Socialism before the French revolution: a history

Front matter

dB

■Hi ' mm

Hi lulu

Introduction

English literature has been singularly deficient in the history of social theory, and it is especially in the domain of social reform that this gap has been most evident. The present-day socialist movement has so engrossed the attention of most observers that even the historical studies of this subject have been largely confined to the period since the French Revolution and particularly to that of so-called scientific socialism. The foreign literatures have paid slightly more attention to some of the movements from the close of the Middle Ages, but there is to-day no satisfactory general account in any language of socialist doctrines before the end of the eighteenth century. The study of Mr. Guthrie is therefore to be welcomed as the first comprehensive attempt to fill the gap.

It will be easy for the reader to discern that the author is well fitted for the task which he has allotted to himself. A thorough familiarity with the foreign languages, a wide acquaintance with the details of the literature, and a grasp of the economic principles involved, — these are some of the characteristics of this little book. But there are especially viii INTRODUCTION

two points to which it is well to call attention as the distinctive contributions of the work.

The first is the recognition on the part of the author that social theory is the outgrowth of social conditions. The truth of this statement is nowadays apt to be recognized in connection with ordinary economic doctrines ; but it has usually been assumed that the theories of the idealists, as pure figments of the imagination, are disconnected with actual life, and that all the Utopias are to be put in the category of ordinary fairy tales. A more attentive study of the facts, however, is sufficient to make us realize that, from the time of Plato down to the present, the social idealists have stood with one foot on terra ftrtna, and that even the Utopian dreams have had a more or less intimate connection with the sober facts of every-day life. Mr. Guthrie has been wise in realizing this and in endeavoring to trace the relation between the actual environment of the author and the character of his doctrines.

The second point is that the work is calculated to bring home to the ordinary reader the fact that social strivings and social ideals are by no means confined to the nineteenth or twentieth centuries. It is indeed true that the stupendous industrial changes of the last hundred years have brought to the fore a peculiarly intensive species of socialism which could not have previously existed where the economic phe-

INTRODUCTION ix

nomena themselves did not exist. We have, however, been too long under the obsession of the idea that socialism is a distinctively modern movement. Even as a practical movement, socialism is by no means modern. Not to speak of the great, and still only partly studied, revolutions of classic antiquity, the history of mediaeval Europe abounds in more or less sharply defined socialistic tendencies. What is true of the socialist movement is no less true of the doctrine of social reform. Mr. Guthrie's book, as I understand it, is not an attempt to present an exhaustive account of this movement, for as such it would indeed be open to criticism as omitting the writers of the earlier Middle Ages. But as an endeavor to give a general view of these doctrines from the time of More to the Revolution, it will undoubtedly serve a useful purpose. As such it forms another contribution to the general history of economic and social ideas which still remains to be written, and which never can be adequately written until the way has been prepared by monographs of which the present is a fitting type.

EDWIN R. A. SELIGMAN.

Columbia University, May, 1907,

Preface

One of the principal propositions maintained in this study is that many of the ideas of modern socialism, in its varied forms, were suggested more or less clearly, before the French Revolution, either in the writings of scholars or in the activities of the organized society of the period. The attempt is here made, therefore, to gather up and to systematize the early ideas and ideals from the most important sources, in order to ascertain what debt the present owes the past in this field of social thought. It is also contended that the conditions favorable to the growth of a socialistic theory and practice show themselves, to some extent at least, when, after the Reformation, the mediaeval system gradually disappeared. Conditions of that time are therefore briefly sketched and the larger features of that environment set forth in which it is claimed the protest and propaganda of socialism took rise. An effort is also made to discover and set forth any more general, abstract principles which from time to time appeared and may be considered the philosophic basis and the logical justification for socialism. Moreover, the writings here analyzed will be found to yield certain xii PREFACE

very definite, concrete theories, which, it is maintained, have been laid hold of by modern socialism and consciously or unconsciously appropriated. Furthermore, socialism, as here defined, will be treated, in both its method and matter, in its relation to social theory and interpretation. Attention will therefore be paid to the social ideas of the works examined as they form a part of, and take a place in, the development of social theories.

