BABŒUF.
Socialism, strictly speaking, denotes simply the social system. It
is the opposite of individualism. A socialist[18] is one who looks
to society organized in the state for aid in bringing about a more
perfect distribution of economic goods and an elevation of humanity.
The individualist regards each man not as his brother’s keeper but as
his own, and desires every man to work out his own salvation, material
and spiritual. His advice to government is expressed in the well-known
formula, _laissez-faire, laissez-passer_, that is, let things take care
of themselves, do not interfere in the business affairs of the citizens.
While the socialist ascribes to the state numerous functions, the
individualist admonishes government to do as little as possible. To the
one the state is a necessary good; to the other, a necessary evil.
But socialism is also used in a popular sense which renders it nearly
equivalent to communism, although the two ought to be distinguished.
The central idea of communism is economic equality. It is desired by
communists that all ranks and differences in society should disappear,
and one man be as good as another, to use the popular phrase. The
distinctive idea of socialism is distributive justice. It goes back of
the processes of modern life to the fact that he who does not work,
lives on the labor of others. It aims to distribute economic goods
according to the services rendered by the recipients. We see thus that
the word socialist is most inclusive. Every communist is a socialist,
and something more. Not every socialist is a communist. We might call a
communist an extreme socialist, and thus include under socialists both
socialists and communists, though it is in general best to make the
distinction. We could not include socialists under communists.
The socialistic and communistic schemes of modern times may be classified
as follows:
A. Communism.
1. French and English Communism.
2. Social Democracy.
3. International Communism.
B. Socialism.
1. Pure Socialism.
2. State and Professorial Socialism.
3. Christian Socialism.
4. French Collectivism.
5. French Anarchists and Blanquists.
6. Social Democracy.
7. International Socialism.
The most general division is that into communism and socialism. As
subdivisions, social democracy and the International figure under both
of the leading divisions, as these parties include socialists and
communists. Under French communism are included adherents of the French
Collectivists, Anarchists, and Blanquists.
Babœuf and Cabet are perhaps the two leading French representatives of
pure communism, Babœuf representing that of the French Revolution.[19]
François Noël Babœuf was born in St. Quentin, in the Department of Aisne,
in 1764.[20] He appears to have come of a good family, for his father was
a major in the Austrian army. The elder Babœuf devoted much attention to
his son’s education, and, in particular, took especial pains to give him
a good mathematical training; but he died when the young man was only
sixteen years of age, and this obliged Babœuf to leave his studies and
seek employment. After having filled various subordinate positions, he
became a land-surveyor, and was finally elected an administrator of the
Department of the Somme; but did not enjoy this post long, for he was
soon arrested on a charge of forgery, condemned, and sentenced to twenty
years’ imprisonment. He escaped to Paris and joined the revolutionary
movement. Like Mably and numerous speculative thinkers at that time,
he was filled with admiration for the socialistic institutions of the
Greeks and Romans. He even called himself Gracchus Babœuf, after the
Roman tribune, and founded a paper which he named _Tribune of the
People_, and which was the first socialistic newspaper ever published.
He signed his articles Caius Gracchus, and in them he attacked the
institutions of civilized society and the party which accomplished the
Revolution of Thermidor, executed Robespierre and St. Just, and finally
terminated the Reign of Terror. His violent abuse of those in authority
and his revolutionary projects led to his imprisonment for a few months
in 1795. He improved the opportunity to establish a connection with
Darthé, Buonarroti and other Jacobins and Terrorists, of whom there were
nearly two thousand in the same prison. Upon their release, they formed
a conspiracy, called, after its leader, “the conspiracy of Babœuf.” Its
object was to overthrow the Directory and introduce the communistic
millennium, which they had begun to evolve in the prison. The members
of the band called themselves the Equals. They formed a complex and
skilfully contrived organization, whose centre was the secret committee
of insurrection. This consisted of the following seven members; Babœuf,
Buonarroti, Sylvain Maréchal, Felix Lepelletier, Antonelle, Darthé,
and Debon. Most of them were journalists. Maréchal was author of a
Dictionary of Atheists (“Dictionnaire des Athées”). Paris was divided
into districts, in each of which workers and reporters were engaged in
propaganda. They did not, however, even know the names of the seven
chiefs of the committee of insurrection, a general agent, Didier, acting
as intermediary between the committee and other agents.
