LOUIS BLANC.
Saint-Simon and Fourier are first among French socialists. In the history
of society no socialistic systems occupy a higher rank than those to
which they gave their names. France has, however, produced two other men
who have taken positions as leaders in social movements. If Saint-Simon
and Fourier take precedence over them in the hierarchy of socialists,
there is certainly no Frenchman who can dispute their right to the next
highest places. They were chiefs after Saint-Simonism and Fourierism had
begun to wane and before German socialism had begun to exist. These two
men were Louis Blanc and Proudhon, and it is necessary to devote a few
words to them before passing over to a very brief consideration of the
latest phases of French socialism.
Saint-Simon and Fourier were social reformers only. They divorced
economic reform from politics. They did not seek to use the existing
political machinery of society as a means to their ends. They appealed
to religious fervor, to brotherly love, to self-interest, and to
passionate attraction, and regarded these as quite sufficient moving
and organizing forces. Although these men accomplished much, it was
very little in proportion to their hopes and expectations. What they
did bring to pass did not come precisely in the way they wished it. To
all intents and purposes the great social problem seemed as far from
solution as ever. The next step in the development of socialism was its
connection with politics. A man was needed who should recognize the
intimate relation between political and social life, and should take the
lead in the attempt to use the power of the one to regenerate the other.
Louis Blanc was the one destined to lead socialism into this way. This
is his true significance. He was the first state socialist. He was a
practical politician of too much influence to make it possible to ignore
him, but politics were always a means, never an end. Louis Blanc is
thus the connecting link between the older socialism, which was in many
respects superstitious, absurd, and fantastical, and the newer, which is
sceptical, hard, and practical.
Louis Blanc, journalist, author, politician, socialist, was born in
Madrid, Spain, October 28, 1813. His parents were French people, who
were living temporarily in Madrid, as his father had been appointed
General Inspector of Finance under Joseph Bonaparte. They naturally left
Spain soon after this and Louis Blanc passed his early years in Corsica,
his mother’s native land. He studied in the College at Rodez, and went
to Paris about 1830 to continue his studies. As the revolution had
ruined his father, Louis appears for some time to have been obliged to
live in cramped circumstances. He assisted himself at first by copying
and teaching, but he soon began to make his influence as a writer
felt. He became one of the editors of _Le Bon Sens_ in 1834, was made
editor-in-chief in 1837, and resigned in 1838, owing to a difference
of views between him and the proprietors of the journal, regarding the
railway question, they holding to the system of private railways while
he favored state railways. He also contributed at the same time to the
_National_, the _Revue Républicaine_ and other papers, all of which
were republican or radical periodicals. In 1839 he founded the _Revue
du Progrès_, which became the organ of the most advanced democrats, and
it was in this paper that his chief socialistic work, “Organisation du
Travail”—“Organization of Labor”—appeared in 1840. It was published
afterwards in book-form, and has achieved a world-wide fame. The ninth
edition appeared in 1850. The first volume of his most important
historical work, the “Histoire de Dix Ans”—“History of the Ten Years”
(1830-40)—appeared in 1841. It was completed in sixteen volumes[90] in
1844. A twelfth edition was published in Paris in 1874, in five volumes.
This is one of the most remarkable of histories. Few literary works have
exercised a greater influence in shaping events. It held up the meanness,
littleness, and narrowness of the reign of Louis Philippe to public
gaze and contributed not a little to the overthrow of that monarch.
It further contains a better account of the development of socialism
during that period than can be obtained elsewhere. Louis Blanc was an
actor in the events of the ten years described, and understood their
import. He saw the separation growing ever wider and wider between the
_bourgeoisie_ and the fourth estate, and the political influence which
the latter was beginning to acquire, and appreciated the significance of
this development as no other writer. His work has consequently become
an indispensable source of information regarding the reign of Louis
Philippe. Next to the “History of the Ten Years” his leading historical
work is the “History of the French Revolution”—“Histoire de la Révolution
Française,” published in twelve volumes[91] in the years 1847-62. A
second edition bears the date 1864-70. This work treats of a period
which he did not understand so well as his own age. Viewing the events
described through the eyes of a nineteenth century socialist, he does
not always appreciate the underlying spirit. Nevertheless the work is a
noteworthy one. “Charles Sumner used to say that the first volume was
one of those profoundly philosophical studies which mark an epoch in
literature and in the development of human intelligence.”[92] Another
writer says of this history: “By many eminent judges this has been
considered the most satisfactory history of the revolution yet produced.
