Socialism and International Economic Order

CHAPTER II THE PRE-MARXIAN SOCIALISTS

THE SOCIOLOGICAL ROOTS OF AN EMERGING ANTI-CAPITALISTIC THEORY

THE PROFOUND SOCIAL and economic changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution decisively influenced socialist thought. The body of socialist doctrine advanced during the early nineteenth century had a twofold aspect: (1) continued utopistic speculation and (2) a sharp theoretical criticism of existing conditions. Both elements supplied the raw material out of which Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were to forge their comprehensive theoretical system of “scientific socialism.” What most occupied the minds of social thinkers at that time was the striking contrast emerging between the huge increase of wealth which was made possible by the mutually enforcing development of the division of labor and machinery, and the concurrent misery of a large and growing portion of the population.1

Some authors, of whom Fourier is the most representative, reacted to these developments by simply turning their backs on the blessings of the industrial age, inescapably accompanied, as it seemed to be, by misery and ugliness. They instead advocated their own version of a return to nature: the establishment of small, self sufficient associations in the countryside where inhabitants would live mainly from gardening.

Other authors, such as Sismondi, came out with criticism against the generally accepted economic theories of the classical-orthodox school. Sismondi reproached Ricardo and Say because their method of theoretical abstractions converted economics, in his view, into a “chrematistic” science and thereby lost man from its sight. Sismondi’s historical and sociological approach to economic problems led him to emphasize the social suffering caused by the disequilibria of the market and the ensuing process of readjustment. His criticism of the economic and social conditions of his time served as a starting point for many subsequent socialists.

In the first half of the nineteenth century, socialist criticism became more and more directed against and crystallized around certain principal institutions with which capitalism was identified. Private wealth was interpreted as being “derived from the unsurrendered earnings of the working class”2 and “the possession of that which gives power over and commands the labor of man.”3 Competition was denounced as the triumph of the principle of struggle over harmony and solidarity. Crises came to be explained by the theory of overproduction and the displacement of labor by machines. Finally, many authors refused to make any distinction between trade and treachery and exploitation since trade was not based on what they felt was the only just principle: the exchange of equal amounts of labor. Charles Hall, for example, saw the essence of international trade to be in the export of vital goods in exchange for luxuries; these luxuries were intended to be consumed by the rich whereby the latter “commit greater waste than it would otherwise be in their power to do.”4

What conclusions were drawn by the early socialist theorists with respect to international economic cooperation in a future order of production? One author writes: the remedy for the described deficiencies

is to find an unfailing market for all sorts of useful produce. The system of cooperative industry accomplishes this, not by the vain search after foreign markets throughout the globe which are no sooner found than overstocked or glutted by the restless competition of the starving producers, but by the voluntary union of the industrial classes in such numbers as to afford a market to each other by working together for each other, for the direct and mutual supply by themselves of all the most indispensable wants in the way of food, clothing, dwelling and furniture.5

But what will happen to the State? And who is going to determine which “industrial class” is to produce which commodities and in what quantities? Let us see what three of the major socialists in the first half of the nineteenth century (or “forerunners of socialism” as some choose to call them) have to say on these subjects.

ROBERT OWEN

Early socialists, especially those in Britain, were influenced by Robert Owen’s tireless and many-sided endeavors. We are concerned, however, only with his theoretical writings, primarily his conception of a completely renewed, happy, and harmonious society.

For Owen, the fundamental causes of all evils are the institutions of private property and free competition, interpreted by him as the unhampered struggle for individual profit. What is lacking in society is “an accurate acquaintance with the science of human nature, or the individual and social character of man.”6 It is hence Owen’s purpose to familiarize his readers with what he calls the Science of Society. “It consists of four parts only . . . the production of wealth, the distribution of wealth, the formation of character and domestic and foreign arrangements of government.”7

The most important aspect is the knowledge of human character. Man can control, as Owen sees it, neither his “constitution at birth” nor “the effects of external circumstances,” both of which determine his character. But once his external environment is satisfactorily changed, all problems hitherto governing human relations will disappear:

New circumstances must be created around mankind which must be in accordance with human nature and with the Science of Society. By this change of circumstances the most perfect individual character will be formed and the most perfect social arrangements will be introduced and rendered permanent. To obtain these results, the population of the world must be divided into such numbers and classed in such a manner that each individual may obtain the greatest amount of permanent advantages that human nature can possess.8

Owen therefore proposes to organize humanity into “Villages of Unity and Mutual Cooperation,” with individual membership not to exceed two thousand.9 As regards the first aspect of the Science of Society,

new combination of production . . . would constitute a system for the human creation of production, forming its due proportion in the grand, general scientific system of society . . . , would provide all that would be desired to support life, in the best state of existence; and provisions for the animal wants of our nature would be made with the same order and regularity with which the seasons succeed each other.10

The “animal wants of our nature” are food, clothing, and shelter; their quantity and quality can be scientifically determined.11 Thus, “the waste of capital and labor by unnecessary establishments and by the production of useless or injurious articles”12 will strictly be avoided. Hence, the new system will possess

powers to create a superfluity of all things useful or rationally desirable for the whole population; powers more than abundant to satisfy the wishes of all.13

because these powers are “properly combined and rightly directed.14

Concerning the distribution of the goods produced between the associated members, Owen writes:

As the easy, regular, healthy, rational employment of the individuals forming these societies will create a very large surplus of their own products beyond what they will have any desire to consume, each may be freely permitted to receive from the general store of the community whatever they may require. This, in practice, will prove to be the greatest economy.15

But what will, finally, be the relations between the various associations? Unlike the ideal commonwealths, Owen’s Villages are not closed against each other:

There will be the best means of communication adopted between all the communities: the best roads, railways and water communications—upon which there will be the best that can be constructed of carriage and water conveyances for commodities and persons.16

At this stage, Owen once again summarizes the qualities of his proposed order17 as if, without its moral foundations, the system of the “beneficial interchange” could not fully be grasped. Then he continues:

These two points being ascertained,18 they will know what particular commodities will be the most beneficial to create in their own community, for their own consumption, and what to exchange with their own surplus production, for the same amount of labor in the surplus productions of other, similar communities. . . . As truth and perfect sincerity will be the sole practice of all the members of these communities, the amount of labor in, or the real prime cost of every commodity produced, will be accurately ascertained and be publicly known.19

In the more advanced state of these superior social communities, there will be no trafficking between the members of the same association. All interchange of commodities will be effected between community and community; and on the only just principal—that is the real amount of labor in one article against the real amount of labor in the article for which it is exchanged.20

However, Owen relegates economic activity as a whole to the second place: “education will be the chief object of interest in the community, because it will comprise the greater part of the operations of its members.”21 As a result of this “general superintendence of the individual from birth to maturity,”22

the re-created or new-formed man will be enabled easily to subdue the earth and make it an ever-varying paradise, the fit abode of highly intellectual moral beings, each of whom, for all practical purposes, will be the free possessor and delighted enjoyer of its whole extent, and that joy will be increased a thousandfold, because all his fellow-beings will equally enjoy it with him.23

C. H. DE SAINT-SIMON AND HIS FOLLOWERS

Whereas Owen puts forward the design of a “new milieu” as the prerequisite for the full development of what is best in human nature, C. H. Comte de Saint-Simon attempts to discover the directing principles of the new social order emerging from historical evolution. What are the basic facts of this new order?

“A review of the history of society has shown that the industrial class has continually gained in importance at the expense of the others who have been losing it.”24 France is “a nation which is essentially industrial, but whose government is essentially feudal.”25 The bourgeoisie, having accomplished the great revolution, now “lies heavy with the noble class on the industrial class.”26

Against this background, Saint-Simon circumscribes “the real objectives of my ambition”:

to organize a great industrial establishment, to found a scientific school of improvement, and to contribute, in one word, to the progress of enlightenment and to the betterment of the lot of humanity.27

Leaving feudalism behind, “human species . . . has been destined to transgress from a governmental or military regime to an administrative or industrial regime.”28

How will this future regime work without government?