The activity of the leaders was remarkable, and met with a considerable
success in winning adherents. In April, 1796, seventeen thousand men were
prepared to join them in an insurrection against the Directory and for
the establishment of a communistic republic. A Manifesto of the Equals,
prepared by Maréchal, was published and scattered broadcast among the
people. It contained a development of their programme, and an invitation
to join in the proposed movement. Tracts were distributed in large
numbers, and incendiary broadsides were from time to time affixed to the
walls. One of the leaders, however, proved false, turned informer, and
procured the arrest of the chief conspirators on the 10th of May, 1796.
After a considerable delay and a long trial, two of them, Babœuf and
Darthé, were condemned to death in the following year, while Buonarroti
and six others were sentenced to deportation. Sixty-five were tried, but
fifty-six were discharged on account of lack of evidence. Babœuf and
Darthé were guillotined on the 24th of May, 1797, Babœuf’s last words
being, “I wrap myself into a virtuous slumber.”[21]
Buonarroti did not suffer deportation, but was instead confined in prison
for some time and then allowed to escape to Switzerland, whence he was
obliged to flee to Belgium after the Congress of Vienna, because Geneva
was unable to tolerate him during the reactionary period which followed.
He supported himself by teaching music and other branches of learning,
and wrote a remarkable account of the conspiracy in which he had been
engaged. It was published in Brussels in 1828, and after the Revolution
of July it became a power in France. It revived the memory of Babœuf
and his schemes, and rallied a number of followers about the old flag.
Babouvism, as Babœuf’s system was called, was thus enabled to play a
_rôle_ in French history from 1830 to 1839, when a premature rising of
the laborers was easily suppressed.[22] Even to-day, Buonarroti’s work
has not ceased to influence the thought of French laborers.
Babœuf’s theoretical development of communism, based largely on Morelly’s
“Code de la Nature,” is comparatively simple. Its leading idea is
expressed in these words: “The aim of society is the happiness of all,
and happiness consists in equality.” The fact is emphasized again and
again that this equality must be perfect and absolute. It is officially
proclaimed that the harmony of the system would be broken if there was
one single man in the world richer or more powerful than his fellows.
The adherents of this doctrine were ready to sacrifice everything to
their desire for equality. “We are prepared,” cried they, “to consent
to everything for it, we are prepared even to make _tabula rasa_ to
obtain it. Let all the arts perish if need be, provided we retain real
equality.”[23] The first article of the official declaration of rights,
as established by the secret committee of insurrection, reads: “Nature
has given to every man an equal right to the enjoyment of all goods.”
In the “proofs” following, it is maintained that all public and private
wrongs, as oppressions, tyrannies, wars, and crimes, take their origin
in disobedience to this natural law. At least six of the eleven articles
of this “Charter of Equality” do little more than repeat in varying form
the idea contained in article 1. Article 7, _e.g._, reads: “In a true
society there ought to be neither poor nor rich.” Article 10, “The end of
the revolution is to destroy inequality and to re-establish the common
happiness.”
How was equality to be attained? Perhaps it is best to correct at the
start a popular error by stating how they did not expect to obtain
equality. They were not foolish enough to propose to divide the wealth
of society among the various citizens and then allow the production
and distribution of economic goods to go on as at present. It is a
matter of course that under such circumstances inequalities would again
arise within twenty-four hours. This is so perfectly obvious that no
communist of note has ever proposed anything so childish and absurd.
