in his “social movements in france”[64] lorenz von stein uses these words, in comparing saint-simon and fourier: “while saint-simon was sacrificing his life in paris in his efforts to attain an unknown and only vaguely conjectured goal, and while his school was struggling against foes from within and without, there lived in another part of france a man who, without knowing saint-simon, was taking an essentially different route towards the same goal. this man was charles fourier.... never has any land at the same time produced two men of such importance in the history of society.”[65]
these two men together constitute one whole. each was required as a complement of the other. the one started in his career as a man of wealth and social eminence, the other as a man of the people. the one observed society, studied its history, its development, and sought to find therein a clew to guide him in his work of regenerating the world, morally and economically; the other, regarding the past as such a series of blunders as to afford no proper basis for future formations, searched the depths of his own[82] consciousness, and discovered a law which furnished premises, enabling him to construct deductively an ideal and perfect society, and to explain with mathematical accuracy the past, present, and future of the entire universe.
saint-simon was a man of impulse and feeling; fourier was a man of the understanding and logic. the former founded a religion; the latter a science.
charles fourier was born in 1772 in besan?on. he came of an ordinary family and represented the middle-class. his father was a cloth-merchant in his native city, and he himself spent the greater part of his life in mercantile pursuits of one kind or another. fourier seems to have been a bright boy, for when only eleven years of age he took prizes for excellence in french and latin. he liked the study of geography, spending a considerable part of his pocket-money for maps and globes, and was passionately fond of music and flowers. it is said that he was himself a good musician. his mechanical ability was remarkable enough to attract attention at an early period in his life. as a commercial traveller he visited germany and holland, and was thus able to gratify his desire to see the world. upon the death of his father, he inherited about one hundred thousand francs at an early age, invested the money in foreign trade, and lost it in the siege of lyons in 1793, during the reign of terror, when his bales of cotton were used to form barricades and his provisions to feed the soldiers. but fourier’s misfortunes did not end here. he was taken prisoner, and kept in confinement for some time, expecting daily to be led forth to execution. release, however, enabled him to join the army, for which he had some taste. it is, indeed, stated that he was able to make suggestions[83] concerning military operations which were followed to advantage by his superiors. but ill-health obliged him to retire from the army at the expiration of two years, and return to a business life.
fourier was never greatly prospered, nor did he ever, so far as i know, give evidence of ability to achieve a large amount of worldly success. in this he was unlike almost every other great communist or socialist. however, it must be acknowledged that his mind was from childhood engaged with other thoughts than the means of acquiring wealth, so that we are scarcely in a position to say what he might have done in this direction if he had devoted himself heartily to business. it is certain that to him the words idler and bungler do not apply, and that he had no desire to fork out his penny and pocket another’s shilling. on the contrary, it was to give, and not receive, that he desired. this trait of all large souls was manifested in a touching way when he was a small boy. there came one morning to the door of his father’s house a poor cripple, asking if little charles was ill. when he was told that charles was not ill, but had left the city, he burst into tears. inquiry disclosed the fact that while on his way to school, and without the knowledge of others, the little fellow had every day given half of his lunch to the poor man.
two events occurring to fourier in early life led him to a train of thought which ended in his condemnation of the economic organization of society as a disastrous failure.
when he was five years of age he proved himself an enfant terrible by telling the truth in an innocent and childlike manner to some customers, about certain goods in his father’s shop; and for this he was punished.[84] the falsehood which his father or some person connected with the shop was accustomed to tell the customers appears to have been one of the kind common in some parts of the mercantile world, and which many might to-day regard as not very sinful—as not worse, at any rate, than the white lies of society.
the other incident occurred when he was nineteen years of age. he was connected with a business house in marseilles, and was required to assist in throwing overboard rice, which his employer had kept for speculative purposes and had allowed to remain in the hold of a ship until it was spoiled. prices were high, owing to a famine, and it was feared they would fall if the rice were thrown on the market. young fourier argued that a system which forced children to lie and men to allow food needed by hungry people to rot must be radically defective.