The industrialists will constitute the first class of society; the most influential industrialists will, free of charge, assume the direction and administration of the public fortune; they will make the law and determine the mutual ranks of the other classes; they will attach to each class the importance which is in proportion to the services which each will render to industry. . . . When this result is achieved, tranquillity will be completely assured, public prosperity will advance with all possible speed, and society will enjoy whatever individual and collective happiness human nature may claim.29

Does this mean the abolition of private property? No, only the disappearance of les oisifs (the idle). But Saint-Simon stresses the necessity “that talent and possession not be divided.”30 Therefore, “property should be constituted so as to stimulate its owner to use it in a most productive way.”31

Scientific research has, in the past, been carried on separately in each specialized field; it was now necessary to arrive at a great synthesis and to establish the one generally valid law which would manifest itself in all sub-branches of science.32 Consequently,

in a society organized to the positive goal of working for its prosperity by means of the sciences, the fine arts, and the crafts, the most important political act is that of fixing the direction where society is to advance. This act is no longer attributed to men of social functions; it is exercised by the social body (corps social) itself; it is in this way that Society, taken collectively, may effectively exercise sovereignty, which then does not consist of an arbitrary opinion exalted into law by the masses, but of a principle derived from the very nature of things that man has done nothing but recognize as appropriate and necessary.33

Politics therefore cease to exist, or rather, they are merged into “the science of production.”34 But this science, Saint-Simon argues, must be complemented by a renewed spiritual power which alone can provide a firm basis for a future order of things. This great, unifying force is to be the Church, propagating a purified Christian message. The essence of this message is this:

Men must behave toward each other as brothers; and this principle, which belongs to primitive Christianity, will undergo a transfiguration. . . . This regenerated principle will be presented as follows: religion must direct society toward the great goal which is the fastest possible amelioration of the lot of the poorest class.35

This improvement must be physical as well as moral. The new clergy not only will attend to religious matters, but also will monopolize knowledge; science and religion are, in fact, considered identical. And if these two powers unite,

the power of Caesar which is impious in its origin as well as its pretensions, will be completely annihilated.36

As to the final picture of the world without states, Saint-Simon envisages it as follows:

The new Christianity is called to bring to a triumph the principles of general ethics in the struggle which exists between these principles and those schemes which aim at obtaining a particular advantage at the expense of the public weal. This regenerated religion is called to constitute all peoples in a state of permanent peace . . . it is called to unite the learned, the artists, and the industrialists, and to appoint them as the general managers of the human species as well as of the special interests of each people which make it up . . . it is finally called . . . to declare as impious all doctrines which recommend to men means for obtaining eternal life other than to work with full capacity toward the amelioration of the life of their fellow-beings.37

It can be seen that Saint-Simon’s ideas are founded on the two basic elements we have already encountered in Owen’s work: the existence of an objective science of economic administration, coupled with the moral principle of brotherly love. Saint-Simon’s followers set themselves the task of completing and spreading the master’s theories in the journal Le Producteur. But by developing his doctrine, they gave it a definite direction toward collectivism. In their Doctrine de Saint-Simon Exposition Première Année jointly written by P. Enfantin and S. A. Bazard, they erected “one of the most important monuments of modern socialism (Menger).”

They maintained that it was entirely false to focus (as most historians did) historical investigation on the individual instead of on le corps organisé;38

Humanity . . . is a collective being (être collectif) which develops itself; this being has grown from generation to generation just as an individual man grows in the succession of his ages. While growing, this being has obeyed a law which is its physiological law: and this law is progressive development.39

One aspect of this “law” is the fact that

national hatreds are progressively wearing away, and the peoples, ready to form a complete and definitive alliance, offer us the beautiful spectacle of humanity gravitating toward UNIVERSAL ASSOCIATION.40

But all other human institutions are equally affected by this evolution; hence, Saint-Simon’s disciples rode a frontal attack against private property and devised a rather detailed system of collective economic control:

Property is a social fact, and is subject, like all social facts, to the law of progress; it can thus be differently interpreted, defined, and put into practice in different ages.41

In our time, it is argued, we must view property first in its historical context: and here we see that general human evolution is marked by a “diminution of the exploitation of men by men.”42 However, exploitation still prevails and is due to private property and heredity.43 Therefore,

if, as we proclaim, humanity is heading toward a state in which all individuals are classed according to their capacity and rewarded according to their accomplishments, it is evident that property such as it exists today must be abolished.44

But there is another reason for this abolition. Economically speaking, property is identical with the instruments of labor. At present, “the owners and capitalists are the trustees of these instruments; it is their function to distribute them to the workers.”45 But this function is assigned to them by “the chance of birth” and is therefore discharged with little enlightenment. Moreover, they are lacking “a profound knowledge of the relationships existing between production and consumption”46 so that disequilibria and greater or lesser disturbances of the economy are the inevitable consequences:

This is because the instruments of labor are distributed by isolated individuals who ignore both industrial and human needs and the means of satisfying them.47

Hence, the first step toward the new order “consists of transferring the right of inheritance to the state which has become an association of the workers.”48 In this association,

it is no longer the owners . . . who determine the choices made in the enterprises and the destiny of the workers. A social institution will be invested with these functions which today are so poorly discharged. It will supervise the use of instruments of production and will preside over the material production process; thereby it will be in a position to overlook the entire process and will perceive all parts simultaneously of the industrial machinery. . . . It is thus able to assess general and individual needs and to entrust the most meritorious industrialists with the instruments of labor. . . . In one word, industry is organized, everything is linked together and calculated in advance: the division of labor is perfected, the combination of efforts becomes stronger each day.49

As the most suitable instrument of this organization, the Saint-Simonians advocate a hierarchically constructed general system of banks, with a central bank at the top guiding and coordinating the entire economy through a network of local and specialized agencies:

All needs would converge toward the higher banks; all efforts would diverge from them: the general bank would allocate credits, that is, instruments of labor, to the local units only after having balanced and combined the various operations. And these credits would then be distributed among the workers by special banks, representing the different branches of industry.50

This carefully constructed organization is accompanied by an equally careful selection of the new elite: “The only claim to wealth (droit à la richesse), that is, to the disposition of the instruments of labor, will be the capacity of putting them into operation.”51 But this principle must be supplemented by another, still higher principle in order to produce the desired results:

The essence of the question is who will have authority, who will class men according to their capacities, who will appraise and reward their performance; and we answer: whatever the extension of the association which one has in view: it is the one who loves most the social destiny.52

The close bond between the “science of production” and religion,53 already propagated by Saint-Simon, is thus emphatically reaffirmed by his followers. Without this bond, no international order is possible; when it has been established, human evolution will overcome the stages of “family, city, nation,” and will arrive at “Church,”54 the final goal of this evolution, which is synonymous with universal association in happiness and peace. “The division of power into secular and spiritual, the separation of the Church from the state”55 led to the development of “military associations” instead of “universal”56 ones. The Saint-Simonians therefore propose to reestablish “the unity of doctrine and activity”57 as the only means of creating “order on the entire globe.”58 This order is described as follows:

In the state of association . . . each particular group will see its prosperity and growth in that of all the other groups. . . .59 The elements of continued struggle within each association will become weaker as several associations are united into one. . . . This development can be expressed by the constant growth of the reign of love, harmony, and peace.60

Exploitation of man by man . . . this characterizes human relations in the past: exploitation of nature by man associated to man: this is the picture of the future.61

PIERRE-JOSEPH PROUDHON: FROM ANARCHY TO FEDERALISM

With Proudhon, we enter an era of social and political thought which was deeply marked by Hegelian influence. The author reviewed in this section has often been called a brilliant dialectic; yet “no one could accuse him of having an orderly mind. He was never a system-maker, and was usually more at home in criticism than in construction.”62 The last part of this remark, however, is not true of Proudhon’s later years; his own life, too, was marked by a dialectal evolution.63 We are particularly interested in his later writings.

The balancing of antagonistic forces—this is Proudhon’s catchword, and it is the task to be solved by social science. He clearly distinguishes himself from the “communists,” who wish to destroy property, and the “socialists,” who, in their exaltation of equality, neglect liberty. “What I am postulating for property is its justification and balance.”64 Proudhon also boasted that he was the first to have recognized that

instead of restricting the economic forces the exaggeration of which is fatal, they should be balanced one against the other. . . . What society is searching for is the equilibrium of its natural forces.65

Proudhon proposes to establish this equilibrium by the introduction of what he calls the système mutuelliste promising and assuring “service for service, value for value, credit for credit, guarantee for guarantee.”66 With the elimination of the monopoly of private property and the droit d’aubaine attached to it,67 this state could be achieved. Then, Proudhon thought, all values would clearly be definable in terms of labor and justly exchangeable against one another. Contracts would take the place of governments whose function as oppressor would no longer be needed:

Once capital and labor are united, society will exist by itself and no longer need government.68

Proudhon’s mutualism thus points straight toward anarchy.

