Rondel V. Davidson - Reform Versus Revolution

REFORM VERSUS REVOLUTION: VICTOR CONSIDERANT AND THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO' RONDEL V. DAVIDSON Pan American University

D

ESPITE VOLUMINOUS PUBLICATIONS RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT

of Marxism, the specific origins of the Communist Manifesto remain subject to scholarly debate. One of the most important and unresolved controversies deals with the relationship between Marx and Engels' publication of 1848 and the French Fourierist, Victor-Prosper Considerant's Manifeste de la democratie pacifique, originally published in 1843 as the introduction to his newspaper, DSmocratie pacifique, and reissued in book form under the tide, Principes du sodalisme, Manifeste de la democratie au XIXe siecle, in 1847. What little scholarship has been produced on this subject is extremely polemical, superficial and inconclusive. For a more accurate assessment of the contributions of Marx and, more particularly, of Considerant to nineteenth-century socialism, a comprehensive understanding of the connection between these two documents is imperative.^

LITERATURE ON THE SUBJECT

Although several scholars have noted the relationship between Considerant's thought and that of Karl Marx, no one has made a thoroughgoing comparison of the two manifestoes. In an effort to discredit the communist movement, anti-Marxist writers have made much of the

1 I wish to thank Lowell L. Blaisdell and Robert D. Wrinkle for valuable assistance in the preparation of this article and archivist Madame Chantal de Tourtier Bonazzi of the Archives Nationales, Paris, France, for research assistance.

2 Although Marx expressed many of the ideas found in the Communist Manifesto in earlier writings, particularly his and Engels' The Holy Family (1845), and Poverty of Philosophy (1847), none of these works predates the first publication of Considerant's manifesto in August, 1843. Since the Communist Manifesto represents a more comprehensive and a more thoroughly developed expression of Marx s concepts than these earlier writings, this essay will focus its analysis on the manifesto of 1848. Also, in frequently referring to Marx and his contributions in this article, I do not intend to neglect Engels and his important role in drafting the Communist Manifesto. Of particular significance is Engels' unpublished essay of 1847, "Principles of Communism," which the two used as a starting point for their manifesto ol 1848. Although certainly a coincidence, it is interesting to note that Engels drafted this document while he was in Paris at almost the same time Considerant's manifesto appeared in book form under the similar title, Principes du socialisme.

REFORM VERSUS REVOLUTION

75

argument that Marx and Engels drew heavily from Considerant's manifesto. Writers such as Sorel (n.d.:32) and Cohen (1946:111) have accused Marx of plagiarizing from the Manifeste de la democratie pacifique, and Brandes (1925:115) states in his biography of Ferdinand Lassalle that the Communist Manifesto is "almost a mere translation from Victor Considerant . . ."

The only serious attempt to analyze the two manifestoes was made by the Russian anarchist, W. TcherkesoflF. In Pages of Socialist History (1902:56-^7), TcherkesofiF, referring to the first section of the Manifeste de la democratie pacifique, declares, "In these fifty short pages the famous Fourierist, like a true master, gives us so many profound, clear, and brilliant generalizations, that even an infinitesimal portion of his ideasi contains in entirety aU the Marxian laws and theories—including the famous concentration of capital and the whole of the Manifesto of the Communist Party," and he concludes, "This 'Manifesto,' this Bible of legal revolutionary democracy, is a very mediocre paraphrase of numerous passages of the 'Manifesto' of V. Considerant." To prove this point, TcherkesoflF cites and compares numerous quotations from both documents which indeed reflect a striking similarity in both content and phraseology. TcherkesoflF, however, is guilty of utilizing a familiar technique of deceptive propaganda. He conveniently omits statements from both works which indicate substantial diflFerences in the basic concepts of the two socialists. Partly because of its excessively polemical nature and partly because of its errors of omission, Tcherkesoffs work remains inconclusive and has received little recognition.

Pro-Marxist writers have responded to these charges of plagiarism by a rather eflFective ruse of their own—they have, by and large, ignored them. Most Marxian accounts of the development of the Communist Manifesto do not mention Victor Considerant. The only serious attempt by a pro-Marxist to counter these charges was made by Bernstein. Writing in Science and Society, Bernstein (1949:58-67) recognizes these allegations against Marx and simply declares that they are false. Without comparing the two documents or without indicating the contents of Considerant's manifesto, he proceeds to acclaim the originality and profundity of the Communist document. As with the anti-Marxist polemics, Bernstein's vague generalities prove of little value to the serious student of socialism.

Unfortunately, the most able scholars have passed over the opportunity to resolve this controversy. While briefly alluding to a possible connection between the two manifestoes, intellectual historians such as Barzun (1958:177), Lichtheim (1961:61-62), and Hammen (1969:171), in their otherwise brilliant and penetrating analysis of Marxism, refrain from describing the relationship. None of these writers makes any attempt to compare the two works or to indicate what Considerant's manifesto contains or how it might be considered a forerunner of the communist declaration. Their failure to clarify the problem has left a serious hiatus in the history of socialism.

