Every political arrangement, every institution, in order to be truly good, must satisfy two conditions:
1. It must be useful to society, that is to say it must result in positive
advantages for society.
2. It must be in harmony with the present state of society, in conformity
with existing ideas and circumstances, and its establishment must be suitably
prepared. In short, it must come., just at the right time.
This second condition, although much less appreciated than the first, is nevertheless also absolutely indispensable. It alone makes institutions acceptable, for if they are to be possible or at least durable they must be neither more nor less than society's present requirements: they must not be untimely. This is the chief reason why historical considerations are useful, for only through the philosophical observation of the past can one acquire an exact knowledge of the real elements of the present . . .
The considerations expounded in previous chapters, as well as those that will follow in the continuation of this work, aim to show that the measure we are proposing56 is bound to result in a large increase in national income and a large decrease in expenditure; which shows that the measure is useful.
The considerations which we are now going to present are of a different order.
They aim to show the industrial class, that is, the nation, that the position it has gradually achieved makes its adoption of the proposed measure quite natural; that its past progress and present needs both demand such adoption; in other words, that the adoption of this measure is a step naturally reserved for industry in the nineteenth century, the last step which industry must take in order to assume the direction of society - a constant goal towards which all the progress made by the industrial class since its origin has been leading.
. . . If one traces the history of industry back to the era of the Greeks and the Romans, one finds that among these peoples the industrial class was completely enslaved by the military class.
The slavery of industry continued under the northern warriors who destroyed the Roman Empire and established themselves in western Europe in place of the old masters or conquerors.
This revolution, which at first appeared to involve industry in no more than a simple change of masters, was in fact of the greatest importance for industry because of the fortunate consequences resulting from this change of rulers.
The slavery of the industrial class changed its nature; it became slavery to the soil, which was a great improvement. Besides, because the conquerors had moved into the country, the industrials - who were settled in the towns - were no longer subject to direct and continual supervision by the masters, which was again very much in their favour.
So, for these two reasons the conquest of the Roman Empire by the peoples of northern Europe brought about the first notable improvement in industry's condition.
The second stage in the progress of the industrial class was its enfranchisement . . . This important step forward is usually called the enfranchisement of the commons; and this expression is certainly justified, for the commons and industry are one and the same thing, the commons originally consisting entirely of artisans and merchants who had settled in the towns. This is a very important fact which ought to be noted, and of which one should not lose sight if one is to have a clear understanding of what the commons are today.
When the industrials bought their liberty, their condition improved inasmuch as each of them was freed from the direct arbitrary authority of the lord on whom he was previously dependent This was certainly a great alleviation for them. But as a whole these men who had bought their freedom were no less dependent on the priests, nobles, and the military; they were no less obliged to give them a large part of the product of their labours, and to suffer the frequent outrages to which their position exposed them. This is how industry freed itself from this second kind of arbitrary authority:
The privileged men who composed the entire Parliament and who had no intention of sharing their power conceived the idea of summoning deputies from the commons, from industry, to give a statement of their possessions, so that they could collect more from them in revenue than they could hope to get by force. This is the true origin of the parliamentary commons . . .
The establishment of this practice must be seen as extremely favourable for the industrial class, since it formed the basis of all its subsequent political successes. However, at first the commons -industry (we repeat) - thought it very disagreeable to have to send deputies to Parliament, because these deputies had no rights and their mission was limited to giving an account of their constituents' wealth. But things did not and could not continue in this way. Industry, in spite of the fact that it was burdened by the military and feudal class with every kind of outrage and provocation, eventually grew wealthy through work, patience, and economy. It acquired importance and respect, because it grew in size and because marriages between the industrials and the military linked the interests of many individuals from the military class with the interests of many members of the commons. For these and many other reasons, above all because industry was able to show the military that much more money could be taken from it if it was allowed to pay less - in other words because of industry's financial capacity, which it convinced the military was of use to them - the latter allowed the commons to have a voice in Parliament.
This great step taken by industry deserves careful attention, for in some ways it marks the beginning of a new era for the human race. Henceforth, the law of the strongest ceased to be the only law; or rather, force and ruse ceased to be the only elements involved in the making of law: the general interest also began to play a part.
The next step taken by industry, and the most recent in purely political terms, followed the English Revolution. It involved the introduction of the practice whereby the House of Commons was granted the sole and exclusive right to vote the budget. The great European Revolution could have been ended at this point, the industrial and pacific regime could have been established if, on the one hand, the commons of England had been represented only by members from industry, and if, on the other hand, English industry had seen that it was naturally more closely linked in interest with the industrials of other countries than with the English members of the military or feudal class.
But at this period feudalism still exercised great power, and industry had little appreciation of its interests and the course it should follow. Hence, it allowed itself to be dominated by the feudal spirit, which is essentially a spirit of conquest.
The natural order of things and the advance of civilisation have reserved for French industry the glory of ending the great European Revolution; for French industry took the step of which we are speaking later than English industry, and was thus able to act more completely and more decisively, achieving success at a time when feudalism has no more power and when industry can easily appreciate its interests and follow a well-determined course.
We shall here end our summary of industry's political past. Let us now look at the civil successes it has achieved since the House of Commons was granted the exclusive right to vote taxation.
The importance acquired by industry since this period is incalculable. It has invaded every sphere; it has taken possession of everything. By improving its products it has accustomed men to pleasures which they have come to regard as needs. But above all it is government which has become a tributary of industry, has become dependent on it. Can the Government wage war? Its chief problem is not to recruit men who can kill: it has to look to industry, first of all for money, and then for all the things it needs and which it buys from industry with that same money. It is industry which provides it with canon, guns, powder, uniforms, etc., etc., etc. Industry has taken possession of everything, even war.