During the last years of his life, Proudhon turned his attention to the basic problems of international order. He wrote:

Even though, in 1840, I set out with anarchy as the conclusion to my critique of the idea of government, I finished with federation as the necessary basis for European international law and, later, for the organization of all states.69

In 1861, Proudhon published La paix et la guerre. In this treatise he explains that war is one manifestation of “that antagonism which we accept as the law of humanity and nature.”70 Wars are waged between two powers

with a view to a new state of things which, in providential order, must be substituted to the old one, whether the war’s aim be the formation of a new state replacing others or simply the determination of their extensions and mutual relations.71

In contrast to these aims, however, “the first, universal and unchanging cause of war . . . is the lack of means of subsistence . . . the upsetting of economic equilibrium . . . pauperism.”72 Proudhon proceeds to show that there is a striking contradiction between the cause and the goals of war, the cause belonging to the economic, the goals to the political sphere:

It is evident . . . that, instead of having one problem to solve, we have two: a political problem concerning the formation, delimitation and dissolution of states . . . and an economic problem relating to the organization of productive faculties and to the distribution of services and goods.73

A distinction must therefore be made between “the right to force” on the one hand and “economic rights” on the other; between “the public sphere, the one and only goal of conquest, and the private estates (propriétés particulières) situated beyond its reach.”74 In the nineteenth century, the economic question has become preeminent; “woe to the nation which, forgetting itself, asks from the weapons what only science, labor, and liberty can give.”75

The economic sphere is essentially characterized by a mutuality of interests despite the fact that human antagonism still asserts itself:

But there is this enormous difference that in industrial struggles, the really defeated are only those who have fought cowardly or not at all. . . . In the realm of labor, production follows destruction; the consumed forces are revived after their destruction.76

As this new antagonism gains ground, the old one recedes; “the increase in influence which one is forced to admit for labor, is at the expense of raison d’Etat,”77 that is, war. Proudhon’s theory did not pass without criticism, but his opponents were unable to shake the author’s basic conviction that economy and peace belonged to one fundamental category of international relations, politics and war to the other:

They have admitted that it did not appertain to war to solve questions relating to credit, wages, association, exchange; yet there always remained a political question—one could almost say an international petitory—to be settled, on which rested the entire economic structure. To this I reply, using the same style, that the petitory is constantly being modified and transformed by the possessory; that, as property . . . tends . . . to fall entirely under commercial jurisdiction, the state . . . tends to assume a purely administrative character and be reduced to budget regulations; that, as these things happen, international relations tend to dissolve into purely economic relations which dispels the hypothesis of a jurisdiction by force.78

Although maximum freedom from government intervention is the ideal of the economic sphere, some kind of authority must exist. Proudhon’s next task is to find a balance between these two antagonistic forces. He distinguishes between two kinds of authority: monarchy and “panarchy,” or “communism,”79 which is characterized by centralized administration and undivided power, and democracy or self-government which is founded on liberty and law.80

With arbitrariness fatally entering politics, corruption soon becomes the soul of power and society is dragged, without pause or mercy, on to the endless path of revolutions. That is where the world is today.81

The escape from this dilemma is federation, freely entered into by communities or states:

A federative contract aiming, in general terms, at guaranteeing to the federated states their sovereignty, their territory, the freedom of their citizens; at settling their disputes; at providing for general measures pertaining to the security and common prosperity . . . this contract then, in spite of the magnitude of the interests involved, is essentially restricted. The authority charged with its execution is never allowed to prevail over its constituting members; I mean that the federal attributes can never exceed in number or reality, those of the communal and provincial authorities, just as the latter cannot exceed the rights and prerogatives of man and the citizen. If it were otherwise, . . . the federation would again become a centralization of the monarchic type.82

The internal structure of the federate system is thus seen to be the exact opposite of the internal structure of hierarchy and administrative centralization. But the political order must be complemented by a free economic order, designed so that it does not give “ceaseless causes for dissolution.”83

Proudhon maintains that all states based on undivided power are, by their nature, annexationist:

In such systems . . . one can say that the idea of natural frontiers is a fiction or rather a political fraud; rivers, mountains, and seas are regarded in them not as territorial limits, but as obstacles over which the freedom of the sovereign and of the nation provides a challange for triumph. And this is the natural outcome of its underlying principle: the faculty of possessing, accumulating, commanding, and exploiting is infinitely great, limited only by the universe itself. . . . Nothing can stop its encroaching advance [of the State, E.T.] except the collision with another State, just as aggressive, and capable of defending itself.84

The international implications of a truly federal system are quite different. Such a system, again by its nature, excludes aggression:

By virtue of the principle which, by limiting the treaty of federation to mutual defense and to a few other objects of common utility, guarantees to each State its territory, its sovereignty, its constitution, the freedom of its citizens and, over and above, leaves it with more authority, initiative, and power than it gives up, federation is automatically restricted . . . with the result that a federation provides a guarantee both to its own members and to its non-federated neighbors.85

And Proudhon concludes:

A federate people is a people organized for peace; what use could it make of armies? . . . No need for alliance or commercial treaties: between free nations, common law is enough. Freedom of exchange . . . freedom of circulation and residence within the limits of the respect due to the laws of each country. . . . Such is the idea of federation and such are its consequences.86

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The ideas and doctrines advanced by the pre-Marxian socialists form the counterpart of classical economic theory. But they do not attempt to provide answers to those basic questions that concerned Adam Smith and David Ricardo. Whereas these authors had asked: what principles guide men in their economic activities? Socialist authors are tormented by the fact of inequality. Their investigations are directed to discovering the causes of human injustice and to abolishing the “system” which has created them.

Socialist authors, therefore, focused most of their attention on the moral foundations of human behavior. Economic phenomena were analyzed only with respect to their own ethical standards. They began with the assumption that a perfect order of society exists the principles of which merely await human detection. These principles could not be anything but simple, consistent, absolutely reliable, and generally valid. Hence, all phenomena which were not of this nature were considered as being the outcome of a deficient economic and social system. Similarly, human behavior was regarded as fundamentally virtuous and altruistic; if it did not appear as such in reality, this again was thought to be due to the defects of the existing order of things.

Power can be defined as the ability of its holder to claim a greater share of the available goods and services than is justified by his contribution to the production of these goods. Liberals usually agree with this definition and therefore insist on the restriction of political power; they include in the term “contribution to production” the productive services of labor, land, and capital, and leave the valuation of these services to the market. Socialists, on the other hand, consider this contribution to consist of labor only. Hence their demand that trade, to be just, should be governed by the principle of an equal exchange of labor; hence also their view that the most dangerous form of power is economic power, that derived from private ownership of the means of production. Socialists cherished the labor theory of value as a “law” which explained the true character of economic relationships and also provided a sure criterion for man’s deviation from the “natural” and the “just.” At the same time, this law was presented as one of those unshakable guidelines on which a future socialist order would be built.

Robert Owen was primarily concerned with the perfection of human character. His emphasis on education to “truth and perfect sincerity,” a persistent element in later socialist doctrine, illustrates the process by which imperfect human beings are to be transformed into the perfect members of a perfect community. Under the impact of this education the problem of economic exchange would disappear along with all other human problems, just as they had already been eliminated in Utopia. A true international community built on justice and mutual solidarity would emerge. Owen himself could have written More’s key phrase that people would no longer “think felicity to rest in all pleasure, but only in that pleasure that is good and honest.”

Conversely, the “technocrats” among the socialist writers advocated a world scientifically organized for maximizing production. The Saint-Simonians’ writings provide a logical synthesis of pre-Marxian socialist ideas. A confined circle of men is to unite “renewed spiritual power” and the knowledge of the “science of production.” But Saint-Simon makes it clear that religion has precedence over economic organization as it must “declare as impious all doctrines which recommend to men means for obtaining eternal life other than to work with full capacity toward the amelioration of the life of their fellow-beings.” Once “men . . . behave toward each other as brothers,” the centralized direction of the economy will be a relatively simple and easily understandable task. The corresponding droit à la richesse will be exercised by men of talent and good will. At the same time, it is argued, society will no longer be at the mercy of human whim because humanity’s great goals will be decided by the corps social itself.

In the passages quoted on pages 29 to 31, the basic method of socialist reasoning, already referred to, is radically restated: an abstract and, at that, not defined concept takes on life and is endowed with the ability to provide super-human leadership. This être collectif, to be sure, is not yet perfect, as Plato’s State was. But a new constituent of socialist thought is introduced which bridges the gap between the present and the future: the idea of a progressive development of the corps social. The fundaments of socialist philosophy thus appear in full outline already at this juncture: their cornerstone is constituted by an autonomously living collective being, the embodiment of a principle not created by the human mind, but discernible by it, which by successive historical stages grows toward the goal where this perfect principle will govern all human relations. The final stage is thought to be attained when the development of human character will have reached the maturity already possessed by the corps social; and this stage will permit humanity to advance from “exploitation of man by man” toward “exploitation of nature by man associated to man.”

But again the question arises: will this collective body readily relinquish its unrestricted power over the economic and political life within its jurisdiction to larger and larger social bodies? Are its representatives likely to do anything more than talk about the necessity of creating a super corps social to which all individuals and formerly autonomous communities alike would owe obedience and subordination—unless this new body would be placed under their own, exclusive, leadership?

Owen and the Saint-Simonians, relying on religion, the Science of Society, and the Law of Progress, did not hesitate to answer this question in the affirmative. But this answer is founded on the basic dilemma of socialist reasoning which results from the identification of the corps social with the men representing it. The philosophy of the perfect state demands unlimited authority and power; yet authority can only be wielded by imperfect individuals, free neither of selfishness nor of arbitrariness and power-lust. Furthermore, an absolute measure of value and objective scientific criteria permitting matters of lower importance to be subordinated to those of higher importance, a central element of socialist theory, do not exist. It is therefore impossible to judge what is the common interest save by an authoritative decision which, however, has validity only within a given community or state. What if la force qui attire et qui renvoie (Pecqueur) on the national level refuses to let itself be attracted to and repelled by a supranational authority?

