« AnteriorContinuar »
lavish hand with which enthusiasts possessed of fortune, and with a generosity ■worthy of a better cause, wasted whole estates to support it. If Socialists have found it impossible to resist the whirlpool of Communism on the side of property, which they, nevertheless, had marked out on their charts with checks so well defined, what can we expect of them on the side of the irregularities of sexual passion, where the impulses are stronger, and unfortunately, their expressions, if not vague, are the less satisfactory on account of their explicitness? In short, Socialists will say that Communism is Socialism run mad; but we maintain that it is Socialism come to maturity.
Wc have pointed out thus the political or civil characteristic of Socialism. It is the abrogation of the family, the breaking up of the fireside circle formed by one father and one mother, with their children and dependents, and the herding together of the species in companies or flocks, for the double purpose of a more economical subsistence, and the freer and fuller indulgence of all the inclinations and desires of man's nature. Socialists of all classes agree in considering the civil condition which rests upon the family, or as Fourier calls it, the "parcelled system," (syst'eme •wce/e',) as an institution of merely human invention and authority. The Christian Revelation is explicit in teaching the contrary. It gives us, as the original and normal law of civil society, the union of man and woman in single and perpetual marriage, and adds for its sanction, "What God hath joined together let no man put asunder." But Socialists, as we shall see presently, make man his own God and his own lawgiver. "The institutions that have been," say they, "may have been well in their time, and even have been necessary as fitted to the degree of man's advancement in the scale of universal being. But Moses and Christ changed, each of them, the institutions that they found, and so now do We! These re-organizations are phases incident to the progress of humanity, and one of these phases is about to commence." It is thus that Henry de Saint Simon, or rather his successor, Enfantin, for the Saint Simonians, and Charles Fourier, for the Fourierites, would make themselves as Moses and as
Christ. But in this attempt they surpassed their profession, and did more, or at least did quite differently. The essential laws of morals and of religion were not changed by either Moses or Christ; though they were explained, perfected and embodied. For in this same matter of marriage, the account Moses has given us in the second chapter of Genesis of the first marriage, was previous to the time both of Moses and of Christ, and, which is well worth noting from the outset, was previous likewise to the fall of the first man. Yet it is Moses who hands down this fundamental law of humanity, as promulgated by Adam before his fall, that a man and his wife should be "two in one flesh ;" and the advent of Christianity had no other effect than that of confirming it with more solemn and unalterable sanctions. We may say the same of all other precepts of the moral law, and of the very method in which the giver of the old Law and the Founder of the Gospel announced their respective missions; each showing their essential unity with the dispensations preceding, whilst Socialists, on the contrary, without precursive prophesy or theoretic continuity with the progress of civilization hitherto, would abolish the fundamental principles of our actual society in favor of a scheme hitherto at least unheard of.
But some of the more moderate or more timid of the Associationists, deny that their schemes require the abolition of the family, and they will urge that in their plans, provision is even made for its continuance. In answering this plea, it will be well to keep in mind that on this and kindred subjects there has been no small dispute in the bosom of the associations themselves. The remnant of Christian doctrine and sentiment that some of their members had taken with them into their new relationships proved sufficiently strong to affect them with horror at the subsequent steps of their leaders. Hence the schism between Bazard and Enfantin, among the Saint Simonians. Bazard and Rodrigues being themselves husbands and fathers, could not brook the unblushing projects of their so-called "Supreme Father" Enfantin. Differences not unlike have also appeared for years past among the Fourierites, but as they have made little figure in print, we may pass them by. The first step, then, in our general answer will be: that we have to do with the enunciated principles of the leaders who have given name and existence to the various parties. We cannot accept the dilutions and transformations that certain followers of a party may insist on as the true explication of their master's meaning, and this least of all, when such explications serve only to confuse instead of simplify the principles involved. To take the case in point for an example. Charles Fourier, who is set forth by his followers, sometimes as the author of a new revelation and sometimes as the discoverer of a new science, promulgated a certain theory for the re-organization of society. This theory is founded on sundry imaginary principles of cosmogony, psychology, and harmony, which are in a measure peculiar to himself. If they be false, or rather if they be not indisputably proved true, nothing can be built upon them, and the very name of Fourierism, as a system, must cease. But if they be assumed as true, there are certain results in social and moral life that are their rigorous consequences. These results, it is true, shock the common sentiment of the public, and cause the rejection with horror of the principles whence they flow, even by those who may not be competent to the analysis of ontological formularies or to the detection of their philosophical poison. But we claim the protection of this moral disgust, excited by the tendency and end of Socialism in behalf of existing institutions, and by no means allow to theorists the privilege of cloaking the correlatives of their system till they have first contaminated the community with the unpcrceived venom of their error, by presenting it under amiable professions and palliated names. Looking thus honestly, therefore, at Socialism, wc are ready to show that in any of its phases, it must end in the utter decomposition of society, and the brutalizing of the human race.