No attempt is made to discuss all the works appearing in the period here studied, which was rather prolific in this kind of literature; such an attempt would lead in this case, as it has done in so many cases, to a mere annotated bibliography. 1 Certain writers will be exhaustively studied in connection with those conditions giving rise to and aiding in the growth of their social ideas and ideals.

No apology is offered for a study of the revolutionary social doctrines of a period when it may be supposed very little of importance was written or done. A justification, if such there be, must lie in the fact that during this age appeared many works of a peculiar nature, which have been largely ignored, at least by English students. It may be further objected that such writings are not strictly socialistic, at least as that term is understood to-day. In an-

1 Von Mohl, "Die Geschichte und Literatur der Staatswissenschaften," in Monographieen dargestellt, Erlangen, 1855-58, 3 vol.

PREFACE xiii

swer it may be said that this term as later defined comes nearer including this literature than any classification yet made of it. It is held that close generic relationship exists between earlier and later socialistic doctrines; though direct descent is difficult to establish and in many instances must rest upon presumptive evidence.

The author wishes to make grateful acknowledgments to Professor John Bates Clark, under whose instruction serious interest was awakened in social subjects ; to Professor Edwin R. A. Seligman, under whom this work was carried on and whose counsel has been helpful at every point; and to Professor Henry R. Seager, whose kind suggestions made the way clearer. W. B. G.

New York City, May, 1907.

Chapter I Page

SECTION

i. Bibliography 1

2. Definitions 7

3. Socialism and Kindred Systems 10

4. Two Views of Society 17

5. Principles Common to Socialists 21

6. Academic Nature of Early Socialism .... 34

7. Schools of Socialism 39

8. Features of the Period Covered 43

Chapter II

1. Thomas More the Central Figure 54

2. Facts of his Life 54

3. Historic Setting of " Utopia " 60

4. The Emergence of the " Social Problem " . . .68

5. Growth of Social Unrest 78

6. Reactionary Nature of Socialism 82

7. Decline of Asceticism 87

Part I

1. General Considerations 92

2. Divisions of " Utopia " 93

xv cvi

CONTENTS

EC!

ION

Opposition to Enclosures ....

Discussion of Evils of Monopoly Theory of Punishment ....

Theory of War and Peace ....

