Modern French Philosophy | Page 9

he was elected a _député_ and, together with Louis
Blanc and Pierre Leroux, figured in the Revolution of 1848. Blanc was
a man of action, who had a concrete scheme for transition from the
capitalist régime to the socialist state. He believed in the organisation

of labour, universal suffrage and a new distribution of wealth, but he
disapproved strongly of the dictatorship of the proletariat and of violent
revolution. Proudhon expressed his great admiration for Blanc.
The work of both of these men is a contradiction to the assertion put
forward by the Marxian school that socialist doctrine was merely
sentimental, utopian and "unscientific" prior to Marx. Many of the
views of Proudhon and Blanc were far more "scientific" than those of
Marx, because they were closer to facts. Proudhon differed profoundly
from Marx in his view of history in which he saw the influence of ideas
and ideals, as well as the operation of purely economic factors. To the
doctrine of a materialistic determination of history Proudhon rightly
opposes that of a spiritual determination, by the thoughts and ideals of
men._*_ The true revolution Proudhon and Blanc maintained can come
only through the power of ideas.
[Footnote _*_: Indeed, it is highly probable that with the growing
dissatisfaction with Marxian theories the work of Proudhon will come
into greater prominence, replacing largely that of Marx.
On the personal relations of Proudhon with Marx (1818-1883), who
was nine years younger than the Frenchman, see the interesting volume
by Marx's descendant, M. Jean Longuet (Député de la Seine), La
Politique internationale du Marxisme (_Karl Marx et la France_)
(Alcan).
On the debt of Marx to the French social thinkers see the account given
by Professor Charles Andler in his special edition of the Communist
Manifesto, Le Manifeste Communiste (_avec introduction historique et
commentaire_), (Rieder), also the last section of Renouvier's
Philosophie analytique de l'Histoire, vol. iv.]
All these early socialist thinkers had this in common: they agreed that
purely economic solutions would not soothe the ills of society, but that
moral, religious and philosophic teaching must accompany, or rather
precede, all efforts towards social reform. The earliest of them,
Saint-Simon, had asserted that no society, no system of civilisation, can
endure if its spiritual principles and its economic organisation are in

direct contradiction. When brotherly love on the one hand and
merciless competition on the other are equally extolled, then hypocrisy,
unrest and conflict are inevitable.
IV
The rise of positivism ranks with the rise of socialism as a movement
of primary importance. Both were in origin nearer to one another than
they now appear to be. We have seen how Saint-Simon was imbued
with a spirit of social reform, a desire to reorganise human society. This
desire Auguste Comte (1798-1857) shared; he felt himself called to it
as a sacred work, and he extolled his "incomparable mission." He
lamented the anarchical state of the world and contrasted it with the
world of the ancients and that of the Middle Ages. The harmony and
stability of mediaeval society were due, Comte urged, to the spiritual
power and unity of the Catholic Church and faith. The liberty of the
Reformation offers no real basis for society, it is the spirit of criticism
and of revolution. The modern world needs a new spiritual power. Such
was Comte's judgment upon the world of his time. Where in the
modern world could such a new organising power be found? To this
question Comte gave an answer similar to that of Saint-Simon: he
turned to science. The influence of Saint-Simon is here apparent, and
we must note the personal relations between the two men. In 1817
Comte became secretary to Saint-Simon, and became intimately
associated with his ideas and his work. Comte recognised, with his
master, the supreme importance of establishing, at the outset, the
relations actually obtaining and the relations possible between science
and political organisation. This led to the publication, in 1822, of a
treatise, _Plan des Travaux scientifiques nécessaires pour réorganiser la
Société_, which unfortunately led to a quarrel between the two friends,
and finally, in 1824, to a definite rupture by which Comte seems to
have been embittered and made rather hostile to his old master and to
have assumed an ungenerous attitude._*_ Comte, however, being a
proud and ambitious spirit, was perhaps better left alone to hew out his
own path. In him we have one of the greatest minds of modern France,
and his doctrine of positivism is one of the dominating features of the
first half of the century.

[Footnote *: In considering the relations between Saint-Simon and
Comte we may usefully compare those between Schelling and Hegel in
Germany.]
His break with Saint-Simon showed his own resources; he had
undoubtedly a finer sense of the difficulties of his reforming task than