BETWEEN the hundred-headed hydra, division of labor, and the unconquered dragon, machinery, what will become of humanity? A prophet has said it more than two thousand years ago: Satan looks on his victim, and the fires of war are kindled, Aspexit gentes, et dissolvit.To save us from two scourges, famine and pestilence, Providence sends us discord.
Competition represents that philosophical era in which, a semi- understanding of the antinomies of reason having given birth to the art of sophistry, the characteristics of the false and the true were confounded, and in which, instead of doctrines, they had nothing but deceptive mental tilts.Thus the industrial movement faithfully reproduces the metaphysical movement;
the history of social economy is to be found entire in the writings of the philosophers.Let us study this interesting phase, whose most striking characteristic is to take away the judgment of those who believe as well as those who protest.
1.-- Necessity of competition.
M.Louis Reybaud, novelist by profession, economist on occasion, breveted by the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences for his anti-reformatory caricatures, and become, with the lapse of time, one of the writers most hostile to social ideas, -- M.Louis Reybaud, whatever he may do, is none the less profoundly imbued with these same ideas: the opposition which he thus exhibits is neither in his heart nor in his mind; it is in the facts.
In the first edition of his "Studies of Contemporary Reformers," M.
Reybaud, moved by the sight of social sufferings as well as the courage of these founders of schools, who believed that they could reform the world by an explosion of sentimentalism, had formally expressed the opinion that the surviving feature of all their systems was ASSOCIATION.M.Dunoyer, one of M.Reybaud's judges, bore this testimony, the more flattering to M.Reybaud from being slightly ironical in form:
M.Reybaud, who has exposed with so much accuracy and talent, in a book which the French Academy has crowned, the vices of the three principal reformatory systems, holds fast to the principle common to them, which serves as their base, -- association.Association in his eyes, he declares, is the greatest problem of modern times.It is called, he says, to solve that of the distribution of the fruits of labor.Though authority can do nothing towards the solution of this problem, association could do everything.
M.Reybaud speaks here like a writer of the phalansterian school....
M.Reybaud had advanced a little, as one may see.Endowed with too much good sense and good faith not to perceive the precipice, he soon felt that he was straying, and began a retrograde movement.I do not call this about-
face a crime on his part: M.Reybaud is one of those men who cannot justly be held responsible for their metaphors.He had spoken before reflecting, he retracted: what more natural! If the socialists must blame any one, let it be M.Dunoyer, who had prompted M.Reybaud's recantation by this singular compliment.
M.Dunoyer was not slow in perceiving that his words had not fallen on closed ears.He relates, for the glory of sound principles, that, "in a second edition of the `Studies of Reformers,' M.Reybaud has himself tempered the absolute tone of his expressions.He has said, instead of could do everything, could do much."
It was an important modification, as M.Dunoyer brought clearly to his notice, but it still permitted M.Reybaud to write at the same time:
These symptoms are grave; they may be considered as prophecies of a confused organization, in which labor would seek an equilibrium and a regularity which it now lacks....At the bottom of all these efforts is hidden a principle, association, which it would be wrong to condemn on the strength of irregular manifestations.
Finally M.Reybaud has loudly declared himself a partisan of competition, which means that he has decidedly abandoned the principle of association.
For if by association we are to understand only the forms of partnership fixed by the commercial code, the philosophy of which has been summarized for us by MM.Troplong and Delangle, it is no longer worth while to distinguish between socialists and economists, between one party which seeks association and another which maintains that association exists.
Let no one imagine, because M.Reybaud has happened to say heedlessly yes and no to a question of which he does not seem to have yet formed a clear idea, that I class him among those speculators of socialism, who, after having launched a hoax into the world, begin immediately to make their retreat, under the pretext that, the idea now belonging to the public domain, there is nothing more for them to do but to leave it to make its way.M.Reybaud, in my opinion, belongs rather to the category of dupes, which includes in its bosom so many honest people and people of so much brains.M.Reybaud will remain, then, in my eyes, the vir probus dicendi peritus, the conscientious and skilful writer, who may easily be caught napping, but who never expresses anything that he does not see or feel.
Moreover, M.Reybaud, once placed on the ground of economic ideas, would find the more difficulty in being consistent with himself because of the clearness of his mind and the accuracy of his reasoning.I am going to make this curious experiment under the reader's eyes.