It was this problem of unrestricted domination and its effects on personal freedom and international order which foremost occupied Proudhon in his later years. He found that in human affairs there could be no unity of activities and harmony of wills because their very essence was steeped with antagonism. Hence, the solution was to be seen not in the concentration of power, but in its restriction and division, coupled with a strict separation of dominium and imperium. Proudhon considered the individual’s freedom to look after his own interests—which, to be sure, he sharply distinguished from the freedom to exploit one’s fellow-beings—to be the safest foundation for international peace and integration. He thereby drew upon himself the contempt of the man whose work will now be examined.

NOTES TO CHAPTER II

87See, however, Hayek, F. A., Capitalism and the Historians. London, Routledge, 1954, p. 192.

88Bray, J. F., Labour’s Wrongs and Labour’s Remedy (1838-1839). Quoted in Beer, M., A History of British Socialism. London, Bell, 1920, Vol. I, p. 240.

89Hall, C, The Effects of Civilisation on the People in European States (1805). Quoted in Gray, A., op. cit., p. 264.

90Quoted ibid., p. 267.

91Thompson, W., An Enquiry into the Principles of the Distribution of Wealth Most Conducive to Human Happiness (1824). Quoted in Beer, M., op. cit., p. 228.

92Owen, R., The Book of the New Moral World Containing the Rational System of Society. London, Effinghaus Wilson, 1836, p. 91.

93Owen, R., Lectures on an Entire New State of Society. On the New Religion. London, 1820(?), p. 17.

94Ibid., p. 136.

95Arrangements are proposed “by which the production and distribution of wealth, the forming of the character and the governing of the whole, may be the most easily and the most beneficially conducted. With this view, the dwellings will be erected and arranged; a portion of land will be annexed, sufficient to enable the members of the associations to raise, at all times, a full supply of agricultural productions; manufactures will be established. . . .” Ibid., p. 139, italics added.

96Ibid., p. 41.

97“That many luxuries in meat and drinks which are ardently sought after by the wealthy, are destructive to their health of body and mind, all physicians as well as all intelligent persons . . . readily admit.” Ibid., pp. 161-62. These luxuries will therefore not be produced. Conversely, each member is to dwell in a separate flat of two rooms in which he may receive friends or stay alone as he wishes.

98Ibid., p. 69.

99Ibid., p. 18, italics added.

100Ibid.

101Report to the County of Lanark, reprinted in The Life of Robert Owen. London, Effinghaus Wilson, 1858, IA, p. 303.

102Lectures, p. 100.

103“In our new and superior state of society, the sole object will be to obtain and secure the greatest happiness for all its members—all being considered children of the same family and entitled to the same care, perfection and advantages. Arrangements will therefore be made in the first instance to produce and distribute, in the best manner, the most valuable wealth for the use of the individuals belonging to each family community. The parties will be taught what is the best wealth for them to possess and use and the best mode to produce and acquire it.” Lectures, p. 99, italics added.

104Cf. footnote 17 of this study.

105For an extensive discussion of Owen’s labor theory of value, cf. Report, pp. 278 seq.

106Ibid., pp. 99-100, italics added.

107Lectures, p. 139.

108Ibid., p. 113.

109New Moral World, p. 98.

110Catéchisme politique des industriels. In Oeuvres publiés en 1832 par O. Rodrigues. Paris, Capelle, 1841, p. 48. Saint-Simon defines the “industrialists” as all those who actually produce useful things no matter whether in agriculture or in industry.

111Ibid., p. 37.

112Ibid., p. 43.

113Vie de Saint-Simon écrite par lui-même. 1st fragment, ibid., p. XIX.

114Catéchisme, p. 97, italics original.

115Ibid., p. 47.

116Hubbard, M. G., Saint-Simon. Sa vie et ses travaux. Suivi de fragments des plus célèbres de Saint-Simon. Paris, Guillaumin, 1857, p. 74.

117Saint-Simon, C. H., Vues sur la propriété et la liberté (1818). In Oeuvres, p. 268. It is an interesting detail that Saint-Simon thought himself to be in complete agreement with the author of The Wealth of Nations.

118Saint-Simon thought that this was Newton’s law of universal gravitation.

119Organisateur, 1819, cf. Hubbard, M. G., op. cit., p. 233.

120De l’Industrie, 1816, quoted ibid., p. 157.

121Nouveau Christianisme, in Oeuvres, pp. 177-78, italics original.

122Ibid., pp. 146-47.

123Ibid., pp. 156-57.

124Doctrine de Saint-Simon Exposition Première Année 1828-1829. 2nd ed., Paris, Au Bureau de l’Organisateur, 1830, p. 113.

125Ibid., p. 107, italics original.

126Ibid., p. 109, capital letters original.

127Ibid., p. 191.

128Ibid., p. 172.

129Defined as “the privilege to levy a premium on the labor of others” (ibid., p. 182) and again: “The faculty of living on the labor of others in complete idleness.” (Ibid., p. 188.)

130Ibid., p. 188.

131Ibid., p. 190.

132Ibid., p. 191.

133Ibid., p. 192. In the original, the entire phrase is printed in italics. We quote here, for curiosity’s sake, the views held by the authors on orthodox economics—an interesting contrast to that held by the master: “Laissez faire, laissez passer! such has been the necessary solution, such has been the only general principle which they have proclaimed. The economists . . . have entrusted to personal interest the realization of the great percept without being aware that each individual, whatever the extension of his field of vision, is incapable, at the milieu where he lives and at the depth of the valleys, of judging the whole which can only be discovered at the highest peak.” What is the result of competition, “this mortal struggle? A few lucky ones triumph; but at the price of the complete ruin of innumerable victims. . . . Hence the countless catastrophies, these commercial crises frightening the spectators and stopping the execution of the best projects.” Ibid., pp. 90-91.

134Ibid., p. 187.

135Ibid., pp. 193-94, italics original.

136Ibid., p. 207.

137Ibid., p. 187, italics original.

138Ibid., p. 210 footnote, italics original.

139“The distribution of the instruments and products of industry is not the only objective of the governments of future societies; another distribution claims the paternal cares of the directors of humanity: to inspire all men, to develop, to cultivate in them feelings, knowledge, and habits apt to rendering them worthy of being members of a loving, ordered, and strong society; to prepare each of them, according to his vocation, to contribute to it his love, intelligence, and strength; education, in one word, which embraces the entire life of each being, his general destination and his particular profession . . . , is the most important aspect of the social system.” Ibid., pp. 41-42, italics original.

140Ibid., p. 147.

141Ibid., p. 166.

142Ibid., p. 172.

143Ibid., p. 160.

144Ibid.

145Ibid., pp. 145-46.

146Ibid., p. 151.

147Ibid., p. 162, italics original.

148Cole, G. D. H., A History of Socialist Thought. London, Macmillan, 195361, Vol. I, p. 201.

149Correspondance A. Micaud. December 25, 1855, quoted by H. M. Moysset in his Introduction to La Guerre et la Paix. Paris, Rivière, 1959, p. 3.

150    La propriété fait indispensable. Quoted in Maury, L., La Pensée vivante de P. J. Proudhon. Textes choisis et préfacés. Paris, Ed. Stock, 1942, p. 10.

151Quoted in Gide, C., and Rist, C., Histoire des doctrines économiques. 7th ed., Paris, Sirey, 1947, p. 329 footnote, italics original.

152Quoted in Gray, A., op. cit., p. 245.

153Proudhon meant by this the “community of the gifts of nature and the exchange of the products of labor only.” Quoted in Gide, C., and Rist, C., op. cit., p. 344.

154Quoted in Gide, C., and Rist, C., op. cit., p. 344.

155Correspondance, XII, pp. 220-21, quoted in Puech, J. L., and Ruyssen, T., “Le fédéralisme dans l’oeuvre de Proudhon.” Introduction to Du Principe Fédératif et ouevres diverses sur les problèmes politiques européens. Paris, Rivière, 1959, p. 53, italics original.

156La paix et la guerre, p. 482.

157Ibid., pp. 477-78.

158Ibid., p. 326.

159Ibid., p. 462.

160Ibid., p. 461.

161Ibid., p. 466.

162Ibid., p. 484.

163Ibid., p. 485.

164Ibid., p. 486, italics added.

165Du Principe Fédératif, p. 274. It is to be expected that an absolutist government “will be the more insufficient, oppressive, odious to its subjects and consequently instable in that the State will have become larger. History has conserved the memory of, and modern centuries have supplied examples of, these frightful monarchies, shapeless monsters, real poltitical mastodons which a better civilization should progressively eliminate.” Ibid., p. 289.

166Ibid., pp. 275 and 279.

167Ibid., p. 307.