Attack on Private Property

PAGE

. 94 . 100 . 101 . 105 . 106

Part II

1. Main Principle of his Theory 107

2. Communism of More 107

3. Social Advantages of Communism . . . .110

4. Theory of the Family 112

5. Division of Labor the Basis of Social Organization . 113

6. Length of the Labor Day 115

7. Theory of Pleasure 121

8. Theory of Social Organization 123

9. Theory of Goods 126

10. The City-State 128

11. The Socialism of More 129

Chapter IV Life And Times Of Campanella

1. Italy and Social Discussion

. 132

2. Place of Campanella in Literature

■ 134

3. Intellectual Environment .

4. Campanella, the Philosopher

. 144

5. His Conflict with Scholasticism

H5

6. His Relation to Plato .

. 151

7. Sources of his Theories

8. Jesuit Schemes .

. 156

9. Jesuit Theories of Marriage

10. His Debt to the Jesuits

■ 159

11. A Cosmopolitan Character .

12. Political Tendencies .

CONTENTS xvii

Chapter V The Socialism Of Campanella Section Page

i. An Artificial Scheme 166

2. Labor Theory 167

3. Cummunism of Campanella . . . . .168

4. Theory of the Family 169

5. Theory of Leisure 172

6. Exchange in his Scheme . . . . . . 173

7. Political Scheme 174

8. Theory of Social Unity 176

9. Source of Economic Motive 181

10. Summary 182

11. Relation of Bacon to Campanella . . . .183

12. Theories of " New Atlantis " 184

13. Followers of Campanella ...... 187

14. Importance of Campanella 188

Chapter VI

1. Biography of Morelly 195

2. His Literary Activity 197

3. Materialistic Tendencies of his Age .... 205

4. Statements of Morelly's Contemporaries . . . 207

5. " State of Nature " Concepts 211

6. Absence of Historical Social Theories . . . 215

7. An Age of Optimism 227

8. Goodness-Theory of Man 232

9. Theories defending Property 238

10. Attacks upon Property 242

Chapter VII The Social Teachings Of Morelly

1. Method of Morelly 248

2. Theory of Innate Ideas . . . . . .251 xviii CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

3. Theory of Perfectibility 252

4. Environment Theory 255

5. Theory of Property 257

6. Problem of Supplying Economic Motives . . . 261

7. Type of Social Organization 263

8. No Leisure Class ....... 264

9. Theory of Distribution 265

10. Theory of Social Unity 268

11. Plan of Education 271

12. Estimate of Morelly 273

Chapter VIII Revolutionary Radicals

1 . Emergence of Classes 276

2. Growth of Definite Ideas 280

3. Was there Socialism in the Revolution? . . . 281

4. Theories of Boissel 282

5. Attack on Property 284

6. Theory of Distribution . 286

7. Attitude toward Culture 286

8. Relation to Morelly 288

9. Babeuf — an Agitator . . . . . . 289

10. The Theories of Saint-Just 297

1 1 . Attacks on Institutions 299

12. Teachings of Abbe* Mably ...... 300

13. Linguet 304

14. Barnave and his Theories 305

Chapter I Introduction

i. There are in this as in other fields of thought several kinds of literature to be examined. There is, it may be said, a relatively small amount of original material that was written with a conscious socialistic bias. Quantitatively the original sources setting forth the thought of the times are, as compared with those more modern, of rather slight importance. Under the head of those works here called more or less clearly socialistic, chief stress will be laid upon the "Utopia" of Sir Thomas More, "City of the Sun" by Thomas Campanella, Bacon's "New Atlantis," and Harrington's "Oceana"; while the "Basiliade" and the "Code de la Nature," both by Morelly, will mark the close of the period.

There is, then, considerable literature from the pens of contemporaries which helps to an understanding of these earlier writers and their peculiar views. Among these may be cited by way of illustration Latimer's " Sermons/' Fitzherbert's "Farming," and the "Dialogues" by Thomas Starkey. In the later period reference will be made to the writings of Rousseau, D'Holbach, Helvetius, and kindred authors, as from them inspiration and suggestions were drawn by their contemporaries and also by later socialistic writers.

Amidst the vast amount of descriptive and historical literature bearing on socialism there is considerable touching this period. Much good historical work was done about the time of the downfall of the Utopian school, or from about 1840 on for a decade. Among such writers stand Pierre Leroux, 1 who wrote with a strong socialistic bias, and Louis Reybaud, 2 who was as severely critical as Leroux was sympathetic. Two German writers have also left monuments to their extensive historical research: Von Mohl in his "Geschichte der Literatur" and Lorenz von Stein, "Der Socialismus und Kommunismus des heutigen Frankreichs." The historical investigation into the field of socialism begins with the opening of the historical school in economics, and had its development during the period when Roscher, Hildebrand, and Knies were

1 Leroux, "De Tegalite," 1848; " De rhumanite"," etc., 2 v., 1845.

2 Reybaud, " Etudes sur les re*formateurs ou socialistes modernes." 1856.

working in the field of historical economics. While the historical method was being applied to social study by the father of scientific socialism, Karl Marx, a new stimulus was given this historical writing by the stirring events of the early seventies, and for some years a considerable amount of literature appeared. In this work France leads, and the writings of such men as Adolphe Franck, 1 Benoit Malon, 2 and Janet 3 show an increasing interest in the historical development of socialism. Naturally the work in historical lines increased as original investigations and theorizing subsided.

This period corresponds with the rise of the evolutionary philosophy, with the breakdown of Utopian socialism, with the birth of scientific socialism, and with the revolutionary movements in England and France. In the nineties another group of writers began the historical investigation of early socialism. This period was marked by the appearance of the work of a coterie of German writers, among whom may be mentioned Eduard Bernstein, Karl Kautsky, Paul Lafargue, and others. 4 Their extensive historical work did for the general field of socialism what this study

1 " R6formateurs et publicistes de l'Europe." 1864-1893.

