sleep。 And I； this cripple of a man； have imagined that I could help
others； and those the very people who support me！
It is not remarkable that I could not help any one； and that I felt
ashamed； but the remarkable point is that such an absurd idea could
have occurred to me。 The woman who served the sick old man； helped
him； the mistress of the house； who cut a slice from the bread which
she had won from the soil； helped the beggar； Semyon； who gave three
kopeks which he had earned； helped the beggar； because those three
kopeks actually represented his labor： but I served no one； I toiled
for no one； and I was well aware that my money did not represent my
labor。
CHAPTER XVII。 ｛20｝
Into the delusion that I could help others I was led by the fact that
I fancied that my money was of the same sort as Semyon's。 But this
was not the case。
A general idea prevails； that money represents wealth； but wealth is
the product of labor； and； therefore； money represents labor。 But
this idea is as just as that every governmental regulation is the
result of a compact （contrat social）。
Every one likes to think that money is only a medium of exchange for
labor。 I have made shoes； you have raised grain； he has reared
sheep： here； in order that we may the more readily effect an
exchange； we will institute money； which represents a corresponding
quantity of labor； and； by means of it； we will barter our shoes for
a breast of lamb and ten pounds of flour。 We will exchange our
products through the medium of money； and the money of each one of us
represents our labor。
This is perfectly true； but true only so long as； in the community
where this exchange is effected； the violence of one man over the
rest has not made its appearance； not only violence over the labors
of others； as happens in wars and slavery； but where he exercises no
violence for the protection of the products of their labor from
others。 This will be true only in a community whose members fully
carry out the Christian law； in a community where men give to him who
asks； and where he who takes is not asked to make restitution。 But
just so soon as any violence whatever is used in the community； the
significance of money for its possessor loses its significance as a
representative of labor； and acquires the significance of a right
founded； not on labor； but on violence。
As soon as there is war； and one man has taken any thing from any
other man； money can no longer be always the representative of labor；
money received by a warrior for the spoils of war； which he sells；
even if he is the commander of the warriors； is in no way a product
of labor； and possesses an entirely different meaning from money
received for work on shoes。 As soon as there are slave…owners and
slaves； as there always have been throughout the whole world； it is
utterly impossible to say that money represents labor。
Women have woven linen； sold it； and received money； serfs have woven
for their master； and the master has sold them and received the
money。 The money is identical in both cases； but in the one case it
is the product of labor； in the other the product of violence。 In
exactly the same way； a stranger or my own father has given me money；
and my father； when he gave me that money； knew； and I know； and
everybody knows； that no one can take this money away from me； but if
it should occur to any one to take it away from me； or even not to
hand it over at the date when it was promised； the law would
intervene on my behalf； and would compel the delivery to me of the
money； and； again； it is evident that this money can in no wise be
called the equivalent of labor； on a level with the money received by
Semyon for chopping wood。 So that in any community where there is
any thing that in any manner whatever controls the labor of others；
or where violence hedges in； by means of money； its possessions from
others； there money is no longer invariably the representative of
labor。 In such a community； it is sometimes the representative of
labor； and sometimes of violence。
Thus it would be where only one act of violence from one man against
others； in the midst of perfectly free relations； should have made
its appearance； but now； when centuries of the most varied deeds of
violence have passed for accumulations of money； when these deeds of
violence are incessant； and merely alter their forms； when； as every
one admits； money accumulated itself represents violence； when money；
as a representative of direct labor； forms but a very small portion
of the money which is derived from every sort of violence；to say
nowadays that money represents the labor of the person who possesses
it； is a self…evident error or a deliberate lie。
It may be said； that thus it should be； it may be said； that this is
desirable； but by no means can it be said； that thus it is。
Money represents labor。 Yes。 Money does represent labor； but whose？
In our society only in the very rarest； rarest of instances； does
money represent the labor of its possessor； but it nearly always