Yet it is a widely prevalent notion that this is what the communists
have desired. One of the Rothschilds of Frankfort-on-the-Main once
hearing a poor man complain of his lot, and express a desire for the
equality of communism, is said immediately to have put his hand in his
pocket, drawn out two or three shillings, and offered them to the poor
man as his share of the wealth of a Rothschild, were it equally divided
among all the inhabitants of Germany. This is often told as a business
man’s concise and practical refutation of communism. It has, however,
no significance at all either for or against that economic system. All
communists without exception propose that the people as a whole, or some
particular division of the people, as a village or commune, should own
all the means of production—land, houses, factories, railroads, canals,
etc.; that production should be carried on in common; and that officers,
selected in one way or another, should distribute among the inhabitants
the fruits of their labor. Under such circumstances inequalities could
have no opportunity to spring up; nor do we find communistic experiments
failing because it is impossible to maintain equality. Where it is really
desired, it is not difficult to secure it. As a matter of fact, however,
it is not desired by the great masses of any land of Christendom, nor
would they for a moment consent to endure it.
But to return from this digression. Babœuf proposed to attain equality
by degrees. He desired that a large national and common property should
be at once formed out of the property of corporations and public
institutions. The property of individuals was to be added to this upon
their death, as inheritance was to be abolished. All property would thus
become nationalized in the course of fifty years. Production was to be
carried on in common under officers chosen by popular vote. These same
officers, according to the scheme, decide upon the needs and requirements
of the different individuals of the society, and divide the products of
their common industry. The earth must belong to all, and its fruits must
be common property. Officers receive no more than those under them, and a
rapid rotation in office prevents the acquirements of habits and thoughts
consequent on superior position. No one becomes accustomed to command; no
one becomes accustomed to obey.
The country is divided into “regions,” and the “regions” into
“departments.” There is a central and superior administration for the
entire country, an intermediate one for each “region,” and a subordinate
one for each “department.” Each administration has its own duties—the
lowest coming into contact with individuals, the higher supervising the
subordinate boards. Government is absolute, notwithstanding the adoption
of the watchword “Liberté.” On its orders citizens are sent from commune
to commune, as their services may be required; and the “superfluous”
products of one region are transferred to another less fortunate one.
The supreme administration must store up the surplus of years of plenty
as provision for unfruitful years. It also conducts trade with foreign
nations, for which purpose great magazines or store-houses are erected
on the frontiers and the borders of the sea. No private individual is
allowed to trade with foreign countries, and all merchandise used in such
trade is confiscated for the benefit of the community. All intercourse
with outside countries is carefully watched to prevent the importation of
erroneous ideas and disastrous customs. Even within the country only such
publications are allowed as teach the unqualified blessings of equality.
Article 3 of the “Organization of the Government of the Community”
enumerates the kinds of labor which the law considers useful, and which
alone entitle an individual to exercise any political right whatever.
They are the following: agriculture, which is especially favored, as
being most natural to man; the pastoral life; fishing; navigation;
mechanic and manual arts; retail trade; transportation; war; teaching;
and the sciences. However, teaching is only then considered useful when
it is undertaken by one who has declared his adherence to the principles
of the community, and bears a certificate of “civisme.” Literature and
the fine arts are not included, being regarded with little favor.
The whole scheme is dreary and monotonous. All differences save those
relating to age and sex being abolished, equality is even interpreted
to mean uniformity. All must be dressed alike, save that distinctions
are made for sex and age; all must eat the same quantity of the same
kind of food, and all must be educated alike.[24] As the higher goods of
life are lightly esteemed, education is restricted to the acquirement of
elementary branches of knowledge, and of those practical in a material
sense. Comfortable mediocrity in everything is the openly expressed ideal.
Children are removed from the family at an early age, and brought up
together, to train them in principles of communism, and to prevent the
growth of differences and inequalities.
All things are contrived to level down and not to level up; to bring
the highest down to the plane of stupid, self-satisfied mediocrity, and
not to elevate the less fortunate to higher thoughts, feelings, and
enjoyments.
This most cheerless of all communistic schemes fitly took its origin
among those sunk in the most degraded materialism of the French
Revolution.