It gives evidence of careful and ingenious research, abounds in most
striking delineations of character, and is written with great energy and
brilliancy of style. The portraiture of Robespierre, and the description
of events leading to his fall, are among the most satisfactory accounts
of the subject ever presented.”[93]
Louis Blanc was prominent in the Revolution of 1848. He was made a
member of the Provisional Government in February, 1848, and with his
colleagues, Albert, a workman, and Ledru-Rollin, a former member of the
assembly, attempted to commit the government to the introduction of a
large number of socialistic measures. The majority were, however, opposed
to him, and he did not meet with a great measure of success, although
the _droit au travail_ was proclaimed. This is the technical term for
the right of laborers to demand work from the government if they cannot
find it elsewhere.[94] He demanded the creation of a ministry of labor
and progress—_ministère du travail et du progrès_—which should concern
itself with the interests of labor. Unable to obtain the consent of the
majority of his colleagues, Louis Blanc tendered his resignation, but was
finally induced to withdraw it and content himself with the presidency of
a powerless commission appointed to meet in the Luxembourg and debate.
That was all—debate. But what does debate without authority signify
in a revolution? It means the loss of precious time and of all real
influence. It is contemptible and ridiculous in the eyes of the masses
at such times. Louis Blanc was lost when he consented to the formation
of a debating club as a substitute for a _ministère du progrès_. This
was the purpose of the government. They made a pretext of carrying out
what was implied in the _droit au travail_ by the erection of national
workshops—_ateliers nationaux_. The real purpose of the ministers was
the discredit of Louis Blanc, who had proposed _ateliers sociaux_ in his
“Organisation du Travail.” They planned the foundation of sham national
workshops, which should fail and demonstrate the impracticability of his
scheme, and they carried out the programme to the letter. M. Marie, the
Minister of Public Works, intrusted the management of the _ateliers_
to Émile Thomas, one of Louis Blanc’s worst enemies, informing Thomas
that “it was the well-formed intention of the government to try this
experiment of the commission of government for laborers; that in itself
it could not fail to have good results, because it would demonstrate to
the laborers the emptiness and falseness of these inapplicable theories
and cause them to perceive the disastrous consequences flowing therefrom
for themselves, and would so discredit Louis Blanc in their eyes that
he should forever cease to be a danger.”[95] The false reports which
were continually being circulated concerning the _ateliers nationaux_,
especially their unjust attribution to him, were a constant source of
annoyance to Louis Blanc. It is probable, however, that these falsehoods
have done more harm to the defenders of law and order than to the
socialists. The true state of the case is now generally known, and adds
bitterness to the minds of French and German laborers. The continual
circulation of the falsehood that Louis Blanc had tried his _ateliers
sociaux_ and they had failed, enabled Lassalle to begin an account
of them with the startling phrase: “Die Lüge ist eine europäische
Macht”—“Lying is one of the great powers of Europe.”[96]
Louis Blanc’s power was of short duration. Although he sacrificed his
popularity with the laborers in his endeavors to maintain peace and
order, he was accused of participation in their rising of May 15, and
fled to Belgium, thence to England, where he lived until the overthrow
of Napoleon III., in 1870. Louis Blanc was, on the whole, well received
in England, and maintained himself by literary work of various kinds.
