquired ratifies its violation. Whatever your verdict may be, I accept it in advance.’

  “The Minister descends from the podium, wiping the sweat trickling from his brow with his handkerchief. The right and the left maintain a glacial silence.”

  “What! There are still parties in a Republic solidified by unanimous consent?” Hobson put in. “And the denominations of right and left have survived the tempest of reaction?”

  “Two camps are present,” Monsieur Landet replied. “The Progressists and the Stationaries. According to the pattern of events, the majority varies between the two camps via the conjunction of the center. The Stationaries are timorous, anxious, prudent spirits who fear social upheavals due to progress; they represent the mass of landowners and agriculturalists, and correspond to our conservatives. The Progressists, as the word indicates, are the restless, bold, indefatigable spirits who pursue perfection relentlessly; they represent the intelligent and industrious masses and correspond to our advanced radicals. They are the ones who most often form the majority, apart from questions of liquidation, credit and current affairs, which are voted unanimously.

  “The Minister under indictment is, of course, a Progressist minister, but the incident that has just occurred has turned the entire parliament against the Minister of Finance. The Progressists and the Stationaries both condemn him for different reasons. The Progressists reproach him for having broken the law in executing a reform that had not been voted by the parliament, even though he is a Progressist. The Stationaries accuse him of being revolutionary and are also critical of his initiative. Whichever way the minister turns, he is doomed. His own side, while recognizing the evident merit of his innovation, is abandoning him pitilessly. His crime is to have sinned formally. ‘A vote! A vote of no confidence in the Ministry!’ people are shouting on all sides.

  “‘I protest!’ cries the Minister of the Interior, from his bench. ‘The Ministry is not associated with the actions of one of its members, when those actions are made on his personal responsibility and have not been decided in Council.’

  “‘The Ministry is more than associated with the actions of each of its members; it is responsible for then,’ replied a Stationary representative, getting to his feet. ‘That’s a principle. Principles stand; Ministries fall.’

  “‘Silence, gentlemen, silence!’ cries the President in his turn, his voice dominating the tumult.

  “‘It’s a cabinet matter!’ the representative with principles goes on. ‘I demand the floor.’

  “‘I demand it ahead of you,’ says a Progressist. ‘Before refuting it, permit me to follow the Minister of Finance’s arguments and lend him my support.’

  “The left and right look at one another in amazement. A representative is daring to defend what everyone is in agreement in condemning—something that even the Progressists, in spite of their thirst for reform, consider to be a crime!

  “However, the parliamentary rules give every representative the right to take the floor, in any circumstances, provided that he then explains himself to the nation at
the annual assembly. The floor is, therefore, given to the Progressist.

  “He goes up to the podium with a firm and assured tread. He is the leader of the extreme left. His speech might perhaps disrupt the majority.

  “‘Gentlemen,’ he says. ‘I have come to add to the Minister of Finance’s speech what modesty forbade him to say. By expelling the Minister you would lose, in his person, a man whose talent, skill and experience are precious guarantees of the prosperity of the land. No one, during the course of his career, has been better able than him to administer the numerous personnel of the Treasury. No one has been better able to resolve financial questions. The system he has just described has been greeted with spectacular success. The figures speak for themselves.

  “‘But two parties divide this august assembly. One, satisfied with the present condition of the country, wants to impose a brake on the activity of our intelligence; the others—to which I belong—affirms that humans were made to improve themselves and that their intelligence in the subtle agent by means of which that will happen over time. Which of the two is right? Each one believes that it is. It is not for me to offer my appraisal here; I would be charged with partisanship. I shall therefore limit myself to what I believe to be logical.

  “‘These two parties, acting in accordance with contrary motives, have united to condemn an action that a member of one of them has taken it upon himself to execute, and which practice has justified.

  “‘I understand the prejudice of the right; it is following a principle. But you, gentlemen’—he turns to the left—‘you, whose votes created this Ministry, who enclose the majority in your ranks—will you condemn a man whose only crime is to have anticipated your intentions, and an entire Ministry with him? The law has been broken, that’s true—but after all, what is the law? Words.’”

  At this point, Monsieur Landet paused.

  “What’s the matter?” asked Hobson. “Why have you stopped all of a sudden?”