SOCIALISM IN FRANCE SINCE PROUDHON.
The last thirty years of the history of France constitute an unfruitful
period in the development of socialism. They have been years of dearth,
following in the wake of an equal number of plenteous years. There has
arisen during all this time no developed communistic or socialistic
system in France. The French socialism of to-day may be traced to three
sources—viz., pure dissatisfaction with existing economic life, previous
French speculations, like those of Proudhon and Fourier, and present
German theories.
A diligent search continued for some time convinced me several years ago
that there was little new or original in the ideas of the living leaders
of socialistic movements in France. Since then I have come across three
confirmations of this view in as many writers. Rudolf Meyer, a German,
in his “Emancipations-Kampf des Vierten Standes,” says: “Since Proudhon,
France has produced no socialists of importance.”[140] Frederic Harrison,
an Englishman, in an article in the _Fortnightly Review_ on “The French
Workmen’s Congress of 1878,” uses these words to express his view of
existing French socialism: “The first impression conveyed is this, that
communism, or, indeed, any systematic socialism, is entirely extinct in
France.”[141] A French socialist writes rather regretfully, “The second
remark is that we, the young generation of socialists, have discovered
little in the domain of theory. We live almost exclusively upon the
thoughts of our predecessors.”[142]
New life has, however, been manifested within the last year or two among
French socialists, and if they are not discovering new theories, they are
making large use of the studies of others. There is also a considerable
class whose communism, or socialism, whichever you call it, does not
get beyond the purely negative state of complaint. It is like a cry of
distress, like “blind yearnings for light—like the voice of one crying,
‘Watchman, what of the night? Will the night soon pass?’”[143] Those of
this class condemn our present society with unmeasured severity, but they
are unable to suggest plans for a better. They are groping about blindly
for a guide who shall lead them in their endeavors to realize the ideal
of the French device, “liberty, equality, fraternity.” If you purchase
at hap-hazard a French socialistic paper, you will very likely find in
it only murmurings, repinings, and bitter accusations against existing
institutions, ravings and outcries as incoherent as Carlyle’s collection
of exclamations which he calls the “History of the French Revolution.”
Perhaps Louise Michel and Felix Pyat ought to be classed among the
adherents of this group.
We may roughly divide the remaining communists and socialists of France
into three classes—viz., the Blanquists, the Anarchists, and the
Collectivists.
The Blanquists are followers of the late Auguste Blanqui (1805-1881),
brother of Adolphe Blanqui, the political economist. Their principle
of action is to join hands under the leadership of some man, for the
negative work of pulling down existing economic institutions. They
come forward with no programme for reconstruction, because that would
be likely to disunite them, and it is as yet too early for positive
plans for the new society to be built on the ruins of the old. There
is a certain monarchical element in their operations, inasmuch as
they expect their adherents to follow the leader or leaders, without
knowing precisely whither they are going, but with confidence in the
guiding spirit. Leadership and agitation without a programme are both
unpopular with most modern socialists, and the Blanquists do not count
a large number of adherents. They are, however, active, courageous, and
irreconcilable. They are “intransigentes,” who will make no compromise
with our present institutions. Their leader is Eudes,[144] a member of
the Committee of Public Safety at the time of the rising of the commune.
The title of a paper which they published for some time indicates the
fierceness of their disposition. It was “Ni Dieu ni Maître”—“Neither God
nor Master.” Among its contributors Cournet, Breuillé, and Granger are
named. The paper has ceased to appear for lack of patronage, and they are
now compelled to make propaganda orally by conversation and by speeches.