He wrote an account of the Revolution of 1848, which was published in
two volumes, in 1870, in Paris. He was the English correspondent for the
great French newspaper _Le Temps_. His letters, interesting and valuable
essays on life in England, were published in four volumes in 1866 and
1867, in Paris, and in an English translation in London in the same
years.[97]
The 8th of September, 1870, witnessed his return to France, where he
labored for the Government of the National Defence. He was elected to the
National Assembly, February 8, 1871, and took his place on the extreme
Left. During the rising of the Commune of Paris he again lost popularity
with laborers of revolutionary sympathies, by opposing the insurrection
and taking the part of the Government of Versailles. The law of March 14,
1872, directed against the International Workingmen’s Association, even
found in him a supporter, although its severity is certainly extreme. It
was under this law that Prince Krapotkine was sentenced to five years’
imprisonment.
After his return to Paris Louis Blanc published a work on questions
of the time, entitled “Questions d’Aujourd’hui et de Demain.”[98] He
continued to advocate quietly his doctrines in behalf of oppressed
humanity, and had so gained in public estimation that upon his death, on
the 6th of December, 1882, in Cannes, France, the Chamber of Deputies
voted him the honor of a state funeral.[99]
Louis Blanc’s is a character which it is difficult to resist loving,
so frank, generous, simple, and whole-souled was he. If he erred, it
was largely because he attributed to others that warmth and devotion
for common interests which he experienced, and that high point of honor
which guided him. His tender solicitude and affection for his wife was
beautiful, while his love for his brother Charles, the writer on art,
has been celebrated far and wide. It is even said that his diminutive
size was due to his sacrifices in behalf of the younger brother, to whom
he gave the largest share of the lunch which they carried to school. A
sympathetic chord seemed to connect them, for when Charles was ill in
the summer of 1882, Louis, to whom the news had not been communicated,
said to his friends, “Charles is ill: he is in danger.” So it proved,
for Charles soon died. The affliction was a heavy blow to the surviving
brother, and probably hastened his own death, which happened only a few
months later. “Charles Blanc was a kind of complement to Louis. The
delicacy of his (Charles’s) intellectual nature was a source of ever-new
delight to the politician and man of the people, whose heart throbbed for
all the woes and wants of humanity, and whose life was devoted to action
rather than to the contemplation of art.”[100] This intimate affection
had been noticed long before, and Alexander Dumas had them in mind when
he wrote his “Les Frères Corses”—“The Corsican Brothers.”
Louis’s purity of character and his honesty of purpose were remarked
by every acquaintance. Mr. Smalley[101] applies to him what Emerson
said of Charles Sumner: “He was the whitest soul I ever knew:” and
continues: “If ever a man lived free from stain, it was he who has
just died. All his life long the fierce light of passionate political
and still more passionate social controversies beat upon him. He made
innumerable enemies; he was the object of innumerable calumnies. Not
one of his enemies hated the _man_, not one of the calumnies touched
his private worth.” Karl Blind, his friend, thus describes his personal
appearance: “A very small, but elegantly formed man; of almost Napoleonic
features, as may be common to many Corsicans; entirely beardless, which
was rare in the revolutionary days. The glance of his dark, prominent
eyes, brilliant, almost sparkling; his thick, dark-brown hair, long and
straight; the color of his countenance rather dark. Notwithstanding
his short figure—for he was not taller than Thiers—an impressive
appearance.”[102]
An examination of Louis Blanc’s social philosophy is best begun by asking
the question: what is in his opinion the aim of life? The answer to it
is the starting-point from which all his arguments proceed. Louis Blanc
finds the purpose of human existence to be happiness and development. Any
acceptable, any tolerable organization of society must make both possible
for every single human being. While development may come first, “it is
repugnant to reason to admit in the theory of progress that humanity
ought forever to be a victim of I do not know what strange and terrible
combat between the flesh and the spirit.”[103] But what does development
imply? It signifies that every one should enjoy precisely those means
which are required for his largest mental, moral, and physical growth;
or, to express it in a word, for the perfection of his personality. These
requirements are for each individual his _needs_. The next question
we have to ask is this: Does our present society guarantee to every
member of it his needs? If it does not, it must be condemned. Obviously
it does not. It is a war of all against all, a _bellum omnium contra
omnes_. It is a society whose fundamental principle is competition, and