In order to present in the fairest manner the bases of Fourier's plan, we shall give so much of it as we here have need of, in Mr. Godwin's words, in the "Popular View" already referred to:—
"Fourier found that attraction and repulsion were the two principal laws by which the Crea
tor governs the world; and in order to obtain i complete knowledge of these laws, he resolved to study simultaneously the highest and low« orders of creation in the universe. He considered the stars as the highest order of creation, mankind as the middle term, and the inferior orders of creation as the lowest step in the scale. He supposed that there must be certain general laws of unity common to these three orders of existence, or it would be impossible for tbeoi to compose one harmonious whole; and he hoped that by studying all that was known in the positive sciences concerning them, he might discover the natural laws of correlativenes, which bind them together in unity and e» nity. His principal lever in the work of &• covery was a sort of algebraical calculation by which he supposed that every law that wis common to any two of these terms, must be common to the third; and he never abandoned any branch of study until he had discovered those principles of nature which were commai to the medium and to the two extremes."—yp. 20, 21.
"He resolved;" " He considered;" "Hf supposed;" "He hoped!" These were the scientific principles of Fourier's "discovery." He resolved to become omniscient, and as the first step he rejected the authority which had taught man all tint he knows of "the highest and lowest orders of creation." He considered a part of the material world as " the highest order;" the stars as more noble, more 1 in the scale of being, more divine man, whose special glory the Christian i ligion had taught us is to have been: in the image of God, and to have preferred before any other, for that ance which was consummated between God and his creatures in the Incamaun of the Eternal Word. He supposed certain "orders" as the true series and th< perfect complex of the universe, and th*i these were all and in all their parts, Ok harmonious whole, and subject to *' common laws of unity." "He hoped th»< by studying all that was known in tbs positive (or physical) sciences," or to express it more clearly, by generalizing thi principles of the Newtonian philosophy he hoped to resohe, consider and sujijxt them applicable to all orders of being, th( highest as the lowest, spiritual as well a* material.
These being the substrata of Fourier* "science," he proceeded to build ot rather to pile upon them, hypothesis afttl ivpothesis, and among the rest the axioms," which in their turn were to upport the practical part of his system. Inch was the fancy of universal interlocklg series; an idea borrowed from music, nd which he extended to planetary rorlds alike, and to all the inclinations nd attractions of the human soul; which ist, with deeper truth than its advocates dmit, are, in the societary system, resolved mply into passions. He supposed again, roups upon each of these passions rranged as the gamut of a harpsichord, ith key-notes, major and minor modes, jarps and flats, and the full musical notaon; and susceptible of the symphonies of lirds, fifths and octaves. In this system ke passions, or rather the same, are to be mnd in each planet, and in its individual [habitants ; for the soul of man, he teaches a, is but a parcel or atom of the planeiry soul. These passions are to the umber of twelve. Five are attributed • the five senses respectively, and are died sensual; the rest belong to the ml, and are divided into four affective, id three distributive. The former are itndship, ambition, love and family affecon; the latter, which are also called tcKanical, are, in the unintelligible cant 'the school, the cabalisle, the papillonne, id the composite. The last is the blind icitement, or ecstacy, consequent on the eeting of two or more pleasures, one of ie body, the other of the mind, and is e principle of accord. The cabaliste is ie taste for intrigue, &c, and is the ■inciple of discord, which, strangely tough, is as essential in the state of harony, as is the other. The papillonne, i its name (butterfly) indicates, is the ste for change, for variety, for contrasted tuations.