he began to elaborate a social scheme which should promote truth, honesty, economy of resources, and the development of our natural propensities. this became the one aim of his life. he constructed an ideal world, and in this he ever lived. association with its imaginary creatures was his company; the fancy that he had benefited them was his consolation in adversity, and the unwavering belief that the creations of his brain were good, enabled him to persevere to the end. yet at times he must have felt the severity of his struggle against self and the world. he had published[66] what he considered a weighty work, “la théorie des quatre mouvements,” containing a prospectus and an outline of his system, five years before he found even one supporter. think what that means![85] a reformer presents to mankind plans which he knows will save men from poverty, selfishness, hypocrisy, corruption, intrigue, deceit, crime, and all manner of misfortune and wickedness, and for five years his projects are not so much as noticed. like luther of old, he offers to maintain his theses against all comers, and no one thinks it worth while to engage in the controversy. the sufferings of humanity pain his large heart, but year after year slips by and brings not one sympathizer, not one helper, in his endeavors to save the world. it is easy to speak the words “five years,” but such a period has often seemed endless to those who have been obliged to live it.
fourier’s first supporter was not such a one as he desired to promote his plans. slowly others came, but he never had a large following. he wrote to robert owen, the english communist, but received no encouragement, while the saint-simonians treated him with contempt. he did not desire so much the adherence of personal disciples as men of property, who could enable him to make a trial of his scheme; for he thought the practical workings of one experiment would convince the world. he announced publicly that he would be at home every day at noon to meet any one disposed to furnish a million francs for an establishment based on the principles which he had published, and it is said that for twelve years he repaired to his house daily at the appointed hour. the philanthropist whom he awaited never came. only one experiment was made in his lifetime. in 1832 a member of the chamber of deputies offered an estate near versailles as the basis of an association, and the offer was accepted by a few converts. fourier was never satisfied with the management, which[86] seems to have been defective, and the experiment soon failed.
fourier died at the age of sixty-five, without having had the satisfaction of seeing any decided measures taken for the realization of his plans. he had, however, succeeded in gaining the appreciation and friendship of a number of followers, and he passed his last days in the enjoyment of every comfort.
his tombstone bears this characteristic inscription, expressive of his faith and his hope:
“les attractions sont proportionnelles aux destinées,
la série distribue les harmonies.”
fourier wrote three works of importance. the first is the one already mentioned, “la théorie des quatre mouvements et des destinées générales”—“the theory of the four movements and the general destinies”—published in 1808. the four movements were social, animal, organic, and material, giving us society, animal life, organic life, and the material world. the object is to show that one law, that of attraction, governs them all. newton discovered the law of one movement, the material; fourier, that this same law of attraction pervaded all four movements. this discovery prepared the way for the most astonishing and most fortunate event which could happen to this globe—viz., “the sudden passage from social chaos to universal harmony.”[67] this work was considered incomplete by fourier himself, and the fantastic notions and ridiculous prophecies contained in it were the subject of so much ridicule and criticism[87] that for a long time he would not mention the book, and was unwilling to hear others speak of it. when he was afterwards urged to republish it he refused, saying that it contained errors, and he should be obliged to rewrite it, to make it satisfactory to himself.[68]
fourier’s chief work was his “traité de l’association domestique agricole ou attraction industrielle”—“treatise on domestic rural association or industrial attraction”—published subsequently in his complete works under the title of “la théorie de l’unité universelle”[69]—“the theory of universal unity.” the first edition appeared in 1822. the fourteen years between the appearance of the “théorie des quatre mouvements” and the “traité de l’association” were passed in meditation, in revolving and evolving plans in his mind.