2 " Histoire du socialisme depuis ses origines probables jusqu'a nos jours." 1879.

3 " Les origines du socialisme contemporain." 1883.

4 "Die Geschichte des Sozialismus in Einzelndarstellungen," von E. Bernstein, C. Hugo, K. Kautsky, P. Lafargue, Franz Mehring, G. Plechanow, 2 v., 1895.

pretends to do for a limited portion. As Reybaud had much earlier done in France, these writers traced modern socialism back to its more remote origins. During the following years much careful work was done on the history of socialism. In this connection it is probably true that the best work has been done in France. French writers are apt to show less bias for or against than the Germans. They are broader and more serious in their treatment than the Americans, while they are free from the narrowness of the English students. Among the French writers of first importance should certainly be mentioned Andrd Lichtenberger, 1 whose careful and exhaustive researches into French sources have done much to illuminate the Revolutionary period and to set the parties and their principles in their proper perspective. He has also gone back to the period before the Revolution and discussed the theories contained in literature heretofore neglected, but which presents very much of interest to students of socialism in its historical development. The work of Frederick Engels in Germany deserves special mention for various reasons. In his " Socialism, Utopian and Scientific," he has done valuable service in explaining the origin of modern scientific socialism

1 "Le Socialisme au XVIII C siecle." 1895. "Le Socialisme et la Revolution francaise; e*tudes sur les idees socialistes en France de 1789 a 1796." 1899. "Le Socialisme Utopique; etudes sur quelques precurseurs inconnus du Socialisme. " 1898.

in its relation to German philosophy. 1 His close association with Karl Marx for nearly half a century specially fitted him to speak authoritatively on his doctrines and also to be critic and editor of the works of his master. The very suggestive study made by Anton Menger, translated under the title "The Right to the Whole Produce of Labor/ ' should be consulted on the historical side, setting forth as it does the development of certain principles of modern socialism. 2 Miss Peixotto deals with the historical evolution of certain doctrines which have persisted to the present time, and by throwing the earlier theories into comparison with the later, she has made a most valuable contribution to the literature of historical criticism. 3 Frederick Seebohm has published a good work allied to the present study, entitled "Oxford Reformers," which deals with the origin of social discontent in England in the period following the Reformation. 4 Of the literature discussing this particular period only a word will be said. Much has been written concerning the

1 " Die Entwicklung des Socialismus von Utopie zur Wissenschaft." Berlin, 1891.

3 Peixotto, "The French Revolution and Modern French Socialism: a comparative study of the principles of the French Revolution and the doctrine of modern French socialism," 1901.

4 Seebohm, " The Oxford Reformers, John Colet, Erasmus, and Thomas More." 1887.

"Utopia" and its noted author, Thomas More. Indeed, since its first appearance students have busied themselves with investigations concerning the author, his theories, and their place in history. Few have, however, treated More in his relation to, and significance for, socialism and its development. Professor Seebohm has dwelt upon this side of More's work. Karl Kautsky has treated the social theories of More in an interesting volume, the best thing that has yet appeared on the socialism of Thomas More. 1 Of Campanella and his works, " Discourses touching the Spanish Monarchy " and " City of the Sun," it may be said that nothing has been written in English. Slight notice has been given him in French as in "R£- formateurs et publicistes de PEurope," by Adolphe Franck, but considerable has been written of Campanella in Italian. Much of this literature, however, deals with the philosopher only. Very little attention has been paid to Morelly or his writings; an obscure author, little known to his own age, his leading work attributed to Diderot for half a century, he was in a position to be neglected.

So extensive is the literature on socialism that any attempt at a complete bibliography would be to little purpose. Outside this brief reference the footnotes

1 " Thomas More u. seine Utopie ; mit einer historischen Einleitung." 1888.

must supply the citations on the particular aspects of the subject taken up.