168Ibid., pp. 319-20. Proudhon defines the socialist communities as the “miniature image of all absolutist states. One who joins an association of this kind, particularly if it is to be perpetual, is surrounded by more fetters and is subject to more charges than he had initially.” Ibid., p. 319.

169Ibid., p. 354. Proudhon adds, however, that a free economic order must not rest on exploitation.

170Ibid., p. 334, italics original.

171Ibid., p. 335, italics added.

172Ibid., p. 550.

87This is not denied by socialist authors. But this authority will, as the Saint-Simonians see it, be facile et douce for all those who have let themselves be convinced of the righteousness of the final goal to be achieved. And Constantin Pecqueur writes: “Freedom can only exist in association; in the unity of activities, the harmony of wills, and the conformity of fundamental beliefs. . . . But where all this is, there is necessarily also authority, the center, a force which directs, which attracts and repels; and we repeat: this authority is always tuned to general customs and universal morality; it is despotic, hard, and intolerant or the reverse, just as society deserves and desires it.” Théorie nouvelle d’économie sociale et politique ou Etudes sur l’organisation des sociétés. Paris, Capelle, 1842, pp. 456-57. Italics added.

• 1.“Socialism, then, will flourish in proportion as the consciousness grows that there is something vitally wrong in the industrial organization of society.” Guthrie, W. B., Socialism Before the French Revolution. New York, Macmillan, 1907, p. 68. As Robert Owen expresses it: “Until society can be made to understand the impracticability of improving its conditions under the existing circumstances and can be induced to change these circumstances in toto, no real advantages can be obtained for mankind.” Lectures on an Entire New State of Society. London, 1820, p. 138.
• 2.Cf. Karl Marx’s 11th Thesis on Feuerbach. In Borkenau, F. (ed.), Karl Marx. Frankfurt/M., Fischer, 1956, p. 42.
• 3.The term “liberal” is used here in its original European sense. “Liberalism is a belief in the value of human personality, and a conviction that the source of all progress lies in free exercise of individual energy; . . . it therefore involves a readiness to use the power of the state for the purposes of creating the conditions within which individual energy can thrive, of preventing all abuses of power, of affording to every citizen the means of acquiring mastery of his own capacities and of estabhshing a real equality of opportunity. . . .” Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. XIII, 1959, p. 999d.
• 4“It follows from what has been said that the system here established, if it is to be realized, should be adopted or rejected in entirety.” Fichte, J. G., op. cit., p. 103.
• 5Freyer, H., op. cit., p. 26.
• 6Heuss, A., “Hellas. Die archaische Zeit.” Propyläen Weltgeschichte, ed., G. Mann and A. Heuss, Berlin, Propyläen Verlag, 1962, III, p. 373.
• 7Ibid.
• 8“They will go to mess and live together like soldiers in a camp. . . . They alone of all the citizens may not touch or handle silver or gold, or be under the same roof with them or wear them, or drink from them. And this will be their salvation, and they will be the saviors of the State.” Quoted from Republic, Book I, in Gray, A., The Socialist Tradition. Moses to Lenin. London, Longmans, 1946, p. 19.
• 9Plato, Laws. With an English translation by R. G. Bury, London, Heinemann, 1926, Vol. I, Book I, p. 9.
• 10Ibid., Vol. II, Book XII, p. 477.
• 11Ibid., Book VII, p. 135.
• 12Ibid., p. 149.
• 13Ibid., Book XII, p. 547.
• 14Ibid., p. 537.
• 15Ibid., p. 521.
• 16Ibid., Book VII, p. 185.
• 17Ibid., Book XI, p. 413.
• 18Ibid., Book VIII, p. 171.
• 19Ibid., Vol. I, Book IV, pp. 257-59, italics added.
• 20Ibid., Vol. II, Book VIII, p. 185.
• 21Ibid.
• 22Ibid., p. 187.
• 23Ibid., Book XII, p. 503.
• 24Ibid. Plato lays down the following rules: “First, no man under forty years old shall be permitted to go abroad to any place whatsoever; next, no man shall be permitted to go abroad in private capacity, but in a public capacity permission shall be granted to heralds, embassies, and certain commissions of inspection. . . . These men, when they return home, will teach the youth that the political institutions of other countries are inferior to their own.” Ibid., p. 505.
• 25Ibid., p. 507.
• 26Ibid.
• 27Ibid., p. 509.
• 28Ibid., p. 511.
• 29Ibid. “The officials . . . shall have a care lest any such strangers introduce any innovation, and they shall duly dispense justice to them, and shall hold such intercourse as is necessary with them, but to the least extent possible.” Ibid., p. 513.
• 30Guthrie, W. B., op. cit., p. 64.
• 31Ibid.
• 32Ibid., p. 68.
• 33More, Sir Thomas, The Utopia. In Latin from the edition of March 1518 and in English from the first edition of Ralph Robynson, translated in 1551, edited by J. H. Lupton. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1895, p. 118.
• 34Ibid., p. 119.
• 35Ibid., p. 140.
• 36Ibid., p. 157.
• 37Ibid., pp. 170-71.
• 38Ibid., pp. 171-72.
• 39Ibid., p. 245.
• 40Ibid., p. 244.
• 41Ibid., p. 154.
• 42Ibid., pp. 154-55, italics added.
• 43Ibid., p. 179.
• 44Ibid., p. 251.
• 45Guthrie, W. B., op. cit., p. 54.
• 46Fichte, J. G., op. cit., pp. 4-5.
• 47“I have described property as the exclusive right to actions, by no means to things.” Ibid., pp. 5-6, italics original.
• 48Ibid., p. 4.
• 49Ibid., p. 56, italics original.
• 50Ibid., p. 14.
• 51Ibid., p. 19.
• 52Ibid., p. 26, italics added.
• 53Ibid.
• 54Ibid., p. 27, italics original.
• 55Ibid.
• 56Ibid.
• 57Ibid., p. 41, italics original.
• 58“The wealth of a person does not depend on how many pieces of money he possesses, but on how large a part of total circulating money he holds.” Ibid., p. 42.
• 59“Every possibility of world trade presupposes the availability of a universally accepted means of exchange. . . . Hence, our task should be solved in the following way: all world money possessed by the citizens, that is all gold and silver, should be brought out of circulation and exchanged for a new national currency which would be valid only inside the country.” Ibid., pp. 99-100, italics original.
• 60Ibid., p. 111.
• 61Ibid.
• 62“The import and use of commodities which serve prestige purposes only can at once be prohibited.” Ibid., p. 115.
• 63Ibid., p. 113, italics original.
• 64Fichte clearly realized this and also the danger of inflation it implies. Therefore, in order to assure the success of the monetary reform, “the government formally renounces, for eternal times, to increase arbitrarily and to its own advantage the quantity of circulating national money.” Ibid., p. 103. The author goes so far as demanding that the centrally fixed prices must be constitutionally laid down and guaranteed.
• 65Ibid., p. 114.
• 66Ibid., p. 90, italics original.
• 67Ibid., p. 119.
• 68Ibid., pp. 94-95, italics added.
• 69Ibid., pp. 95-96.
• 70Ibid.
• 71Ibid., p. 98.
• 72Ibid., p. 94.
• 73Ibid., p. 93.
• 74Ibid., p. 118 (note). This, however, is in contradiction to Fichte’s apprehensions against inflation. Cf. footnote 64 of this chapter.
• 75“Foreign machines should be bought and imitated at home. Promise of money defeats any prohibition.” Ibid., p. 117. Moreover, the government “should attract, from abroad, at whatever cost, great personalities who are competent in the applied sciences. . . . By paying rewards which no other governments can afford, people will hurry to offer their services.” Ibid., p. 116.
• 76Ibid., p. 119.
• 77Ibid., pp. 122-23.
• 78Ibid., p. 16.
• 79Du Principe Fédératif, p. 274. It is to be expected that an absolutist government “will be the more insufficient, oppressive, odious to its subjects and consequently instable in that the State will have become larger. History has conserved the memory of, and modern centuries have supplied examples of, these frightful monarchies, shapeless monsters, real poltitical mastodons which a better civilization should progressively eliminate.” Ibid., p. 289.
• 80Ibid., pp. 275 and 279.
• 81Ibid., p. 307.
• 82Ibid., pp. 319-20. Proudhon defines the socialist communities as the “miniature image of all absolutist states. One who joins an association of this kind, particularly if it is to be perpetual, is surrounded by more fetters and is subject to more charges than he had initially.” Ibid., p. 319.
• 83Ibid., p. 354. Proudhon adds, however, that a free economic order must not rest on exploitation.
• 84Ibid., p. 334, italics original.
• 85Ibid., p. 335, italics added.
• 86Ibid., p. 550.
• 87SOCIALISTS HAVE CONCLUDED that something is fundamentally wrong with the “society” in which they live. Consequently, they feel compelled to change it.
• 88SOCIALISTS HAVE CONCLUDED that something is fundamentally wrong with the “society” in which they live. Consequently, they feel compelled to change it.
• 89The main target of socialist criticism, therefore, is the liberals’ stress on individual freedom and utility. Such freedom and utility, it is argued, lead to particularism and chaos. Since the profit motive is founded on considerations of individual as distinct from collective welfare, it is, in the opinion of socialists, totally unsuitable as a means of regulating the economy. Unlike the liberals, therefore, the socialists are primarily preoccupied with the exaltation of the community, and the subordination of the individual to it.
• 90Freyer compares the inner organizational structure of an ideal commonwealth with the “cosmos of the Greek philosophers: finite, round and numerically ordered so that it can simply and clearly be governed by static laws.” To this self-inclusive system all forces not rooted in its laws, and which therefore threaten to interfere with its proper functioning, must appear hostile and dangerous. The only choice a Utopian author leaves his reader is an uncompromising take it or leave it. Hence, a utopia must be strictly isolated from the rest of the world; “all factors and forces which by their nature transgress borderlines and join countries, must at the outset be viewed suspiciously in utopias.”
• 91Freyer compares the inner organizational structure of an ideal commonwealth with the “cosmos of the Greek philosophers: finite, round and numerically ordered so that it can simply and clearly be governed by static laws.” To this self-inclusive system all forces not rooted in its laws, and which therefore threaten to interfere with its proper functioning, must appear hostile and dangerous. The only choice a Utopian author leaves his reader is an uncompromising take it or leave it. Hence, a utopia must be strictly isolated from the rest of the world; “all factors and forces which by their nature transgress borderlines and join countries, must at the outset be viewed suspiciously in utopias.”