he worked out a complete philosophy in the “traité.” his system not only included man and the earth, but the heavens above and the waters under the earth. his scientific notions were crude in the extreme. nature was composed of eternal and indestructible principles—of god, active and moving principle; of matter, passive principle; and of justice or mathematics, the regulating principle of the universe, to which god himself was subject. one of the most curious features of fourier’s system is the use he makes of figures. pythagoras himself did not attach more importance to them. they revealed to him hitherto undisclosed secrets, so that he was able to give a precise answer to any conceivable question.[88] they enabled him to prophesy. he foresaw that the existence of the human race on this earth was to continue until it completed a period of eighty thousand years. this period is divided into four phases, two of them ascending phases of vibration or gradation, and two descending phases of vibration or degradation. the following table gives the four phases:
ascending vibration.[70]
first phase.
infancy, or ascending incoherence, 1/16 = 5,000 years.
second phase.
growth, or ascending combination, 7/16 = 35,000 years.
descending vibration.
third phase.
decline, or descending combination, 7/16 = 35,000 years.
fourth phase.
dotage, or descending incoherence, 1/16 = 5,000 years.
total, 80,000 years.
the life of the race thus resembles the life of man. the earth is just progressing out of its infancy. it will have passed into the second phase when it has adopted fourier’s plan of association. its life up to the present time has been weak, childlike, and full of sufferings, but it is to receive reparation for this in seventy thousand happy years, surpassing in good fortune any previously described millennium. lions will become servitors of man, and draw his carriage[89] from one end of france to another in a single day; while whales will pull his ships across the waters, provided he does not prefer to ride on the back of a seal. sea-water will become a more delightful beverage than lemonade; while a bright light at the north pole will not only render that part of the world inhabitable, but will diffuse an exquisite aroma over all the earth. our bodies are part of the earth, and it suffers with us. when we adopt fourier’s scheme we shall cease to suffer, and shall release the earth from its ills. our souls are also parts of the great world-soul, and no part can be in pain without bringing grief to the whole. as st. paul has it, “the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together.”
fourier believed, further, in the immortality of the soul, in its existence hereafter, and in its previous existence. he held to the transmigration of the soul, and in its frequent return to this earth to partake in the happy future of the human race. according to him, mind is always joined to matter so that it may ever enjoy material pleasures. when the mind leaves one body it unites itself to another, and always to a higher one. it develops continually. it passes also from world to world, though ever and anon returning to the earth. our souls will have existed in one hundred and ten different worlds before the end of our planetary system. the planets themselves have immortal souls, which are also subject to transmigration. at the expiration of eighty thousand years the soul of the earth will take up its abode in another and more perfect body.
but it is not necessary to devote more time to these nonsensical speculations. it is not on their account that fourier is remembered. he himself recognized[90] the fact that his chief merit was the production of his social system. on this point he says:
“but what do these accessories impart to the principal affair, which is the art of organizing combined industry, whence will issue a fourfold product; good morals; the accord of the three classes—rich, middle, and poor; the discontinuance of party quarrels, the cessation of pests, revolutions, and fiscal penury; and universal unity?
“my detractors condemn themselves in attacking me on account of my views touching the new sciences—cosmogony, psychogony, analogy—which lie outside of the domain of the theory of combined industry. although it should prove true that these new sciences are erroneous and foolish,[71] it does not remain less certain that i am the first and the only one who has presented a plan for associating inequalities and for quadrupling the products of industry in employing such passions, characters, and instincts as nature has given us. this is the only point upon which people ought to fix their attention, and not upon sciences which have only been announced.”
the “traité de l’association” is prolix and tedious. it abounds in meaningless combinations of figures, letters, and hieroglyphics. new and strange words, coined without necessity, often render the thoughts difficult to understand. the wheat which it undoubtedly contains is buried beneath such an immense pile of chaff that it is too likely to be overlooked. fortunately, fourier has given us a better and more condensed exposition of his doctrine in the “nouveau[91] monde industriel et sociétaire”—“the new industrial and social world”—published in 1829,[72] and the latest of his more important works.