2. Socialism as a system of thought and action, falling within the sphere of human activities, may be traced historically either as an actual social movement or as a development of a peculiar type of social theory ; on the one side, it would deal with a set of concrete social facts ; on the other, with a body of theoretical principles, a system of social thought. The distinction, therefore, should be made in this case that applies to the study of economic history and the history of economics; or to the study of politics and political history. The system of thought set forth in the masterly writings of Karl Marx who started as a communist and ended as a socialist; who began as a radical and became a conservative ; ! who started as a propagandist and ended as a philosopher — his system might perhaps be called typically socialistic from the standpoint of theory.

Socialism viewed either as a social theory or as a practical system of social action means, in the large, the carrying the public or social control ever farther into the sphere so far occupied by the individual; it means the setting aside the so-called natural, social, and economic laws through the intervention of the social will operating consciously and in an absolute, sovereign

1 The comparison here made has to do with the socialism of Marx and that radical and unreasoned communism of the prerevolutionary kind.

manner as against the individual will. That it has one class in view as against another seems not to be an essential to the concept of socialism. That the motive toward an enlargement of the social control would be apt to arise within the ranks of commonalty may be and probably is true ; it does not at all change the nature of that social process called socialistic. That the masses in the lower strata tend to move in the direction of socialism merely means that there lies potentially the excess of power which is seeking a new centre of equilibrium in industrial spheres; as, in the political world democracy denotes the shifting the political power to a new centre.

It is natural to inquire whether there has ever been any realization of the scheme of socialism worth the name. Has there ever been any regime in human experience which might be called socialistic? Has the ideal ever been approached or does the discussion begin and end in the interesting but rather barren field of pure theory? Men have written, and most extensively, upon political doctrines; but back of these and to a large extent their source, from Aristotle down, has been the history of actual political society. Many theories of economic life have been advanced in more or less logical systems ; these have been founded, however, in most part upon the facts of the economic process and have been attempts either to explain or justify it.

Proudhon defined political economy as a collection of observations thus far made with regard to the phenomena of the distribution and production of wealth. A history of political economy, then, is a record of men's subjective attitude toward a set of objective facts. Can the same thing be said of the history of socialism? Has there ever been a set of facts corresponding to the general theory of socialism, or is it merely a result of another attitude of mind assumed toward the normal individualistic economic order? It is here contended that socialism is largely an attitude of mind assumed toward the existing economic order. As a result of conflict there has been at times an approach toward the socialistic ideal. The final antithesis of individualism is socialism, and the form and process of human society, industrially considered, have gravitated toward one of these two poles. Never has society gone to absolute individualism; much less has any very perfect expression of the opposite been found.

Socialism, then, in so far as it has existed, has been a compromise, and it will probably never be more than this. Socialism is not an absolute fact to be attained and maintained ; it is rather a method of social development — one side of a social process, and is hence a continual becoming. Bitter antagonisms have been and must be allayed ; the larger conflict has ever been between the individual and the social will; and social-

IO SOCIALISM BEFORE THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

ism, when it exists, will be found to be a synthesis of these two enduring antagonisms. Proudhon compares socialism to the god Vishnu, ever dying and yet ever returning to life ; it has experienced within a score of years its ten thousandth incarnation in the persons of five or six revelators. Large inroads have been made into the field of private initiative and of individual control of industrial affairs. The whole area has never been covered by the control of organized society; neither is there much probability that it will be. A reaction is always sure to come before the extreme of either socialism or individualism is reached.

Socialism is, then, a phase and method of the historical development of industrial society. The term may be applied to either a process or a condition of society. Viewed and treated in the former sense, it becomes historical, matter of fact, scientific; considered from the other view point, it is totally unscientific, and theories concerning such a social structure are entirely Utopian. Viewed in one way, the study of socialism reveals a very normal process of social evolution ; seen in another light as a finished state of bliss and of social and economic quietism, it is imaginary, unhistorical, and totally impractical.

