The overthrow of the St. Simonian School at Paris was the point, as is well known, from which the prevalence of Fourierism commenced. With the failure of its external success, the whole of the St. Simonian School came to an end, both what was true in it and what was false. The person, who was the first, and that after a period of nearly twenty years, to take a lively interest in the ideas of Charles Fourier, was Just Muiron, who in the year 1814 attempted to apply them to the “Communal Comptoir.” He was sincere and devoted, but did not possess the qualities to promulgate and defend the new system of society. It could not succeed, unless a man was found, combining profound convictions with ardent zeal, and the gift of eloquence, demanded by new ideas in order to secure the attention of the public to the question proposed. Such a man was Victor Considerant. His education in Polytechnic school had accustomed him not merely to follow a rigid calculation but to appropriate its results as actual truths; the demonstration in figures for Fourier’s statements of the subversion of the present social institutions as regards the total production was not to be set aside.
It was then but a single step to the idea of an Agricultural Association leading to the practical side of Fourier’s theory. Considerant was convinced: he formed personal relations with Fourier himself; ideas were exchanged; and the chief points of the school, then in its infancy, were established. After Jules Lechevalier (now in exile in London) and Abel Transon were brought into the School, the former lecturing upon its principles in Paris and the other promulgating them by his pen, Considerant repaired to Metz, where he delivered a course on the theory of Fourier, and subsequently became one of the most active contributors to the Phalanstère or Réforme Industrielle, which appeared at the beginning of 1832.
After the failure of a practical experiment at the time of which Reybaud said “There was silence concerning Charles Fourier,” the chief of the later Associative School, took his stand with fresh energy at the head of affairs, collected the scattered remains, and opened a new epoch for the doctrine. Victor Considerant returned to Paris. Young, bold, a fervent and impulsive speaker, he could not persuade himself that the cause which he had embraced and professed as the faith of his whole life was doomed to go down so soon, and with so little effect. He went to work and wrote the book, from which the revival of the Social School is dated, the Destinée Sociale, Exposition Elementaire Complete de la Théorie Societaire. In this, he first of all takes hold of the present condition of Society, showing that the perversion of its institutions was the cause of all misery, and that there was no hope of solving the present problem but in a total transformation of Society. This work contains Fourier’s theory in a comprehensive shape, but surrounded and in fact penetrated by an acute and powerful criticism of the whole social industrial and political condition of France. Considerant thus started the Social School anew, and from him dates the progressive importance of Fourierism.
On the 11th of Dec., 1835, he delivered before the “Congress Historique” his celebrated lecture on the “True position of Fourierism in respect to the Religious and Philosophical Convictions of the Time” which he afterwards sent forth from the press, and which, at that time, caused so much sensation. The Gazette de France and the Univers attacked it with extreme violence. The discussion was pervaded by the spirit of progress, without being absolutely tied down to the dogmas of Fourier’s School. This direction has (been) always maintained by Considerant, and it is this which (has) gained an always increasing number of adherents from among the best youthful intellects to the higher and more abstract portions of social science. Entering upon this field, it contains a germ, which, though still at a distance from its true development, is alone able to secure its future.
Not less important is the second side, which the Social School presents in relation to the times. By the Revolution of July, not merely the political conditions, but also the political consciousness of the French people was thrown into confusion on all sides. Each man followed only himself, claiming the liberty to enforce his convictions by every variety of method. Thus arose the secret unions of Republicans and Communists, amidst the public relations of the ever-changing struggle of parties, which were soon turned into factions, vying with each other for possession of power. Nowhere was peace, nowhere security—the most important interests neglected for questions of party—The welfare of the country was notoriously turned into a game. Disturbances arose at several points, as at Paris, Lyons, Muhlhausen. Then the public sentiment gradually began to react against these merely political movements and to become weary of them. People no longer wanted Revolution, and addressed themselves to other problems. The idea of material welfare emerged from the back ground, presenting its claims in opposition to political movements. But those who took up this direction were in want of an organ, possessing an independent life, and a representative of material necessities among the new parties demanding a Republic, Legitimacy, a Constitution and the Press. For such a position no one was better fitted than the Social School which has always acknowledged the principle that the improvement of the social condition was the true problem of the time without also perceiving the impossibility of such an improvement except in a free political State. Here also Considerant became a leading spokesman, taking his stand for the first time in decided opposition both to the Liberals and Conservatives, who displayed no other desire than to see an exclusive form of Government with a place in it for themselves. Considerant had found the points, which were sought by the general demand for criticism and system, and took possession of them in the name of Fourier. But we must here do justice to the elastic spirit of the school, which is by no means inclined to entrench itself under the dogmas of a master—it acknowledges the possibility of progress, the necessity of measuring with its principles the events of the day, and fairly uniting all in every field. Considerant was the first who gave this political direction to the Social School, which enabled it on a sudden to take such a strong stand at the side of the social parties in 1848, not merely as a theoretical school but as a political power.