Here we must entreat our readers' paince, as we feel the need of it ourselves, this exposition of the science of Fouriern. These details have a direct importice in obtaining a just view of practical xialism. The twelve passions enumerad make up the entire soul of Fourier's an. As to what we have been aecusoaed to hearing called by the name of tssions—hatred, desire, aversion, joy, irrow, hope, <fec.; or again, pride, ava;e, sloth, envy, jealousy, <fcc, &c.—no ention is made of them, or we are told,
though without any proof, that they are effects of some of Fourier's twelve, and are produced by the obstacles that the latter meet in attaining their end. But in what manner it can be shown that pride or avarice, or sloth, are thus in all instances called into being, or by the action of which of the twelve, or its repression, we are not told. If it be objected that metaphysicians, with whom the whole subject of the passions has proved a boundless field for discussion, have not followed one another in their enumeration of the emotions to which this name has been attributed, it may be conceded that the name and number of the passions is, in a sense, arbitrary.* But this is not the prominent and real error. What condemns his arrangement of the passions is, that he makes them constitute the entire soul of man; that he makes them include and govern all other parts of the being. In this from Pythagoras to Aristotle, from Aristotle to Aquinas, from Aquinas to Leibnitz and Bacon, and from their days to his own, Fourier would find no countenance from philosophy, if we except such shallow sophistry as was put forth by the pantheistical naturalists who were his cotemporaries, and from whom he in effect gleaned his ideas. But their speculations could be proved as false in physiology as in morals.
We cannot take up the twelve passions of Fourier to criticise them in detail; but let any one possessed of right principles and accustomed to reflection review the enumeration of them wc have given, and he will understand sufficiently the enormity of such an idea of man. It makes him a mere animated atom of the globe he inhabits, subjected to irresistible attractions, and therefore stripped of free will, and without any personal intelligence— for we cannot consider that as intellect, which is but the instrument of natural desires.
* It may be questioned, however, whether the number and titles laid down by Aristotle have ever been bettered by alteration. He reduces the passions to eleven—love, hatred, desire, aversion, joy or delight, sorrow, hojte, despair, presumption, tear, anger; and St. Thomas Aquinas, adopting these, classified the first six as cunrupitcible, because they depend simply on the presence or absence of their objects, and desire (concupiscentia) prevails in them ; and the last five he called irascible passion?, because, added to the presence or absence of the object, there is some difficulty or obstacle to surmount which appeals to anger or courage. This division prevailed in the schools.
And yet Fourier persuaded himself that man was such; he contemplated him as such, when he formed the project of grouping the members of the human family in his new formed associations. His was professedly a passional arrangement. He charged it as a fault on Christianity that it taught the necessity of repressing the passions and inclinations of nature, that it had imposed habits of self-restraint, and mortification of the desires of the flesh. And he proclaimed it as the sum and essence of his doctrine and discovery that: Attractions Are Proportional To DesTinies. That man has but to throw himself unhesitatingly upon the attractions that solicit him, to follow his bent or bents which way soever, or however far they may lead him, in order to attain his true destiny and to fulfil his mission. Is it nec jssary, after the mere enunciation of such a proposition, to go into the discussion as to whether man, being such as we know him, find such as all time and all institutions have proved him, and such as all revealed religions have pronounced him, can exist in any society where notions like these shall be instilled into him, and shall not drag down to irreclaimable ruin the whole structure of human existence? In contradiction with authority and with facts, Fourier treats of human passions, which he nevertheless makes the only motives of the soul, as if they were the keys of an organ, sleeping in a perpetual calm till the hand of the master of music shall touch them softly or with emphasis, protracting or cutting short their sound. We will not say how much there is in this fatal to his doctrine of universal analogy, or how much of conftision in itself. Does he not make the keys of the passions self-moving, and even carrying away with them the soul on which they act? Where then is their analogy with the keys of an organ, that are mute till the musician touches them? But suppose that the passional keys are also mute till the presiding genius shall call them out. Suppose the world Fourierized, and the omniarch, or one of the douzarchs, or onzarchs, to propose a symphony upon some particular passion! When the musician sits down to his instrument he is certain
that the sounds he is about to draw forth from the various keys will be the same that he produced one half hour before: but what security has the Fourierite that the persons composing his diapason shall not meanwhile have experienced, one ai increase, and another a diminution, of energy and intensity, according to ihr caprice, or the variety of the passion m the subject?