the central idea of fourier’s social scheme is association. the all-pervading attraction which he discovered draws man to man and reveals the will of god. it is passionate attraction—attraction passionnelle. it urges men to union. this law of attraction is universal and eternal, but men have thrown obstacles in its way so that it has not had free course. consequently, we have been driven into wrong and abnormal paths. when we return to right ways—when we follow the directions given us by attraction, as indicated in our twelve passions or desires—universal harmony will again reign. economic goods—an indispensable condition of human development—will be obtained in abundance. products will be increased many fold, owing, first, to the operation of the passion to labor and to benefit society; secondly, to the economy of associated effort.
since happiness and misery depend upon the latitude allowed our passions—our propensities—it is necessary to enumerate these. they are divided into three classes—the one class tending to luxe, luxisme, luxury; the second tending to groups; the third to series. by luxe is meant the gratification of the desires of the five senses—hearing, seeing, feeling, tasting, smelling—each one constituting a passion. these are sensual in the original sense of the word, or sensitive. four passions tend to groups—viz., amity or friendship, love, paternity or the family feeling (familism), and ambition. these are affective.[92] the three remaining passions are distributive, and belong to the series. they are the passions called cabaliste, papillonne, and composite. the passion cabaliste is the desire for intrigue, for planning and contriving. it is strong in women and the ambitious. in itself it would tend to destroy the unity of social life, as would also the passion papillonne, or alternante (the love of change). these are, however, harmonized by the passion composite (the desire of union). all twelve passions unite together into the one mighty, all-controlling impulse, called unitéisme, which is the love felt for others united in society, and is a passion unknown in civilization. it is rather difficult for the uninitiated to see how this differs from the passion composite, unless it be in strength. the following table serves to make the relations of the passions clearer:[73]
seeing passions tending (pertaining) to luxury (sensual or sensitive). unitéisme.
hearing
smelling
feeling
tasting
amity passions tending to groups (affective).
love
paternity
ambition
cabaliste passions tending to series (distributive).
papillonne, or alternante
composite
a social organization must be formed which will allow free play to our passions, so that they may combine[93] harmoniously. our present society, called civilization,[74] does not, and cannot, do this. it is a system of oppression and repression, and is necessarily a frightful discord. harmony can only be found in combinations of suitable numbers in communities known as phalanxes, and occupying buildings called phalansteries. each phalanx is a unit, a great family, and dwells in a single building, a phalanstery. what is it that determines the proper number for a single phalanx? it is again the twelve passions of man. these can be combined in eight hundred and twenty different ways in as many individuals, and no possible combination ought to be unrepresented in the workers of any phalanx, or there will be a lack of perfect harmony. but in every community there will be found old men, infants, and those disabled on account of illness or accident. provision must also be made for absences. there ought not, then, to be less than fifteen or sixteen hundred members in a phalanx, though four hundred is mentioned as a possible but undesirable minimum. eighteen hundred to two thousand members are recommended. a larger number would produce discord, and is, therefore, inadmissible. but a further arrangement is necessary. these different characters thrown together helter-skelter would no more produce harmony than it would for one blindfolded to draw from a bag two thousand combinations of notes for the piano and play them in the order in which they were drawn. on the contrary, they must be ordered intelligently in series, the series combined[94] into groups, and the groups united into the phalanx. those having similar tastes form a series, which must consist of some seven, eight, or nine members. several series having related tastes and desires unite in a group. a group undertakes some one kind of labor, as the care of fruit-trees, and a series concerns itself with one particular branch of the labor of a group, as the care of apple-trees.