It cannot be said that they differ from the other groups of socialists in
their attitude of defiance towards God and religion, and perhaps they do
not in this respect differ so widely as is supposed from a large number
of French and German political leaders and thinkers. It must be fairly
stated that their opposition to religion has no logical connection with
their socialistic views. On the contrary, it is as illogical for them
to reject Christianity as anything well could be. The French social
reformers of about 1850 perceived this. At that time, if one had visited
the assembly rooms of a communistic or socialistic society in Paris, he
would in all probability have found there a picture of Christ, with these
words written under it, “Jesus of Nazareth, the First Representative of
the People.”[145]
The anarchists are also a small but determined band. Their leading
representatives are Prince Krapotkine, a Russian by birth, and Elisée
Reclus, the celebrated geographer. Émile Gautier, Bernard, and Bordat,
who, like Krapotkine, were sentenced to five years’ imprisonment at the
Lyons trial, January 19, 1883, for connection with the International
Association of Laborers, are also prominent anarchists. Although their
programme may be found almost word for word in Proudhon, they profess
to follow more closely Bakounine, the Russian nihilist, who separated
himself from Marx and the Internationals, and formed secret societies in
Spain, Switzerland, France, and elsewhere, and thus propagated nihilistic
views; for anarchy and nihilism are pretty much one and the same thing
when nihilism is understood in the older, stricter sense, which does
not include, as it does in a larger and more modern sense, those who
are simply political and constitutional reformers.[146] Like Prince
Krapotkine, Bakounine came of an old and prominent Russian family; like
him, he revolted against the cruelties and injustices he saw about him;
like him, he despaired of peaceful reform, and concluded that no great
improvement could be expected until all our present political, economic,
and social institutions were so thoroughly demolished that of the old
structure not one stone should be left on another. Out of the ruins a
regenerated world might arise. We must be purged as by fire. Like all
anarchists and true nihilists, he was a thorough pessimist, as far as
our present manner of life was concerned. Reaction against conservatism
carried him very far. He wished to abolish private property, state, and
inheritance. Equality is to be carried so far that all must wear the same
kind of clothing, no difference being made even for sex. Religion is an
aberration of the brain, and should be abolished.[147]
Fire, dynamite, and assassination are approved of by at least a large
number of the party. They are brave men, and fight for their faith with
the devotion of martyrs. Imprisonment and death are counted but as
rewards.
Their press is comparatively insignificant. Their principal newspaper
appears to be the _Révolté_, a small paper published at Geneva since
1879. A paper was, a few years ago, published in their interests at
Verviers, Belgium, with the characteristic title, _The Cry of the People_
(_Le Cri du Peuple_). It lasted only a little over a year, its final
number appearing on the 21st of June, 1879, and containing this sentence,
among many similar: “Yes, we applaud all the executions made by the
Russian nihilists, and wish that their propaganda might extend itself
over the whole earth.”
Forty-seven anarchists signed a declaration of principles, which was read
by one of their number at their trial at Lyons. It was substantially as
follows:
“The anarchists are citizens who, in an age when one preaches
everywhere the liberty of opinions, have believed it their duty
to recommend unlimited liberty.
“Our only merit consists in speaking out openly what the masses
are thinking. We are several millions of laborers, who wish
absolute liberty, and nothing but liberty.
“We wish liberty—that is to say, we demand for every human
being the right and the means of doing that which pleases
him, and of doing only that which pleases him; to satisfy
integrally all his wants, without any other limits than natural
impossibilities and the wants of neighbors equally respectable.
“We wish liberty, and we believe its existence incompatible
with the existence of any power whatsoever, whatever its
origin and form—whether it be elected or imposed, monarchical
or republican—whether inspired by divine right or by popular
right, by anointment or universal suffrage.
“The best governments are the worst.
“The evil, in other terms, in the eyes of the anarchists, does
not reside in one form of government more than in another;
it is in the idea of government itself, in the principle of
authority.
“The substitution, in a word, in human relations, OF FREE
CONTRACT, perpetually _revisable_ and _dissoluble_, is our
ideal.
“The anarchists propose to teach the people how to get along
without government, as they already begin to learn how to get
along without God.
“They will learn, likewise, how to get along without
property-holders.
“No liberty without equality! No liberty in a society where
the capital is centralized in the hands of a minority, which
continually grows smaller.
“We believe that capital—the common patrimony of humanity,
since it is the fruit of the co-operation of contemporaneous
generations—ought to be placed at the service of all.
“We wish, in a word, equality—equality in fact, as corollary
or rather as primordial condition of liberty. From each one
according to his faculties, to each one according to his needs:
that is what we wish sincerely, energetically.
“Wicked and insane as people call us, we demand bread for all,
science for all, work for all; for all, also, independence and
justice.”[148]
The anarchists believe in a kind of collectivism. Their ideal consists of
independent communes united very loosely in a confederation. Of course,
the confederation has no powers save such as are voluntarily granted it
by each individual and during the time which it may please him to grant
them. It is no government. It is simply combined action. There are groups
and confederations within the communes based on similar principles.
