Is it from Father Goriot? It’s about this student, Eugene de Rastignac, who comes to Paris to become rich and successful. At one point, Rastignac has a conversation with another one of the boarders in the house he lives in, the (disguised) criminal mastermind Vautrin (who’s trying to get Rastignac to participate in an underhanded scheme).
Vautrin tells him that if he wants to be successful, he has to get rid of any thoughts about morality or proper behavior. To be successful, you have to take advantage of people, and exploit loopholes. At one point, he says something like, “Behind every success there’s an undiscovered crime.” (and one of the themes of the book is “Is it possible to be both virtuous and successful?”)
So, if that’s where the quote comes from, it’s Vautrin believing it, not neccessarily Balzac.
Thanks, Capt. A! Yes, I think that the discussion in question is the one at the end of this chapter (in the original). Vautrin’s actual words that have been paraphrased as the quote in the OP are “Le secret des grandes fortunes sans cause apparente est un crime oublié, parce qu’il a été proprement fait” (“The secret of a great success for which you are at a loss to account is a crime that has never been found out, because it was properly executed”).
So HH is wrong in suggesting that Balzac (actually, his character Vautrin) was merely generalizing along the lines of “Property is theft”. However, we were all misled by the paraphrased quote into overlooking an important qualifier in the original: “grandes fortunes sans cause apparente”. In other words, Vautrin claims that a “forgotten crime” is the secret of every “great fortune without an apparent cause”.
So we’ve learned two things:
the unscrupulous and amoral Vautrin should not necessarily be considered as speaking for Balzac, and
the fortunes that he was denouncing (or praising, it’s hard to tell with Vautrin) as criminal in origin are only those for which there is no apparent legitimate source.
Anybody see anything to go on debating here, or shall we give this thread an “E” for Effort and move on?
Just a quick note… a common way to “launder money” sometime ago was to buy winning lottery tickets (giving the winners more money than it was worth) since the money won would be “clean”. Or just betting absurd amount of times and winning way less in clean money.
A Brazilian politician won 40+ times a very hard lottery... the chances naturally were absurdly impossible... he said "God helped me".
Back to the issue... funny that adaher should so promptly defend the rich when the CEO's scandalous behaviour and the ENRON/Andersen debacle are still fresh. The rich are notoriously hard to bring to justice... Greed is universal. Its how much justice gets finally applied that varies by country. Naturally capitalism is the best system we know... but its hardly inducive to squeaky clean competition.
Here’s my take on the subject:
After doing a bit of research, I’ve discovered the true source of the quote “Behind every great fortune there is a great crime”. It was not made by Balzac. It actually comes from a book titled ‘The Oil Barons: Men of Greed & Grandeur’ written by Richard O’Connor in 1971. On page 47, O’Connor writes “Balzac maintained that behind every great fortune there is a great crime.” That is where the quote actually comes from. O’Connor paraphrased Balzac’s quote from ‘Le Pere Goroit’ & directed it against the oil barons of the late 19th & early 20th centuries, about whom the book was written.
Balzac lived in a France where “old money” still preened its superiority. I should think he was simply reminding all that the older a fortune is, the more likely it was acquired by . . . means a warrior could get away with in the Middle Ages, but not later.
When you take into account the means of production, there are ‘crimes’ that help propel wealth, but it does not mean the owner of said wealth committed a crime.
While I support BrainGlutton’s interpretation of the quote, I’ve heard it used more liberally as a general comment on that, if someone’s rich, someone else may be doing with less. Hard to spot in JK Rowling, but in the case of lotteries I guess the argument could be made that gambling relies on addicts. So the ‘crime’ might be that gambling is legal, despite its averse effects.
If you buy something from somebody and resell it to someone else for 10 times the price, is that a crime? Is it morally wrong? I would guess most people would say no.
Suppose you’re an antique dealer and someone clueless walks in with a very rare and valuable object, and you do the same thing. In a lot of places it would be both a crime and at a violation of professional ethics to do so.
Personally I would think that having an advantage over others is the whole point of getting specialized training and knowledge in some field. But there’s some fuzzy line that separates being a sharp businessperson from being a… skammer? weasel?