represents the labor of other people； the past or future labor of
men； it is a representative of the obligation of others to labor；
which has been established by force。
Money； in its most accurate and at the same the simple application；
is the conventional stamp which confers a right； or； more correctly；
a possibility； of taking advantage of the labors of other people。 In
its ideal significance； money should confer this right； or this
possibility； only when it serves as the equivalent of labor； and such
money might be in a community in which no violence existed。 But just
as soon as violence； that is to say； the possibility of profiting by
the labors of others without toil of one's own； exists in a
community； then that profiting by the labors of other men is also
expressed by money； without any distinction of the persons on whom
that violence is exercised。
The landed proprietor has imposed upon his serfs natural debts； a
certain quantity of linen； grain； and cattle； or a corresponding
amount of money。 One household has procured the cattle； but has paid
money in lieu of linen。 The proprietor takes the money to a certain
amount only； because he knows that for that money they will make him
the same quantity of linen； （generally he takes a little more； in
order to be sure that they will make it for the same amount）； and
this money； evidently； represents for the proprietor the obligation
of other people to toil。
The peasant gives the money as an obligation； to he knows not whom；
but to people； and there are many of them； who undertake for this
money to make so much linen。 But the people who undertake to make
the linen； do so because they have not succeeded in raising sheep；
and in place of the sheep； they must pay money； but the peasant who
takes money for his sheep takes it because he must pay for grain
which did not bear well this year。 The same thing goes on throughout
this realm； and throughout the whole world。
A man sells the product of his labor； past； present or to come；
sometimes his food； and generally not because money constitutes for
him a convenient means of exchange。 He could have effected the
barter without money； but he does so because money is exacted from
him by violence as a lien on his labor。
When the sovereign of Egypt exacted labor from his slaves； the slaves
gave all their labor； but only their past and present labor； their
future labor they could not give。 But with the dissemination of
money tokens； and the credit which had its rise in them； it became
possible to sell one's future toil for money。 Money； with co…
existent violence in the community； only represents the possibility
of a new form of impersonal slavery； which has taken the place of
personal slavery。 The slave…owner has a right to the labor of Piotr；
Ivan； and Sidor。 But the owner of money； in a place where money is
demanded from all； has a right to the toil of all those nameless
people who are in need of money。 Money has set aside all the
oppressive features of slavery； under which an owner knows his right
to Ivan； and with them it has set aside all humane relations between
the owner and the slave； which mitigated the burden of personal
thraldom。
I will not allude to the fact； that such a condition of things is；
possibly； necessary for the development of mankind； for progress； and
so forth；that I do not contest。 I have merely tried to elucidate
to myself the idea of money； and that universal error into which I
fell when I accepted money as the representative of labor。 I became
convinced； after experience； that money is not the representative of
labor； but； in the majority of cases； the representative of violence；
or of especially complicated sharp practices founded on violence。
Money； in our day； has completely lost that significance which it is
very desirable that it should possess； as the representative of one's
own labor； such a significance it has only as an exception； but； as a
general rule； it has been converted into a right or a possibility of
profiting by the toil of others。
The dissemination of money； of credit； and of all sorts of money
tokens； confirms this significance of money ever more and more。
Money is a new form of slavery； which differs from the old form of
slavery only in its impersonality； its annihilation of all humane
relations with the slave。
Moneymoney； is a value which is always equal to itself； and is
always considered legal and righteous； and whose use is regarded as
not immoral； just as the right of slavery was regarded。
In my young days； the game of loto was introduced into the clubs。
Everybody rushed to play it； and； as it was said； many ruined
themselves； rendered their families miserable； lost other people's
money； and government funds； and committed suicide； and the game was
prohibited； and it remains prohibited to this day。
I remember to have seen old and unsentimental gamblers； who told me
that this game was particularly pleasing because you did not see from
whom you were winning； as is the case in other games； a lackey
brought； not money； but chips； e