The collectivists are French socialists and social democrats, who have
adopted the views of the Germans, chiefly of Marx and Lassalle. Their
opinions we will then discuss under the head of German socialism. It
is here only necessary to give evidence of the fact that they build on
German foundations; to mention their organizations and a few of their
leaders.
If French expositions of collectivism are examined, it will be found that
constant references are made to the German socialists and citations
taken from their writings. Thus Malon, himself a collectivist, cites
Depaepe’s presentation of international collectivism—and pretty much all
collectivism and social democracy are to-day international; and Depaepe,
in the passage quoted, states plainly that he has only given a more or
less perfect _résumé_ of Marx and Lassalle.[149] The French socialist
who wrote the article for the _London Times_ on French socialists, to
which reference has already been made, mentions familiarly the names
of Schäffle, Marx, and Lassalle. Émile de Laveleye, in his article
in the _Fortnightly Review_ on the “European Terror,”[150] follows
Schäffle’s “Quintessence of Socialism” in explaining the system of the
collectivists, and Schäffle simply presents German social democracy at
its best. The international spirit of social democracy was illustrated in
the marriage of two of Marx’s daughters to two French socialists, Longuet
and Lafargue, the latter of whom translated his work, “Das Kapital,” into
French.
The collectivists are divided into two branches—the evolutionist
collectivists and the revolutionary collectivists.
The evolutionist collectivists do not reject reform as a possible
substitute for revolution. While they do not claim to be able to say that
a social revolution will never be necessary, they recognize the fact
that a change of the economic forms of society is a matter of growth and
evolution, and are willing to approach the socialistic state by degrees.
A writer much in vogue with them is Colins, a Belgian, who advocated the
nationalization of land. His two chief works, “Qu’est-ce que la Science
Sociale?”—“What is Social Science?”—and “L’Économie Politique,” were
published between 1848 and 1857. A number of millionnaires belong to this
group of collectivists, and a society has been formed to publish and
disseminate the works of Colins. It is said that 40,000 francs have been
subscribed for this purpose.
Colins favored these four measures as a transition from private property
in land to its nationalization:
“1. Abolition of collateral inheritances.
“2. Proclamation of the liberty of bequest.
“3. A tax of twenty-five per centum upon all inheritances.
“4. Enlightenment of the masses, so that they shall soon demand
the collectivity of the soil, or, as the English say, the
nationalization of land.”[151]
Collectivists of this group are called “Possibilists” and “Opportunists,”
on account of their temporizing inclinations. Although M. de Laveleye
states that they are gaining favor with the laborers as opposed to the
Irreconcilables, they have few leaders, or, at any rate, talkers of
note. On occasion of the election at Belleville, when a deputy was to be
elected to replace Gambetta, the evolutionist collectivists nominated a
respectable mechanic by the name of J. B. Dumay. He was not, however,
elected.
The revolutionary collectivists, also called Marxists, are divided
into two factions, owing to personal rivalries. These are called the
“Fédération du Centre,” among whom are Jules Guesde, Paul Lafargue, Émile
Massard, and Gabriel Deville; and the “Union Fédérative,” among whom
are B. Malon, author of the work which I have several times cited; Paul
Brousse, and Joffrin, a municipal councillor, who recently demanded of
the council the execution of a large number of socialistic measures, like
the erection of city workshops (_ateliers municipaux_) to furnish work to
the unemployed, the establishment of bakeries and meat-markets in order
to sell provisions at a moderate price, and the construction of houses to
be let to laborers at cost price.