all labor becomes pleasant to man, as nature meant it should be. it is only when he is forced to do a kind which he does not like, or is obliged to over-work, that productive exertion becomes repulsive. this is avoided in the phalanxes, as each one is allowed to follow his own bent, being at perfect liberty to join any group of laborers or to change from group to group as he may see fit. in fact, the desire for change—the passion papillonne, or alternante—is so strong that at the expiration of two hours a change is usually made from one kind of labor to another. work of this character becomes play, and children like it, while men are as fond of it as of athletic sports. we now discover men undergoing severe physical exertion for the sake of excelling in running, swimming, wrestling, rowing, etc. there will spring up a similar rivalry between groups of cultivators in the phalanxes. one set of laborers will endeavor to obtain more useful products from ten or one hundred acres than another similar group from the same extent of land of like quality. we find such a rivalry at present among cultivators of the soil, and it might undoubtedly be increased in organizations such as fourier described. every fall you see it reported in local papers that farmer a has raised, let us say, four hundred bushels of oats from ten acres; this at once[95] provokes b to inform the world that his ten acres yielded five hundred bushels. c may report five hundred and fifty bushels in the coming year. this demonstrates the existence of a rivalry of a valuable kind, of which much might be made. but fourier pushed things to an extreme when he thought that the productiveness of labor might thereby be increased fourfold, or even fivefold. he held that a man could produce enough under his social régime from his eighteenth to twenty-eighth year, so that he could pass the remainder of his life in elegant leisure. he maintained, too, that if england should introduce his socialistic phalanxes her labor would become so productive that she could pay off her national debt in six months by the sale of hens’ eggs. this is what he says on this point: “it is not by millions, but by billions, that we shall value the product of small objects which are to-day despised. it is now the turn of eggs to play a grand r?le, and resolve a problem before which those learned in european finance have grown pale. they only know how to increase public indebtedness. we are going to extinguish the colossal english debt on a fixed day with half of the eggs produced during a single year. we shall not lay violent hands on a single fowl, and the work of accomplishing our purpose, instead of being burdensome, will be an amusement for the globe.
“let us make an arithmetical calculation. we wish to pay a debt of twenty-five billions during the year 1835, with hen’s eggs.
“let us estimate, to begin with, the real value of these eggs. i appraise them at ten sous or half a franc a dozen, when they are guaranteed fresh and of a good size, like those of the hens of caux....
[96]
“valuing at ten sous a dozen the guaranteed good, large, and fresh eggs of fowls, nourished with all the resources of art, we should have to count upon fifty billions of dozens of eggs in order to extinguish in a single year the english debt.
“the hen, the most precious of fowls, is a truly cosmopolitan bird. with suitable care she becomes acclimated everywhere. she flourishes on the sands of egypt and among the glaciers of the north.
“i will prove that the hennery of one phalanx ought to contain at least 10,000 hens, not including the pullets, twenty times as numerous.
“let us estimate that a hen lays 200 eggs a year. she ought not, perhaps, to be expected to do this under our present social régime, but well cared-for in a socialistic phalanx she could do rather more....
“let us add up, and, after the manner of good housewives, neglect fractions.... let us suppose that the hennery of each phalanx contains 12,000 hens, instead of 10,000.
“one thousand dozens of eggs at half a franc the dozen would amount to 500 francs. multiplying this by 200, we would have from each phalanx a product valued at 100,000 francs. we must now multiply this by 600,000, the number of phalanxes, which gives a total product of 60,000,000,000.
“now, as we have estimated the number of hens at 12,000 for each phalanx, in order to facilitate the calculation, it will be necessary to deduct one sixth from our product, which will leave 50,000,000,000. divide this by two, and the quotient is 25,000,000,000, precisely the amount of the english debt expressed in round numbers.”—q. e. d.
of course, such amusing and ridiculous passages in[97] fourier’s writings do not give us any sufficient ground for condemning the cardinal principles of fourierism.
besides the productivity of labor by a rivalry between producers, the socialistic phalanx will avoid the waste of goods caused by industrial and commercial competition. twenty men are often employed to do what three or four might accomplish with ease, were the labor properly organized. think of the enormous loss to society of labor and capital due to a superfluity of retail shops all over a great country like the united states! it may not have occurred to some that whenever capital, consisting of economic goods, like houses, buildings, implements, etc., is not fully employed, or whenever men are waiting for work, economic power is being wasted. this view of the effects of competition ought to influence our legislators more than it does. let us take the case of two parallel railroads, where one might do all the business. thousands of acres of land are needlessly and forever removed from agricultural purposes, thousands of tons of iron and steel are diverted from other uses, the labor of hundreds of men is permanently wasted—in short, the millions sunk in the enterprise in the first place, together with the cost of maintaining and working it, are forever lost to the society. competition thus often makes it cost far more to do a given amount of business than it would otherwise. if fourierism could rid us of the evils of free competition without depriving us of the benefits we derive from it, it would, indeed, be in so far a great blessing to the world. fourier felt positive that it could, but he has never succeeded in convincing a large number to put faith in his bright promises.