• 92Mankind will always be indebted to Plato for the prototype of the ideal commonwealth. This author lived at a time when democracy, the long cherished political order of Athens, had degenerated into a “bustle of rancour and baseness.” In this period of political disintegration and liberated individualism, Socrates had been sentenced to death and executed by the Athenian authorities. The rising philosophical school of the Sophists relativized all moral institutions as being solely dependent on human will in general, and that of the strong in particular.
• 93Against this philosophical anarchism Plato set his theory of the objective existence of absolute principles, the highest of which was justice. Justice may be recognized by an intelligible act and thus refuses to tolerate any authority besides itself, not even that of laws. “What is just can only be discerned for each individual case with respect to the Idea and by the one who possesses the necessary capability; that is, by the philosopher. . . . The just in the highest sense, hence the one who discerns, is therefore himself the law and thus above the rigid letter.”
• 94Human domination is thus openly admitted, but it must be domination by the chosen few endowed by nature, as an old Greek legend has it, with golden hearts. Plato’s goal is to found a state which would personify the moral Idea. The first prerequisite for such a state is unity of purpose, directed at the attainment of absolute justice. The second step is to devise a way of life for the “lovers of wisdom” which would bring them into closest communication with the Idea and its dictates. To achieve this end, Plato established severe rules for the philosophers, forbidding them to have families and private possessions and forcing them into a life of military discipline. Here, for the first time, the ideal of asceticism was linked with the denunciation of gold and silver which was identified with wealth and was regarded as the last cause of human greed and egoism.
• 95Plato, well aware that his Politeia was not realizable on this earth, designed, in his “Nomoi,” a second-best State in which the rulers were less enlightened and therefore, as the title indicates, in need of a coherent framework of guiding laws. Plato retains the military structure in the interior, he even defines “the well-constituted State” as one which “ought to be organized in such a way as to be victorious in war over all other States.” Elsewhere he writes:
• 96The main principle is this: that nobody, male or female, should ever be left without control, nor should anyone, whether at work or in play, grow habituated in mind to acting alone and on his own initiative, but he should live always, both in war and peace, with his eyes fixed constantly on his commander and following his lead.
• 97For this purpose, it is necessary to liberate the citizens from their “lust for wealth which allows a man no leisure time for attention to anything else save his own private property.” And the author continues: “That the laws previously ordained serve to repress the majority of desires, is not surprising.” This is so because “all our laws must always aim at one single object which, as we agreed, is quite rightly named ‘Virtue.’” The State and its citizens are identical in that they both require “the salvation of laws;” therefore, “everyone shall regard the friend or enemy of the State as his own personal friend or enemy.”
• 98For this purpose, it is necessary to liberate the citizens from their “lust for wealth which allows a man no leisure time for attention to anything else save his own private property.” And the author continues: “That the laws previously ordained serve to repress the majority of desires, is not surprising.” This is so because “all our laws must always aim at one single object which, as we agreed, is quite rightly named ‘Virtue.’” The State and its citizens are identical in that they both require “the salvation of laws;” therefore, “everyone shall regard the friend or enemy of the State as his own personal friend or enemy.”
• 99For this purpose, it is necessary to liberate the citizens from their “lust for wealth which allows a man no leisure time for attention to anything else save his own private property.” And the author continues: “That the laws previously ordained serve to repress the majority of desires, is not surprising.” This is so because “all our laws must always aim at one single object which, as we agreed, is quite rightly named ‘Virtue.’” The State and its citizens are identical in that they both require “the salvation of laws;” therefore, “everyone shall regard the friend or enemy of the State as his own personal friend or enemy.”
• 100For this purpose, it is necessary to liberate the citizens from their “lust for wealth which allows a man no leisure time for attention to anything else save his own private property.” And the author continues: “That the laws previously ordained serve to repress the majority of desires, is not surprising.” This is so because “all our laws must always aim at one single object which, as we agreed, is quite rightly named ‘Virtue.’” The State and its citizens are identical in that they both require “the salvation of laws;” therefore, “everyone shall regard the friend or enemy of the State as his own personal friend or enemy.”
• 101For this purpose, it is necessary to liberate the citizens from their “lust for wealth which allows a man no leisure time for attention to anything else save his own private property.” And the author continues: “That the laws previously ordained serve to repress the majority of desires, is not surprising.” This is so because “all our laws must always aim at one single object which, as we agreed, is quite rightly named ‘Virtue.’” The State and its citizens are identical in that they both require “the salvation of laws;” therefore, “everyone shall regard the friend or enemy of the State as his own personal friend or enemy.”
• 102Internal economic life is strictly regimented. Thus, “each several craftsman in the State shall have one single craft and gain from it his living.” Or again:
• 103The Law-wardens must meet in consultation with experts in every branch of retail trade, and at their meetings they must consider what standard of profits and expenses produces a moderate gain for the trader, and the standard of profits and expenses thus arrived at they must prescribe in writing; and this they must insist on—the market stewards, the city stewards and the rural stewards, each in their own sphere.
• 104Most of the Greeks arrange for their food to be derived from both land and sea, but our people will derive it only from the land. This makes the lawgiver’s task easier.
• 105For if the State was to be on the sea-coast, and to have fine harbors, and to be deficient in many products, instead of productive of everything—in that case it would need a mighty savior and divine lawgivers, if, with such a character, it was to avoid having a variety of luxurious and depraved habits. As things are, however, there is consolation in the fact of that eighty stades. Still, it lies unduly near the sea, and the more so because, as you say, its harbors are good; that, however, we must make the best of. . . . Our State has compensation in the fact that it is all-productive; and since it is hilly, it cannot be highly productive as well as all-productive; if it were, and supplied many exports, it would be flooded in return with gold and silver money—the one condition of all, perhaps, that is most fatal, in a State, to the acquisition of noble and just habits of life.
• 106What remains of foreign trade is severely guarded by the State. It is true that “no toll shall be paid in the State by anyone either on exported goods or on imports,” but this is practically meaningless since
• 107Frankincense and all such foreign spices for use in religious rites, and purple and all dyes not produced in the country, and all pertaining to any other craft requiring foreign imported materials for a use that is not necessary, no one shall import; nor, on the other hand, shall he export any of the stuff which would of necessity remain in the country. . . .
• 108In regard to arms and all instruments of war, if there is need to import any craft or plant or metal or rope or animal for military purposes, the hipparchs and generals shall have control of both imports and exports, when the State both gives and takes, and the Law-wardens shall enact suitable and adequate laws therefor; but no trading for the sake of gain, either in this matter or in any other, shall be carried on anywhere within the boundaries of our State and country.
• 109the intermixture of States with States naturally results in a blending of characters of every kind, as strangers import among strangers novel customs: and this result would cause immense damage to peoples who enjoy a good polity under right laws.
• 110reputation in the eyes of others, whether for goodness or the reverse, is a thing that should never be lightly esteemed.
• 111The State may send out “inspectors,” i.e. men over fifty years of age and of great merit, “who desire to survey the doings of the outside world in a leisurely way.” But they must be “incorruptible, so as to confirm thereby such of his native laws as are rightly enacted, and to amend any that are deficient.” On their return, the inspectors will report to a “mixed body of young men and old” on “anything important they may have learnt elsewhere.”
• 112The State may send out “inspectors,” i.e. men over fifty years of age and of great merit, “who desire to survey the doings of the outside world in a leisurely way.” But they must be “incorruptible, so as to confirm thereby such of his native laws as are rightly enacted, and to amend any that are deficient.” On their return, the inspectors will report to a “mixed body of young men and old” on “anything important they may have learnt elsewhere.”
• 113The State may send out “inspectors,” i.e. men over fifty years of age and of great merit, “who desire to survey the doings of the outside world in a leisurely way.” But they must be “incorruptible, so as to confirm thereby such of his native laws as are rightly enacted, and to amend any that are deficient.” On their return, the inspectors will report to a “mixed body of young men and old” on “anything important they may have learnt elsewhere.”
• 114But if, on the other hand, such an inspector appears to be corrupted on his return, in spite of his pretensions to wisdom, he shall be forbidden to associate with anyone, young or old; wherein if he obeys the magistrates, he shall live as a private person, but if not, he shall be put to death.
• 115All foreigners—whether in a public capacity or on a private visit—are, immediately upon their arrival, taken care of by State officials or by priests. Plato is especially distrustful of that “inevitable emigrant” choosing “summer, as a rule, for his annual visits.”
• 116“Plato was the intellectual father of socialists as well as of philosophers.” But whereas he “had a more general abstract end in view . . . , More was interested in the practical solution of actual and present social problems, and busied himself with plans to alleviate existing unfortunate conditions.” These conditions resulted from the enclosure movement in sixteenth-century England. Therefore, “the appearance of ‘Utopia’ marks the beginning of the modern social problems as they show themselves in the incipient stages of the capitalistic period.”