At the time when Dumay was candidate at Belleville for the place in the
Chamber of Deputies which Gambetta’s death left vacant, the revolutionary
collectivists nominated Jules Guesde, who received only a small number
of votes. He issued, however, an electoral programme, which is valuable
as an authentic statement of principles approved by his party at several
different congresses between 1879 and 1882. It is as follows:
“_Considering_: That the emancipation of the productive class
is that of all human beings, without distinction of sex or
race; that the producers can never be free until they are in
possession of the means of production (lands, factories, ships,
banks, credit, etc.); that there are only two forms under which
the means of production can belong to them:
“1. The individual form, which has never existed as a general
and universal fact, and which is being eliminated more and more
by industrial progress;
“2. The collective form, whose material and intellectual
elements are furnished by the very development of capitalistic
society:—
“_Considering_: That this collective appropriation can result
only from the revolutionary action of the productive class—or
the _proletariat_—organized as a distinct political party; that
such an organization ought to be pursued by all the means at
the disposal of the _proletariat_, universal suffrage included,
and thus transformed from an instrument of injury, as it has
hitherto been, into an instrument of emancipation—the French
socialistic laborers, in proclaiming as their end the political
and economic expropriation of the class of capitalists, and the
return into the collective form of all the means of production,
have decided, as the means of organizing the conflict, to enter
into the elections with the following demands:
“A. POLITICAL PROGRAMME.
“1. The abolition of all laws concerning the press, assemblies,
and associations, and especially the law against the
‘International Association of Workmen,’ suppression of the
workman’s book,[152] this registration of the laboring class,
and of all articles of the code establishing the inferiority of
the laborer _vis-à-vis_ his employer and of the inferiority of
woman _vis-à-vis_ man.
“2. Suppression of religious appropriations, and the return to
the nation of all property designated by the term _mortmain_
(_Decree of the Commune_ of April 2, 1871)....
“3. Suppression of the public debt.
“4. Abolition of standing armies, and the establishment of a
militia system to include all the people.
“5. The establishment of the freedom of the Commune as regards
its administration and its police.
“B. ECONOMIC PROGRAMME.
“1. One day of rest in seven; eight hours to constitute a day’s
labor for adults; prohibition of the labor of children under
fourteen in private establishments, and the reduction of their
labor to six hours a day between fourteen and eighteen.
“2. A protecting ‘surveillance’ of apprentices by corporations
of laborers.
“3. A legal minimum of wages, determined each year according
to the local price of provisions, by a statistical commission
composed of laborers.
“4. Legal prohibition of the right to employ foreign laborers
with smaller wages than those given to Frenchmen.
“5. Equal wages for equal work for laborers of both sexes.
“6. Free instruction in science, trades, and professions.
“7. Support of the aged and infirm by the public.
“8. Suppression of all interference of employers in the
management of funds destined for the benefit of laborers.
“9. Responsibility of employers for accidents to their
employees.
“10. Participation of laborers in the establishment of rules
and laws for different shops; suppression of the right of
employers to impose fines and penalties upon laborers.
“11. Annulment of all contracts which have alienated public
property (banks, railroads, mines, etc.), and the management of
all state-workshops by laborers employed therein.
“12. Abolition of all indirect taxes, and the transformation of
all direct taxes into a progressive tax on incomes exceeding
3000 francs; suppression of all collateral inheritances, and of
inheritances in direct line exceeding 20,000 francs.”[153]
Clovis Hugues, mentioned as “unclassed,” is a collectivist deputy. It
is stated, however, that he has announced his intention of leaving
the party, on account of the tyranny with which they have attempted
to control him in every step. Joffrin refused to attend Louis Blanc’s
funeral, as he held that he had proved false to the laborers in 1871.
Hugues, an old friend of Blanc’s, attended, and was reproved for this,
whereupon he indignantly declared the above-mentioned intention,
maintaining that Louis Blanc was an honorable, high-minded man, and a
true friend of the laborer.
De Laveleye believes that a majority of French workmen are socialists,
while Malon confidently speaks of the socialists as forming the _élite_
of the _proletariat_. The latter states their views and tendencies at the
present time in the following language: “We have rejected all religious
regenerations, whether they are called New Catholic, New Christian,
pantheistic, or theo-humanitarian; and we have accepted every scientific
demonstration, however much opposed it might be to the previous order of
our conceptions.
“We have recognized that the social and intellectual world, like the
physical world, are governed by natural laws, and are subject to
relations of succession and similitude independent of our personal
intervention. We have admitted that our will itself is determined by
natural laws which, it may not break.
“This has given us larger views, and especially has taught us to seek in
a _terrestrial_ future the ideal which is at the basis of every human
nature.
“We have acquired a more profound knowledge of the laws which govern
social phenomena. We know that as our human nature is essentially capable
of modification and perfection, so social phenomena and industrial
phenomena, being based thereon, are modifiable in large degree, and we
labor to modify them as much as possible.”[154]