competition means universal warfare. Every man’s hand is against his
brother. Individualism reigns, the principle of which is that, “taking
man outside of society, it renders him the sole and exclusive judge of
that which surrounds him, gives him an exalted sentiment of his rights
without indicating to him his duties, abandons him to his own powers,
and proclaims _laissez-faire_ as the only rule of government.”[104]
The result of this is want and misery, rendering the fulfilment of his
destiny impossible to man. This must be corrected by a new organization
of labor, which, abandoning individualism, private property, and private
competition, the fundamentals of existing society, shall adopt fraternity
as its controlling principle. “Fraternity means that we are all common
members (_membres solidaires_) of one great family; that society, the
work of man, ought to be organized on the model of the human body, the
work of God; and found the power of governing upon persuasion, upon the
voluntary consent of the hearts of the governed.”[105]
Let it not be objected that our aim, the abolition of misery, is
materialistic. “The most exalted spiritualism reposes on the suppression
of misery. Who does not know it? Misery restrains the intelligence of
man in darkness, in confining education within shameful limits. Misery
counsels always the sacrifice of personal dignity and almost always
demands it. Misery places him whose character is independent in a
position of dependence, so as to conceal a new torment in a virtue and
to change into gall what there is of nobility in his blood. If misery
creates long-suffering, it engenders also crime.... It makes slaves;
it makes the greater part of thieves, assassins and prostitutes.”[106]
The work before us is then eminently moral. It is the work which God
would have us do. In Louis Blanc’s own words: “In demanding that the
right to live should be regulated, should be guaranteed, one does much
more than demand that millions of unhappy beings should be rescued from
the oppression of force or of chance; one embraces, in its highest
generalization and in its most profound signification, the cause of
humanity; one greets the Creator in his labor. Whenever the certainty
of being able to live by one’s labor does not result from the essence
of social institutions, iniquity reigns.” The first step then is the
contrivance of means which shall guarantee to every one the certainty of
finding work _i.e._, the _droit au travail_. This must be accomplished
by the erection on the part of the state of social workshops, _ateliers
sociaux_, “destined to replace gradually and without shocks individual
_ateliers_.”[107] Violence of every kind is deprecated as injurious, as
productive of ruin.[108] The poor cannot now combine and produce for
themselves without the intervention of capitalists, because they lack
the instruments of labor. It is the function of the state to furnish
these and thus become the banker of the poor. It must found the _ateliers
sociaux_, pass laws for their government, watch over the administration
of these laws as of other laws, and do this for the profit of all.[109]
For the first year only the state regulates the “hierarchy of functions,”
that is to say, assigns to each one his place in accordance with his
ability, his faculties. After the expiration of the first year the
laborers will soon become acquainted with each other, and will then elect
their own chiefs.[110] This all requires funds. Whence are they to come?
The state is to grant its credit in aid of the _ateliers_, and for this
credit no interest is to be charged; it is to be gratuitous. The state
will repay the loans by general taxation and by the revenues derived from
the management of railways, which must become public property, and from
other public undertakings, as mines, insurances, and banking.[111]
The absorption of private industry will be gradual. The public _ateliers_
will all be united from the start into a grand federation, and will
form a mutual insurance company, so that the losses of one may be made
good by the profits of others. One part of all profits will be set aside
for this purpose.[112] Capitalists will at once be invited to join these
associations, and will be paid interest on whatever capital they put
into the _ateliers_, besides receiving their wages like other laborers.
While no one is to be forced by law to join the social workshops, the
competition of the _ateliers sociaux_, working without the payment of
interest and with all the advantages of a vast combination, will before
long become so severe that all private employers will be glad to fall in
line to save themselves from ruin. Then the socialistic state will have
been formed. It is for the interest of the rich as well as the poor. They
will then enjoy safety, tranquillity and the satisfaction of observing
universal happiness, whereas they are now harassed by all sorts of
dangers and anxieties, born of individualism and private competition.[113]
We have finally to inquire what is the principle in accordance with which
functions (positions, offices) and remuneration are distributed among the
workers in the _ateliers sociaux_? What is the ideal of social justice?