So much, then, for the musical analogy, which is so necessary a part of Fourier's plan; and we might conclude already bv saying, so much also for the harmony of the passions so unblushingly assumed a certain, in the proposed associations. Y«t as the exorbitant and untrue imaginatkt of Fourier did not intend his theory of the passions to remain as an idle speculatiio. but made it the very life and essence of the system he proposed to construct in out ward society, we cannot be too explicit in pointing out its errors. The denial of liberty to the human will is in nowise accidental to the rest of the plan, but, on uV contrary, is one of its fundamental principles. For if we leave in each indiridc^ of the human race the power of eboosiag or rejecting, of following or resisting tb» various attractions that solicit him, then will be an end of this necessary harmony Indeed, in an association such as Found imagines, personality seems itself a cot traduction, as the theory requires tbi what are called persons should be incapv ble of occupying any place or following iti bent but the one that destiny has, a prion measured out for them. We find a moS striking example in matters of love, whie! he classes as one of the affective passion it is clear that he considers each nun a woman as swayed and controlled by a par ticular phase of this passion. It is lo* in the abstract and not in the concrete thi he dreams of, when he supposes it is tr operate in harmony, and he farther sup poses that it is this abstract phase whid is to carry each one to the group where i properly belongs, and that there it *3 find its satisfaction without any contrariety But how different will the real passion as the real group prove from the lmagimirr In the former it will be love in the conah that will sway the individual. This ml will be attracted towards that woman, *h in her tum has been attracted tomirtl mother man. Yet in all the cases that lust arise from these various attractions, here Trill be no jarring, no awaking of the ussions of envy, jealousy, grief, or hatred! ■"or Fourier attributes these to the subverrice order, as only arising from the faults >f the present civilization. In the harnony of Fourierism, forsooth, either no ;wo men will ever love the same woman, >r the mutual knowledge of this affection rill never excite any other emotion than me of complacency in the breasts of each! )r to vary the case: either death will tself be forever abrogated by men turning lourierites, (which has not quite been inserted as yet—at least in its absolute brm,) or, when the wife, the mother, or he child dies, it will so happen, as a law \f nature, that at the same moment the iffection of the friends of such an one owards her will have been fully satisfied, md will then turn away cheerfully to form icw relationships. Truly, this new science rould be wonderful were it not absurd.
It is here that we should properly treat n detail of Fourier's doctrine respecting he intercourse of the sexes. But as this $ always a delicate subject, so in respect o Socialism, and to Fourier's principles in »rticular, we doubt whether even the advantage of overwhelming his abominable iystem with a torrent of public indignation :ould compensate for defiling our pages md the English language with a bare ecital of the outrages that he proposes lot only against Christian morals but igainst the modesty which man has utherto been found to cherish even in the jarbarous and savage states. Our pen efuses the task, and we confine ourselves o generalities. As we have seen, it s Fourier's general principle that man's rue destiny is to follow all the attractions if his nature: and he avows it as one of U> legitimate results, that as there should A- groups of vestals in his association to atisfy the passion or attraction for chasity, so there must be groups and series for jallantry and mock sentiment; and so on iown to lower and lower groups, even to the 'mcchantes and bayaderes, for whom he has ■eserved a place of honor and consideration. \dd to this the instability of marriages, rhich he makes depend on the temporary saprice of the united pair, who are free to »c divorced and re-married indefinitely, (if
it be not a scandal to apply the term marriage to such unions,) and what a picture does it present of the morals of Fourierism! We cannot better illustrate it than by a passage from a report made by a converted Saint Simonian of a dispute between Enfantin, the "Supreme Father" of Saint Simonism, and two of his revolted children who had declared their intention of withdrawing from him "and from his doctrine, which at bottom was nothing else than a hideous promiscuity."
Carnal.—'"Your doctrine is the making a rule of adultery.'
Enfantin "' This doctrine will never lead
to adultery; adultery exists only because one nature is crushed by another, for which it has no attraction. The ideas that I advance, on the contrary, will prevent adultery.'
Dugiel.—"' It is true there will be no more adultery, for vice will be legitimatiscd, reduced to rule. It is in this sense only that you can say there will be no more adultery. You yourself can judge that it is so, if you have studied the general principles on which all these ideas rest:"*
And it is to the study of these very principles that we would earnestly invite the candid among tne Socialists, if it might be, but at any rate, we demand such an examination on the part of persons not identified with Socialist theories, and to whose opinion, whether with reason or not, weight may be attached, before they venture to speculate as to the permissibility or the innocency of Fourierism in any shape, or with any amount of modifications. Every odious abomination of Communism that has been charged on Fourierism is a legitimate consequence of the first principles of the latter system, and would inevitably follow quick upon the reduction of the Socialist theory to practice. Socialists substitute aggregations of the race as the basis of civil life, instead of the marriage, or family relation, which God made the basis, and which their highest pretension is but to tolerate as a phase in association. And into this association are to be invited men and women, to whom it is to be said: "You are now delivered from the restraints of civilization, which are evil; henceforth your passions are to be your only guides, and the satisfaction of them
* Religion St. Simonienne, p. 42.