3. With these very general limitations stated, socialism may with profit be thrown into contrast with other systems of social thought more or less akin. Socialism has been considered as a generic term. Of the types falling under this head, unquestionably the most important is communism. 1 Communism may be called an extreme type of socialism. It is a grosser, as it is an earlier, form of social organization. All early social structure seems to have been a form of communism. 2 It is therefore fitted to an earlier stage of industrial organization. Socialism is a refinement, fitted to a highly organized society. Its advocates have generally contemplated a society under the regime of capitalism. Socialism would so order industrial society and have the social will so control the economic process as to work a redistribution of the accruing product; communism would work a general redistribution of the control of all property — productive and consumptive. Of the two communism is the more simple and logical. An equal quantitative distribution of the material wealth regardless of problems of value is rather a simple and workable formula. Communism involves the attempt to solve the social problems by entirely abandoning the system of private property. It would shift the industrial structure to some other basis. It means a reversion to a more primitive society. Communism is the antithesis of the theory of orthodox economics. One sees a society with no private prop-

1 Pierson, "Stadhuishoudkunde," p. 49.

2 Karl Kautsky, " Vorlaufer des neueren Socialismus," p. 3.

erty ; the other rests its entire system upon the principles of private ownership. One would transform the state into an industrial corporation; the other sharply differentiates the state as a political organization. Socialism tends to reconcile these two opposites. It has opposed and ridiculed orthodox economics. It has been developed as an opposing theory to the laissez-faire doctrine and delights to reproach the donothing "Manchesterthum" of the English school. When separated from radical communism in France * in the later thirties and in Germany in the later forties, socialism becomes decidedly conservative and tends to shade off into schemes of reform in Germany, into a philosophic system under Karl Marx, 2 or a scheme of collectivism in France — in all instances tending to lose the native hue of resolution and become sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought or merged into the mellower light of philanthropy. 3 As time passes, it is diverted into a variety of channels. In England tradesunionism rises on one side and land-nationalization on the other. In Germany the conservative element com-

\See works of Pecqueur, "Theorie nouvelle d'economie sociale et politique," 1842; and Vidal, "De la repartition des richesses," etc., 1846.

2 Marx is still communist of a radical type till after the " Manifesto," 1847.

3 See schemes of Schultze-Delitzsch; cf. attacks of Lassalle on the proposed schemes of state banks.

promises and the schemes of social control help to weaken the cause of radical socialism in practice, while the "Socialism of the Chair' ' helps to spike the guns of the radicals from the standpoint of theory.

The constant tendency, therefore, has been for socialism to veer about toward a more conservative course, and an examination of the recent programmes of socialist congresses shows how socialistic sails have been set to catch new breezes as vast industrial changes have brought us into strange and untried seas. The short and simple propaganda of communism has grown into more extended proportions as into the programmes has gone a vast number of demands, some distinctly within, many falling very far without, the economic sphere. 1 Since the birth of collectivism in France, the tendency of socialists has been to deal with the productive side of the economic process. This was true of the collectivists. It is a fundamental principle of the massive labors of Karl Marx, to whose general socialistic theories the analysis of the process of value-production was vital, yielding the most important doctrine yet put out by socialism — that of " surplus value."

Other socialists, moderate and radical, have laid the emphasis upon the process of distribution. This was true of John Stuart Mill, who considered that the

process of production was under the control of natural laws, but that the distribution of wealth was a social matter to be controlled by the social will. 1 Henry George made use of this proposition, 2 and the same attitude was taken by Lassalle in his conflict with Schultze-Delitzsch. 3 Production was presumed to care for itself, if only the distribution of values were arranged. In contrast to their views the contribution of Professor Clark, showing that distribution is also amenable to law and is only one phase of the process of production, is most interesting and important. 4

With the writings of Marx the demands of socialism are shifted to a very rational basis. He analyzed the productive process to see who produced the values. Marx, as is well known, decided that labor produced all "surplus- value' ' and should therefore be the only sharer. This proposition laid the basis in economic theory of the laboring man's socialism. 5 Accepting the ethics of product, it made possible the basing of socialism upon justice and merit. This marks the

1 " It is not so with the distribution of wealth. That is a matter of human institution solely." — " Principles of Political Economy," Bk. II, Ch. I.

2 " Progress and Poverty."

3 Lassalle, " Herr Bastiat-Schultze von Delitzsch, der okonomischen Julian; oder, Capital und Arbeit," pp. 13 et seq.

4 "Distribution of Wealth," Ch. I.