the economy of associated effort and associated life[98] is one of the leading factors which will increase the wealth of man. every square league of land has its one phalanstery occupied by a phalanx, consisting of some four hundred families. it costs no more to build a palace for all these families than it would to construct four hundred separate and uncomfortable cottages. while each family has its separate rooms, cooking is carried on in common, and great saving is thereby secured. a fire to cook four hundred dinners may not cost ten times as much as a fire to cook two, while it requires scarcely a greater exertion to watch a large roast than a small one. in the housing of animals, foods, implements, etc., a similar economy is secured. a large number working together afford every opportunity for a fruitful combination and division of labor. other economies will be effected by the suppression of useless classes. in the new society there will be no soldiers of destruction, no policemen, agents of a discordant social régime, no criminals and lawyers, both products of civilization, of disharmony; finally, no metaphysicians and no political economists. agriculture is the leading occupation, while commerce and manufacturing industry are reduced to a minimum. products are conveniently exchanged among members of a commune, while phalanx exchanges superfluities with phalanx and nation with nation in the most economical manner.
fourier’s socialistic system is not so pure a form of socialism as that of saint-simon, inasmuch as he retained private capital and, temporarily at least, inheritance. the division of products takes place in this wise: a certain minimum—a very generous one—is set apart for each member of the commune, and the enormous surplus is divided between labor, capital,[99] and talent—five twelfths going to labor, four twelfths to capital, and three twelfths to talent. the division is made by the phalanxes through the agency of officers whom they elect. the maxim is not labor according to capacity and reward according to services, as with the saint-simonians, but labor according to capacity and reward in proportion to exertion, talent, and capital. labor is divided into three classes—necessary, useful, and agreeable—the highest reward accruing to the first and the smallest to the last division, in accordance with the principles of equity.
government—for which, however, there seems to be little need—is republican. officers are elected. the chief of a phalanx is a unarch. the next highest officer is at the head of three or four phalanxes, and is called a duarch. triarchs, tetrarchs, pentarchs, etc., follow; while the highest officer of the world is the omniarch, who dwells at constantinople, the capital of the world.
while there are grades in society, the rich and powerful are so animated by the spirit of association—unitéisme—that the differences give no offence. familism, the love of those nearest and dearest, loses its excluding character. the law of social attraction, “while it conserves the ties and affections of the family, will destroy its exclusive interests. association will mingle it to such an extent with the great communal or phalansterian family that every narrow affection will disappear, that it will find its own interest in that of all, and will attach it sincerely and passionately to the public concern (chose publique).”[75]
[100]
fourier favored the so-called emancipation of woman, and assigned her a high rank in society. he found the economic, legal, and social position of woman at any given period, or in any country, an exact measure of the true civilization of said period or country. at the same time he was obliged to allow many things which good men generally regard as degrading to woman, as he started from the belief that all natural desires and propensities were good. it is much to be feared that he would practically have abolished marriage and the family, as we now understand these institutions. it is altogether probable that fourier would have been more successful in his propaganda had his ideas in every respect been more in consonance with the teachings of christian morality.
fourier was naturally a man of peace. holding, as he did, that a single experiment would convince the world that his system of phalanxes was the only correct organization, he could not consistently advocate a violent revolution. he believed that the millennium was to dawn in a few years, even within a shorter period than ten years. once he advised his followers not to purchase real property, as the progress of fourierism would soon cause it to depreciate in value. his disciples have been disappointed in their hope that men would speedily accept the principles of their master, but they have ever opposed violence.