Through a fortunate and inevitable effect of improvements in the military art, war has become more and more dependent on industry, so that today real military power has passed into the hands of the industrials. A country's military force is no longer to be seen in its armies, but in its industry. The armies of today (by army we mean the collection of warriors, from the ordinary soldier to the most eminent leader) fulfil only subordinate functions, for their merit consists only in employing the products of industry . . .
Industry has also taken possession of finance. In France and England today it is industry which advances the funds needed by the public service, and it is industry which receives the proceeds from taxation . . .
If industry's advance has hitherto been very slow, if even today industry, in spite of its many important successes, finds itself in fact in only a subordinate position, and if society is still governed mainly by the feudal class, or at least by the feudal spirit (which amounts to almost the same thing), the reason is that up till now the commons have lacked the right principles; they have made progress and achieved success only by a sort of practical instinct and routine.
By industrial principles we mean the knowledge of the way in which industry could use power. Hitherto, industry has lacked this knowledge, which is nothing but a political plan conceived from industry's point of view and formulated in its interests. Now, it is quite clear that this knowledge is indispensable to industry if general power is to pass into its hands, and that as long as it has lacked principles industry has been able to play only a subordinate role.
The military or feudal class has its own principles, and it is for this reason that it has retained the general power. But industry, with no principles, has hitherto engaged and still engages only in critical action towards feudalism. It has not been able in its turn to take the initiative and provide the impetus.
All its principles may be reduced to the vague desire to be well governed, that is, to be governed in conformity with its interests. But it is clear that without knowledge of the means of governing in the interests of industry, this desire can only lead to critical action.
The principles which the commons have lacked for so long have at last been produced by the immortal Smith, for these principles are nothing but the general truths which result from the science of political economy . . .
Smith, after observing the processes employed in various industrial enterprises, brings together observations. He shapes them into a whole; he generalises his ideas; he establishes principles and creates a science based on the art of acquiring wealth, just as Aristotle produced poetics out of his observations on the works of the poets who had preceded him...
Smith's book was the most vigorous, most direct, and most complete critique ever made of the feudal regime. Each of its pages demonstrated that the commons or industry were devoured by this regime, a regime of absolutely no use to them; that such governments as were established tended continually to ruin the peoples, since they only ever consumed, whereas the only means of growing rich was to produce.
His work may be considered as a collection of detailed refutations of all the operations of governments, and it may consequently be seen, in sum, as a proof of the need for peoples to change the principles and the nature of their governments if they want to stop living in poverty and to enjoy peace and the fruits of their labour.
At the same time this work contained the proof that a nation, in order to acquire the comforts of life, must proceed in the same way as manufacturers, merchants, and all persons engaged in any kind of industry, and that consequently a nation wishing to become free and rich should frame its budget according to the same principles as the budget of any industrial firm. The only sensible aim for a nation, therefore, was to produce as much as possible with the least possible administrative expenditure.
M. Say revises Smith's ideas. He classifies them more methodically; he gives his work much more of a doctrinal character than the inventor did; he adds new considerations to those produced by Smith, and he entitles his work Treatise on Political Economy.
In M. Say the critique of the present conduct of governments assumes a clearer character. The comparison between the principles of military administration and those of industrial administration is established more directly.
Smith brought the science he created into the world in a very modest manner. He presented it as a means whereby governments could grow rich. He announced it only as a secondary science, auxiliary to and dependent on politics.
In philosophical terms M. Say goes one step further than Smith. At the beginning of his work he establishes that political economy is distinct from and independent of politics. He says that this science has its own basis, quite different from the basis of the science which aims to organise nations . . .
Following what we have just established, industry today possesses real strength, and furthermore it possesses the principles which it used to lack, or at least it can very easily acquire them now that they exist.
If this is, as we believe, the true point reached by industry today in its political career, why is it that the direction of society has still not passed into its hands? Why is it that the industrial regime has not been established, and the feudal and military regime still exists? It is a result, first, of the fact that industrial principles are still not generally known, and have thus not been able to acquire the credit which brings confidence and strength. Secondly, real strength and principles are not sufficient, as one might suppose, to place industry at the head of society: a means is necessary, and a legal means whereby power can pass into its hands. It was out of ignorance of this means that industry, when it did seek to seize power, employed and could only employ insurrection. Now, insurrection is first of all the most inadequate of all means. It is also absolutely contrary to industry's interests, since for the latter all use of force is an evil. Whenever there are popular disorders it is industry which bears the greatest burden, because industrial property, of all property, is the easiest to destroy . . .
It requires neither great intellectual powers nor much effort to devise an insurrection; but to find a legal means is much more difficult. We are striving to settle this question, convinced that a solution to it is the only thing which industry now lacks, the last remaining step to be taken before the industrial regime can be established . . .
We firmly believe that we have found this solution, and we think that the proposed measure can certainly achieve the aim; for in time, as an inevitable result of this measure, all, or at least the vast majority of members of the House of Commons will come from the commons, from industry. And on the other hand, since the House of Commons possesses great political power, through its exclusive right to vote the budget, it follows that the proposed measure must bring that power into the hands of industry, and do so in a thoroughly legal manner entirely in conformity with the existing constitution, with (furthermore) no sudden change, because the effect of this measure, by its very nature, can only be graduals' . . .
[Oeuvres, vol.II, pt. 1, pp.139-56, 158-61.)
Scanned from Keith Taylor (ed), Henri Saint-Simon (1760-1825) Selected Writings on science, industry and social organization, London: Croom Helm, 1975.