• 117“Plato was the intellectual father of socialists as well as of philosophers.” But whereas he “had a more general abstract end in view . . . , More was interested in the practical solution of actual and present social problems, and busied himself with plans to alleviate existing unfortunate conditions.” These conditions resulted from the enclosure movement in sixteenth-century England. Therefore, “the appearance of ‘Utopia’ marks the beginning of the modern social problems as they show themselves in the incipient stages of the capitalistic period.”
• 118“Plato was the intellectual father of socialists as well as of philosophers.” But whereas he “had a more general abstract end in view . . . , More was interested in the practical solution of actual and present social problems, and busied himself with plans to alleviate existing unfortunate conditions.” These conditions resulted from the enclosure movement in sixteenth-century England. Therefore, “the appearance of ‘Utopia’ marks the beginning of the modern social problems as they show themselves in the incipient stages of the capitalistic period.”
• 119The Island of which Hythloday enthusiastically reports is in the form of a horseshoe and its shores are washed by a calm and friendly sea. However, when Utopus first conquered “Abraxa,” it was a peninsula. This wise king made it an island by cutting an isthmus of fifteen miles. The entry into Utopia’s inviting bay is, moreover, made treacherous by nature because of dispersed rocks and shallows—the safe passages being known only to the fortunate inhabitants themselves.
• 120that they do not think felicity to rest in all pleasure, but only in that pleasure that is good and honest. . . . They define virtue to be a life ordered according to nature . . . and that he does follow the course of nature who in desiring and refusing things is ruled by reason.
• 121This greatly simplifies the economic process. Both men and women work and, since private property is unknown, there is no distinction between rich and poor. Hence, an idle class which must be supported does not exist. In addition, the demand for goods and services is reduced because homespun garments “are throughout all the Island of one fashion . . . seemly and comely to the eye, fit both for winter and summer.” Simple but abundant meals are taken in common, and whatever else is produced is done so in good and lasting quality. Hence, six hours of daily work are sufficient to provide for the Utopians’ necessities; the rest of the time is devoted to common recreation, games, and studies. But even so, the inhabitants cannot help producing surplus. All commodities are stored in warehouses or markets;
• 122from hence the father of every family or every householder fetches whatsoever he and his have need of, and carries it away with him without money, without exchange, without any gage or pledge. For why should anything be denied to him; seeing there is abundance in all things, and that it is not to be feared lest any man will ask more than he needs.
• 123then of those things whereof they have abundance, they carry forth into other countries great plenty; as grain, honey, wool, flax, madder, purple dye, felles, way, tallow, leather and livestock. And the seventh part of all these things they give frankly and freely to the poor of that country. The residue they sell at a reasonable and mean price. By this trade of traffic or merchandise, they bring into their own country not only great plenty of gold and silver, but also all such things as they lack at home, which is almost nothing but Iron. And by reason they have long used this trade, now they have more abundance of these things than any man will believe.
• 124Now, therefore, they do not care whether they sell for ready money or else upon trust to be paid at a day, and they have the most part in debts. But in so doing they never follow the credence of private men, but the assurance or warrantise of the whole city, by instruments and writings made in that behalf accordingly. . . . The most part of it they never ask. For that thing which is to them of no profit, to take it from others to whom it is profitable, they think it no right nor conscience. But if the case so stand that they must lend part of that money to another people, then they require their debt; or when they have war.
• 125Of course, the Utopians will never go to battle because of unsettled trade matters. But they will do so
• 126in defence of their own country or to drive out of their friends’ land the enemies that had come in or . . . to deliver from the yoke and bondage of tyranny some people that be oppressed with tyranny. Which things they do by mere pity and compassion.
• 127There may be still another occasion for war. It may happen that the Utopian population (despite institutional attempts at regulation) so increases that it “exceeds the due number throughout the whole island.” In such a case,
• 128they build up a town under their own laws on the nearest part of the mainland where the inhabitants have much waste and unoccupied ground, receiving also the inhabitants to them, if they will join and dwell with them. . . . But if the inhabitants of that land will not dwell with them, to be ordered by their laws, then they drive them out of those boundaries which they now mark out for themselves. . . . For they account this the most just cause of war when any people holds a piece of ground void and vacant to no good nor profitable use, keeping others from the use and possession of it which notwithstanding by the law of nature ought thereof to be nourished and relieved.
• 129The Utopians readily observe this law by returning the colonizers to their native cities as soon as the Island’s number of inhabitants has become deficient. Beyond that, only “very few” go to foreign countries and this only “for some reasonable cause” such as trading.
• 130Utopia’s chief instruments of war are gold and silver. These precious metals are used to hire mercenaries and to lavishly reward foreign agents charged with the outright murder of a hostile prince or to “procure occasions of debate and dissention to be spread among their enemies.” The Utopians themselves, though well trained and prepared for war, fight only if they must to defend their country.
• 131“The first socialistic theorist, Sir Thomas More,” wrote his Utopia as a reaction against the social evils of his time. General humanitarian feelings and a strong empathy with the miserable lot of the poor classes merged, in the eighteenth century, into the powerful current of thought which was set free by the Enlightenment. History and politics were now subjected to the analysis of reason. A natural and reasonable social, political, and economic order was supposed to exist, derivable from the knowledge of human character. The “social contract” offered a normative formula which indicated how society should be built if its construction were influenced only by reason and not also by error, lust for power, and custom.
• 132Johann Gottlieb Fichte, at the turn of the century, combined French rationalism and radicalism with German nationalism. Unlimited freedom, he wrote, means no freedom at all since “no one may appropriately put something into effect and rely for one moment on its duration. This antagonism of the free forces can only be counteracted by the individuals making a mutual agreement.” This agreement restricts the liberty of its participants equally and contains the assignment of an exclusive right to a determined “free” activity to each participant. The agreement thereby constitutes property.
• 133Johann Gottlieb Fichte, at the turn of the century, combined French rationalism and radicalism with German nationalism. Unlimited freedom, he wrote, means no freedom at all since “no one may appropriately put something into effect and rely for one moment on its duration. This antagonism of the free forces can only be counteracted by the individuals making a mutual agreement.” This agreement restricts the liberty of its participants equally and contains the assignment of an exclusive right to a determined “free” activity to each participant. The agreement thereby constitutes property.
• 134it is the State’s function to assign property to each and then only to protect his corresponding rights.
• 135unless it fixes the exact number of those who are permitted to work in a given branch and provides for production of the necessary means of subsistence for all. It is only through this closure that a branch of activity becomes the property of the class which works in it.
• 136the superfluous is always to be set behind the things which are indispensable or hard to dispense with. . . . All should first have enough to eat and be permanently accommodated before anyone decorates his dwelling; all should have warm and comfortable clothes before anyone puts on a sumptuous gown. . . . It is inadmissible to say ‘I can pay for it.’ It is very unjust that one person is able to afford the unnecessary whereas his fellow citizens lack the essentials.
• 137The government guarantees not only work, but also a ready market to its citizens. This is possible on the basis of the general plan. Prices are fixed by the State, and have a legal character.
• 138The State is obligated to guarantee to all citizens, by law and coercion, the conditions resulting from this equilibrium of mutual intercourse. Yet it is unable to do so if any person outside its laws and dominion has any influence on this equilibrium. It is therefore imperative to cut off the possibility of such an influence. All intercourse with foreigners must be forbidden and made impossible to its subjects.
• 139the government, in order to continuously guarantee its subjects the fulfillment of their customary needs, must be able to rely on the fact that a certain quantity of goods is being traded. How can it count on the foreigner’s contribution to this quantity since he is outside the government’s dominion? It is to fix and warrant the price of a commodity. How can it succeed with respect to the foreigner if it is unable to determine those prices which prevail in his country and at which he buys the raw materials? If the government sets him a price which he cannot afford, he will henceforth avoid its market and deficiency in the satisfaction of customary needs will result. It is to guarantee to each subject the sale of his products at the due price. How can it do so if the subject sells on foreign markets where different commodity relations prevail which it can neither survey nor influence?
• 140a closed commercial state just as it is a closed imperium of laws and individuals.
• 141Each man as well as each commodity belongs either to its jurisdiction or it does not: “there is no third choice.” It follows that any foreign trade that may be judged necessary falls to the exclusive competence of the government “just as it alone is to decide on war, peace, and alliances.”