The career of Considerant from that time is too well known to those who have watched the social movements of the last three or four years, to need any comment in this place. It is sufficient to have maintained his early influence in respect to the social movements of the last ten years. His observations in the United States will still more forcibly show him the importance of combining political action with social aspirations, since the conviction will be forced upon him that there is no well-founded hope of a possible realization except in a democratic State.[14]
Albert Brisbane of New York was the third man who took a great deal of interest in the establishment of La Réunion. He was Considerant’s chief lieutenant in America, and was also a disciple of Fourier. Brisbane had studied the works of Hegel, St. Simon, and other great social leaders while in Germany and finally, by mere chance, came upon the writings of Fourier. He soon returned to Paris where he placed himself under the direct teachings of the master, to whom he paid five francs per lesson for personal instruction.[15] Here, at the same time, he also became acquainted with Considerant and was closely associated with him and his group. The part of the doctrine which appealed to Brisbane is explained in his own words as follows:
First his idea of attractive industry, bearing directly on the material interest of men. The idea that the productive labors of mankind—those of agriculture, mining, manufacturing, etc.—now so repulsive, so monotonous, so wearing to mind and body, and so degrading to those engaged in them, can be dignified and rendered attractive certainly appears on the surface one of the most chimerical. Still, Fourier did not undertake to do this by any abstract, imaginative means, by persuasion or appeals to moral duties; his process is an entirely new and practical organization of those labors. It is by a minute division of their details; by convenient and labor-saving machinery; by healthy, even elegant workshops, where a certain refinement could be introduced, and scientific thought combined with the pursuit of industry; by short sessions of labor, and the prosecutions of all of its branches by groups of persons united in taste and in sympathy of character, thus bringing the play of the sentiments into industry, and identifying the social and productive life of man; lastly, by a clear appreciation on the part of humanity of the importance of these labors as regards their influence on the cultivation of the globe, and through that cultivation, on the whole economy of the planet, its climates, etc.[16]
After his return from Europe in 1839, Brisbane began propaganda for Fourierism, and by the latter part of that year had won several adherents, the most important of whom was Horace Greeley. Brisbane and Greeley started a paper in New York, called the Future, which lasted only a few weeks. When the paper suspended publication, Brisbane began a column in Greeley’s newly organized Tribune. Brisbane soon withdrew from this assignment and went to the Chronicle which he began to edit, and at the same time, wrote articles for other publications.[17]
The propaganda had great success; the repercussion, however, fell heavily upon Brisbane. Various interests, especially those who saw in socialism an enemy to established customs, began to attack him severely. In his memoirs, Brisbane writes concerning the public attitude toward him at this time as follows:
Gradually, I came to be considered as an atheist, and advocate of theories subversive of all morality; as a fomentor of war between classes, and what not. No color was too black in which to paint my character. For a while I endeavored to defend myself, but the attacks were so varied, the blows came from so many quarters at once, that I soon felt the impossibility of meeting them and gave it up. Bowing to the necessity of things, I accepted the reputation thus made for me.[18]
Not only was he attacked editorially, but on some occasions he would have suffered bodily harm if he had not escaped.[19] Socialism was too new and the principles were too little known for an adherent to have an unbiased hearing in a country seething with nationalism, and in a country where political demagogues would not hesitate to appeal to any prejudice that they might discover in an ignorant people.
Brisbane was a remarkable man who really felt the necessity of revamping the institutions of the world. He was interested in the most minute details of social and economic life; for instance, he writes, “Women ... are absorbed in a monotonous repetition of the trivial degrading occupations of the kitchen and the needle;—degrading because they have to be so continually repeated and on so small a scale.”[20] Moreover, he thought the labor of children under the present system was entirely wasted because of the petty amount of their task. To overcome such “smallness” of chores, he advocated that separate households be abolished and associations of households be created instead. Thus, woman would have time to help produce the material necessities of life and be an equal to man. Such an idea of combinations, Brisbane thought, could be applied to all industries and especially to that of agriculture. There are only two methods to be followed he believed: the incoherent or the combined. In his book, Social Destiny of Man, or Associations and Reorganization of Industry, with the impulse of a fanatic and the learning of a philosopher, he weighs the merits of one against the merits of the other, always with prejudice in favor of the “combined.” With provocative thought and earnest application he creates a favorable impression for “associations” or “combines.” Speaking of agricultural associations, he says,
It is above all in precautions against fire and other accidental waste, that the profits (of the Association) become colossal. All measures of public security are impracticable with three hundred families, some being too poor to take necessary precautions, others too careless or indifferent. We frequently hear of a whole town being consumed by the imprudence of a single family. Precautions against insects, rats, etc. become illusive also, because there is no joint action between these families. If by great care one farmer destroys the rats in his granaries he is soon assailed by those of the neighboring farms and fields, that have not been cleared of them, for the want of a system of general co-operation, impossible with the present diversity of interest.[21]
Therefore, reasons the writer, not only in the matter of fire protection, but in every other form of agricultural work, the advantages of the Fourieristic principle of association are evident, and within the near future all activities must be carried on in such combination of various groups.