First, as to the social hierarchy, or social rank. Faculties, powers,
abilities, are of almost infinite variety in man. They are, however, all
talents meant to be used for others. Have I great strength? In giving
it to me God measured thereby my obligations to society. The same holds
regarding mental acumen, profundity of thought, poetic imagination,
a fine voice, etc. We must then be so placed that we can use to the
full our capacities. These are the measure of our rank in the ordering
of society. “Man has received of nature certain faculties—faculties of
loving, of knowing, of acting. But these have by no means been given
him in order that he should exercise them solitarily; they are but
the supreme indication of that which each one owes to the society of
which he is a member; and this indication each one bears written in his
organization in letters of fire. If you are twice as strong as your
neighbor it is a proof that nature has destined you to bear a double
burden.[114] If your intelligence is superior, it is a sign that your
mission is to scatter about you more light. Weakness is a creditor of
strength; ignorance of learning. The more a man _can_ (_peut_), the more
he _ought_ (_doit_); and this is the meaning of those beautiful words of
the gospel: ‘Whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant.’
Whence the axiom, _From every one according to his faculties_; that is
one’s DUTY.”[115]
But this is only one half of the formula of ideal justice. It shows what
each is to give. What is each to receive? We saw that the Saint-Simonians
constructed their social hierarchy in accordance with capacity. They
added, however, that reward must be proportioned to works. “To each one
according to his capacity, to each capacity according to its works.”
But is that a high moral standard? Ought we to complete our formula in
that way? Is it not selfish and hard? Would it not condemn the weak
and feeble to extinction? Has not God, in our wants, our needs, given
us a different indication? So thought Louis Blanc. Not equality, but
needs, are to determine the distribution of products. Each one must
have whatever he truly needs, in so far and in proportion as the means
of society will admit it. “All men are not equal in physical force,
in intelligence; all have not the same tastes, the same inclinations,
the same aptitudes, any more than they have the same visage or the
same figure; but it is just, it is in the general interest, it is in
conformity with the principle of solidarity, established in accordance
with the laws of nature, that each one should be placed in a condition to
derive the greatest possible advantage from his faculties in so far as
this can be done with due regard to others, and to satisfy as completely
as possible, without injuring others, the needs which nature has given
him. Thus there is no health and vigor in the human body unless each
member receives that which is able to preserve it from pain and to enable
it to accomplish properly its peculiar function. Equality, then, is only
proportionality, and it exists in a true manner only when each one in
accordance with the law written in some shape in his organization by God
himself, PRODUCES ACCORDING TO HIS FACULTIES AND CONSUMES ACCORDING TO
HIS WANTS.”[116] Here we have the formula of perfect justice complete.
We see, then, that Louis Blanc was not an _égalitaire_. He opposed
equality as unnatural and unjust.[117] He was, however, unwilling to
adopt works as a basis of inequality. It would, nevertheless, amount in
the end to pretty much the same, although the animating spirit might be
different. Who would occupy the superior positions in Louis Blanc’s ideal
state? Naturally the ablest, the largest natures. But those are precisely
the ones whose needs are greatest. The true wants of the ignorant day
laborer are simple and easily satisfied. Books tire him, grand music
wearies him, while he turns away uninterested from the greatest painting
of an old master. How different are the wants of a sensitive, refined
nature like Louis Blanc himself; how much larger, how much more expensive
to gratify! It is, indeed, pleasant to think of society as one vast
Christian family, in which each would gladly contribute to the common
good in proportion to his faculties, and in which all would cheerfully
accord to every member whatever he truly needed for his most perfect
development. But does the attempt to bring about such a state of society
take men as they are or presuppose them as they ought to be? It is truly
a glorious ideal! but will it ever become a reality this side of the
golden gates of Paradise?