kaufmann, in his “sch?ffle’s socialism,” thus sums up the chief merits of fourier’s teachings: “there is a good deal of truth in some of his critical remarks. the importance of co-operative production has been recognized chiefly in consequence of his first pointing out the economical benefits of the association. the[101] narrow-minded fear of wholesale trade, and machinery, too, was in a measure dispelled by fourier’s unqualified recognition of their value. his remarks on the unnecessary hardships of labor and the evil consequences of excessive toil have had their influence on modern factory-laws for the protection of labor and the shortening of the labor hours. sanitary reforms, and improvements of the laborer’s homestead, which have become the question of the hour, owe not a little of their origin to the spread of fourier’s ideas.”
fourier’s first adherent was just muiron, who attached himself to the master in 1813, and remained a faithful follower for many years. he wrote two works,[76] in which he exhibited the vices of our existing industrial society and explained the metaphysical principles of fourierism. gradually others joined the movement, of whom the most important was victor considerant, the author of “la destinée sociale, exposition élémentaire, complète de la théorie sociétaire”—“social destiny, a complete elementary exposition of the social theory”—published in the years 1834-38, in three volumes, and in a new edition, in 1851, in two volumes. this is the ablest presentation of the doctrine, and has become, as another writer has said, the text-book of the school. among other members of note may be mentioned baudet-dulary, the deputy who, in 1832, offered an estate for an experimental association; madame gatti de gammond, author of the best short and popular exposition of[102] fourierism;[77] madame clarisse vigoureux, a wealthy and talented lady;[78] charles pellarin, the able biographer of his master;[79] finally, jules le chevalier, a former saint-simonian, and author of a fourieristic work of importance.[80] when the saint-simonians separated, a considerable number of them passed over to fourierism. it will be seen that the new doctrine lacked neither wealth nor ability. its numbers were at first small, but after the death of fourier the school received large accessions of adherents. the disciples published a paper, which, under various names,[81] and with breaks in its appearance, was published as a weekly, monthly, and daily. the disciples finally formed “the society for the propagation and realization of the theory of fourier”—“la société pour la propagation et pour la réalisation de la théorie de fourier”—which is probably still alive. at any rate, a writer[82] stated in 1872 that it was then in existence, in possession of a capital of seven hundred thousand francs, and was still determined to labor for the good cause. all the strictly fourieristic experiments tried in france thus far have failed. possibly another trial[103] may be more successful. at present the school embraces only a small number of peaceful socialists, living mostly in paris. victor considerant, now seventy-five years old, is among these.
one of the best fruits which fourier’s teachings have borne may be found in a social community at guise, in france, where capital and labor are associated much after his plans, although all objectionable and immoral elements appear to have been left out. the founder is jean godin, a wealthy manufacturer, and a fourierist with modified views, who has used his wealth to benefit his own laborers directly and immediately, by providing them with comfortable homes, amusements, instruction, etc., and laborers, as a class, indirectly and remotely, by paving the way for a higher form of social life, a certain kind of co-operation. he himself says of the familistère at guise, as the building in which the community lives is called, that it “is the first example of a capital resolutely employed under a single direction, with the view of uniting in one place all the things necessary to the life of a large number of working families; it is the first example of an administration concentrating operations so diverse in order that the results may accrue to the greatest good of the families, removing thus useless intermediaries: all this in preserving, by an economic organization, the capital engaged in the enterprise.”[83]
while the community resembles a phalanx, as described by fourier, in many respects, it also differs from it in many others. it resembles it in its abode, constructed much like a phalanstery, and with a large[104] share of the elegance and comfort so glowingly pictured by fourier. it resembles it also in securing economy and increased comfort by associated effort. further resemblance is found in the care for the children, the sick, the aged, and the disabled, in the provision for education and recreation, and in the attempt to realize a condition of things fitting those who believe in the brotherhood of man. differences are found in the large share of power which m. godin has reserved for himself, the removal of obviously ridiculous and fantastic contrivances, and in the absence altogether of agriculture, which fourier considered the chief occupation of regenerated society. the establishment consists of iron, copper, sugar, and chiccory factories. m. godin regrets that agriculture has not been included in the pursuits, but it does not seem to have been found practicable.