• 142Each man as well as each commodity belongs either to its jurisdiction or it does not: “there is no third choice.” It follows that any foreign trade that may be judged necessary falls to the exclusive competence of the government “just as it alone is to decide on war, peace, and alliances.”
• 143A closed commercial state . . . can turn into money whatever it desires, provided only that it declares to accept this and no other money. . . . It would thus create a national currency without even raising the question as to whether this money would or would not be accepted abroad, since for a closed commercial state foreign countries are as good as nonexistent.
• 144A closed commercial state is utterly indifferent to whether there is, to speak in customary language, a large or a small circulation of money. The total sum of circulating money simply represents the total quantity of publicly traded goods.
• 145In the first place private foreign trade is to be made impossible by depriving citizens of all international means of payment. This deprivation must be preceded by the following measure:
• 146Immediately before the promulgation of the new national currency, the government buys all foreign goods existing in the country. . . . This purchase takes place partly in order to assess the available stock and the present needs for these commodities, and partly in order to centralize their price fixing.
• 147By the same stroke with which it introduces the new national currency, it is to take over all assets and liabilities resulting from foreign trade.
• 148Henceforth, the government will decide which commodities will continue to be exported and imported.
• 149The government pays to or claims world currency from the foreigner and then pays to or claims national currency from the citizen.
• 150The same method of control will be applied to all foreign trade transactions and their corresponding payments. The separation of currencies will be paralleled by a separation of the internal price level from that prevailing on the world market. Therefore,
• 151the citizen does not buy at the price the government pays to the foreigner for a commodity, but at the one prescribed by internal law with due consideration for the citizen’s fair subsistence during the time he resells it.
• 152Exports are to be similarly regimented. The prices of foreign goods are gradually raised so as to break the citizens of their habit of desiring them, the final aim being “that the State completely isolates itself from any foreign trade.”
• 153Fifthly, “simultaneously with the execution of these measures the State is to move into its natural frontiers.” This leads us to an interesting point of Fichte’s political theory. He writes:
• 154Certain areas of the earth’s surface, including their inhabitants, are clearly destined by nature to form political units. They are separated from the rest of the earth by large rivers, seas, inaccessible mountains. . . . It is these indications of nature as to what is to remain united and what is to be separated that one has in mind when speaking, in modern politics, of the natural frontiers of empires; a consideration which should be taken far more seriously than is commonly done. Nor is sole emphasis to be placed on strong and militarily well protected frontiers, but much rather on productive independence and self-sufficiency.
• 155will speak of the necessity of rounding off their borders and assert that, in view of their other lands, they cannot exist without this fertile province and that mine or salt work, always dimly thinking of the acquisition of their natural frontiers.
• 156Wars are therefore inevitable and must be fought by the State, though “not properly speaking by the peoples, to whom, if only they are united, it can be indifferent under whose name or dynasty this takes place.”
• 157must give and be able to give its neighbors the guarantee that it will henceforth refrain from further expansion. However, it can give this guarantee only on the condition of becoming a closed commercial state. Closure of territory, and closure of commercial intercourse are mutually interrelated and complementary measures. A state which adheres to the ordinary system of commerce and aims at supremacy in world trade, retains a continuing interest in expanding beyond its natural frontiers in order to increase its trade and hence its wealth. . . . To the closed commercial state, on the other hand, not the slightest advantage can accrue from an expansion beyond its natural frontiers since its whole constitution is calculated only for its given extension.
• 158The Vernunftsstaat, finally, establishes the foundations of the future closed economic order. It does so by systematically exploring the production possibilities of the country with respect to import substitutes and by setting up plans accordingly. In its calculations, the government must, on the one hand, distinguish “between such needs which can really contribute to well-being and others which merely serve prestige purposes.” On the other hand, it will not be difficult to find adequate substitutes for foreign products if neither trouble nor costs are spared. The government
• 159The Vernunftsstaat, finally, establishes the foundations of the future closed economic order. It does so by systematically exploring the production possibilities of the country with respect to import substitutes and by setting up plans accordingly. In its calculations, the government must, on the one hand, distinguish “between such needs which can really contribute to well-being and others which merely serve prestige purposes.” On the other hand, it will not be difficult to find adequate substitutes for foreign products if neither trouble nor costs are spared. The government
• 160has enough means to try everything at its own costs and calmly await success. Within the country, this costs nothing more than a piece of money which it can easily produce.
• 161At this time, foreign trade is still being transacted so that the State can use all foreign exchange reserves for building up the fundaments of the present and future economy. Fichte has so much confidence in the size and efficiency of the Rational State’s gold and silver stock that the latter’s purposeful devotion to the preparation of war—the acquisition of raw materials and armaments—may exclude any serious resistance of its enemies
• 162so that it may reach its goal without bloodshed and almost without striking a blow, and that its operation is more like an occupational campaign than a war.
• 163Between such states, destined by nature to a continuing barter, a trade agreement could be reached according to which one partner is pledged for eternal times to grow for the other a certain quantity of wine in exchange for the delivery of a specified quantity of corn. Neither partner is to aim at a profit, but at an absolute equality of value. Hence, there would be no need for money for such trade, only for clearing.
• 164Questions such as: why should I not have a commodity in the same perfection as that manufactured in another country, comes down to asking: why am I an inhabitant of this country, and amounts to the same as if the oak tree should ask: why am I not a palm tree and vice versa. Every man must content himself with the sphere in which nature has placed him and with everything that comes from this sphere.
• 165Although maximum freedom from government intervention is the ideal of the economic sphere, some kind of authority must exist. Proudhon’s next task is to find a balance between these two antagonistic forces. He distinguishes between two kinds of authority: monarchy and “panarchy,” or “communism,” which is characterized by centralized administration and undivided power, and democracy or self-government which is founded on liberty and law.
• 166Although maximum freedom from government intervention is the ideal of the economic sphere, some kind of authority must exist. Proudhon’s next task is to find a balance between these two antagonistic forces. He distinguishes between two kinds of authority: monarchy and “panarchy,” or “communism,” which is characterized by centralized administration and undivided power, and democracy or self-government which is founded on liberty and law.
• 167With arbitrariness fatally entering politics, corruption soon becomes the soul of power and society is dragged, without pause or mercy, on to the endless path of revolutions. That is where the world is today.
• 168A federative contract aiming, in general terms, at guaranteeing to the federated states their sovereignty, their territory, the freedom of their citizens; at settling their disputes; at providing for general measures pertaining to the security and common prosperity . . . this contract then, in spite of the magnitude of the interests involved, is essentially restricted. The authority charged with its execution is never allowed to prevail over its constituting members; I mean that the federal attributes can never exceed in number or reality, those of the communal and provincial authorities, just as the latter cannot exceed the rights and prerogatives of man and the citizen. If it were otherwise, . . . the federation would again become a centralization of the monarchic type.
• 169The internal structure of the federate system is thus seen to be the exact opposite of the internal structure of hierarchy and administrative centralization. But the political order must be complemented by a free economic order, designed so that it does not give “ceaseless causes for dissolution.”
• 170In such systems . . . one can say that the idea of natural frontiers is a fiction or rather a political fraud; rivers, mountains, and seas are regarded in them not as territorial limits, but as obstacles over which the freedom of the sovereign and of the nation provides a challange for triumph. And this is the natural outcome of its underlying principle: the faculty of possessing, accumulating, commanding, and exploiting is infinitely great, limited only by the universe itself. . . . Nothing can stop its encroaching advance [of the State, E.T.] except the collision with another State, just as aggressive, and capable of defending itself.
• 171By virtue of the principle which, by limiting the treaty of federation to mutual defense and to a few other objects of common utility, guarantees to each State its territory, its sovereignty, its constitution, the freedom of its citizens and, over and above, leaves it with more authority, initiative, and power than it gives up, federation is automatically restricted . . . with the result that a federation provides a guarantee both to its own members and to its non-federated neighbors.
• 172A federate people is a people organized for peace; what use could it make of armies? . . . No need for alliance or commercial treaties: between free nations, common law is enough. Freedom of exchange . . . freedom of circulation and residence within the limits of the respect due to the laws of each country. . . . Such is the idea of federation and such are its consequences.