the social body consists of about fifteen hundred members. the familistère, or social palace in which they live, is thus described: it is “‘an immense brick edifice in the form of three parallelograms,’ each of which encloses an interior court, covered with a glass roof and paved with cement. the building is four stories high. the central parallelogram, or rectangle, is two hundred and eleven feet front and one hundred and thirty feet deep.... the stores of the association ... on the lowest story of the central portion of the building ... contain whatever is necessary for ordinary need and comfort, without reference to luxuries.... ‘in the social palace fifteen hundred persons can see each other go to their daily domestic occupations, reunite in public places, go to market or shopping, under covered galleries, without traversing more than two hundred yards, and, as comfortably[105] in one kind of weather as in another.’”[84] there is also a large nursery, where children are taught “to associate equitably with one another.” they are brought there by the mothers at about ten in the morning, and are taken back to the family apartments between five and six in the afternoon. many pleasant things are connected with the life in this social palace, as it is called. there are numerous concerts, and a theatre furnishes opportunity for theatricals. even a billiard-room is provided for the amusement of the members. two festivals are celebrated yearly—“the festival of labor,” in may, and the “festival of the children,” in september.[85]
the following are a few extracts from the declaration of principles with which their “laws” open:
“v. it is the essential duty of society and of every individual so to regulate their conduct as to produce the greatest possible benefits to humanity, and to make this the constant object of all their thoughts, words, and actions.
“vi. the perception of this duty has dictated to the sages of all time the following precepts:
“‘to love others as one’s self.’
“‘to act towards others as you would wish that they should act towards you.’
“‘to make our abilities conduce to the perfection of our existence and that of others.’ ...
“‘to unite together and give support to one another.’
“vii.... the laws of universal order, and especially the law of human progress, place at the disposal of men—
[106]
“the resources of nature and those of the public property.
“labor and intelligence.
“capital or accumulated labor.
“viii. it is for the good of all humanity that nature vivifies and produces everything useful to human life, and it is, without doubt, for the benefit of all, that each generation should transmit to its successors its acquired knowledge.
“ix. by giving existence to man, god accords to him a right to what is necessary for him in the resources which nature every day affords to humanity, as well as the right to profit by the progress of society.
“xi. (the) perpetual and gratuitous assistance from nature proves that man, by the very fact of his birth, acquires, and should never lose, a certain degree of natural right in the wealth that is produced.
“hence it follows that the weak have the right to enjoy what nature and the public property place at the disposal of men.
“and that it is the duty of the strong to leave to the weak a just share of the general product.”[86]
the products are divided according to this socialistic—not communistic—scheme between labor and capital. it has existed upwards of twenty years thus far, and has prospered. this may have been due to the talent of m. godin, its founder. whether it will be able to maintain its existence after his death remains to be seen.[87]
m. godin has described his views on social problems and his endeavors to benefit the laborers in a valuable work entitled “solutions sociales,” which should be read carefully by those who contemplate founding co-operative or other establishments for the benefit of the masses.
fourierism was brought to america about 1840, and soon found numerous advocates, including many[107] names of which america is proud. prominent among the leaders were albert brisbane,[88] the head of the movement, horace greeley, and charles a. dana. in his “history of american socialisms,” mr. noyes mentions thirty-four experiments made by fourierists in this country, all of which failed for some reason or other. the most remarkable of these experiments was brook farm. at first it was not called a phalanx, although from the start it combined many of the features of fourierism, but it shortly fell in line and became a fourieristic experiment. when it is mentioned that its leading spirits were george ripley, charles a. dana, margaret fuller, and others of like character, it is needless to add that its moral basis was sound. others, more or less connected with the experiment, were george william curtis, horace greeley, dr. channing, and nathaniel hawthorne. its exceedingly interesting and pathetic history is to be found in frothingham’s “george ripley.”