76

Social Science Quarterly

CONSIDERANT'S HOLE IN EUROPE^AN HISTORY

It is certain that Marx and Engels were thoroughly familiar with the activities and writings of Victor Considerant. Despite the fact that most United States' historians have inexplicably ignored Considerant's role in European history, he was one of the best known and most influential social critics of tfie period 1836-1849. After having obtained the rank of captain in the French army, he abandoned a secure military position for an uncertain career as a socialist writer and propagandist. As the leader of the Fourierist movement, Considerant, more than any other individual, popularized its ideas. He authored over 20 books, numerous pamphlets and essays, and edited three newspapers. His publications, particularly DestinSe sociale (1836-1844) and the Exposition abrigSe du systime phalansterien de Fourier (1845), brought Fourier's ambiguous and sometimes preposterous ideas out of obscurity, rationalized tihem and placed them before the public. Under Considerant's leadership, the ÂŁcole sociStaire, the official Fourierist society, organized branch societies in almost every major city in Europe and in the United States and disseminated propaganda throughout the world.

Considerant played a significant role in the French Revolution of 1848, serving the Second Republic in the Constitutional Assembly, the Luxemburg Commission, the Constitutional Committee, the Committee of Work and the National Assembly. As a result of his bitter opposition to the presidency of Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, Considerant was exiled from France in 1849. In 1855, he established an unsuccessful, although important, communal experiment near Dallas, Texas, knovm as La Reunion. When Napoleon III lifted the ban on him in 1869, Considerant returned to Paris where he lived the remainder of his life as a socialist sage of the Latin Quarter. He died in Paris in 1893, a citizen of the United States (Davidson, 1973:277-296; Bourgin, 1909:7-9, 121-125; Dommanget, 1929:167-214).

When Marx arrived in Paris in November 1843, Considerant and his numerous publications were as well known as those of Louis Blanc, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Louis-Auguste Blanqui, Etienne Cabet, and Ledru-RoUin. By mid-nineteenth century standards, Considerant's books and his newspapers were circulated widely. The Martifeste de la dSmocratie pacifique was probably a more influential document in socialist history prior to the 1870s than was the Communist Manifesto. In addition to its publication in newspaper form in 1843, Considerant's manifesto went through three editions in book form in Paris, two in 1847 and one in 1849, and it was published in Italy in 1894 (Bo, 1957:11-14).

RELATIONSHIP TO MARX

Although Marx was anxious to contact Considerant on his first visit to the French capital, no relationship ever developed between the two.

REFORM VERSUS REVOLUTION

-JJ

Arnold Ruge attempted to induce Considerant, along with several other Paris radicals and socialists, to collaborate with Marx in writing for their proposed Cerman-French publication, Deutsche-Franzosische Jahrbiicher.

Considerant refused any contact with the Cerman radicals. He apparently did not know, in 1843, who Marx was, and he was unwilling to associate himself with the revolutionary image of Ruge. There is no evidence to indicate that Marx and Considerant ever met during any of Marx's visits to Paris. Moreover, the voluminous letters and manuscripts of both men which have been preserved indicate that the two never corresponded with each other. Although Considerant ("Correspondances," 1826-1893) did join the First International in 1871, he never considered it a Marxist organization, and he had no contact with the Marxist members.

What relationship existed between Marx and Considerant was theoretical and confined specifically to the impact of Considerant's writings on the development of Marx's thinking during the formative years of 1843-49. By their own admissions, Marx and Engels were thoroughly familiar with Considerant's writings, particularly his newspaper and the Manifeste de la dSmocratie pacifique. In fact, the two communists frequently indicated their respect and preference for the Fourierist critique of contemporary society (Rheinische Zeitung, 1841-1842). This affinity is particularly evident in Engels' unpublished essay, "A Fragment from Fourier on Trade."

COMPABISON OF THE TWO MANIFESTOES CMTIQUE OF CAPITALISM

The Communist Manifesto clearly demonstrates Considerant's infiuence on Marx and Engels' thinking. The charge of plagiarism stems from the similarity between the two manifestoes concerning their analysis of nineteenth-century society in general and capitalism in particular. In this regard, the Manifeste de la dimocratie pacifique definitely foreshadows the Communist Manifesto. Throughout Marx and Engels' declaration, the rhetoric parallels Considerant's. Such words as "class struggle," "class war," "feudal lords," "oppressed proletariat," and "exploitation" appear profusely in both documents. In a few places, whole sentences demonstrate a striking similarity. For example, in the Fourierist manifesto Considerant (1847:10-11) stated, "Society tends to split more and more distinctly into two great classes: a small number possessing all or nearly all the domain of property, of commerce and of industry; and the great numbers possessing nothing, living in absolute collective dependence on the holders of capital and the machines of work, compelled to hire out for an uncertain salary and always losing their power, their talents, and their forces to the feudal lords of modern society." In the declaration of 1848, Marx and Engels (1964:3) proclaimed, "Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other—bourgeoisie and proletariat." Regarding the development of economic imperialism Considerant (1847:22-23) de-

78

Social Science Quarterly

clared, "Industrial nations try mightily to obtain foreign markets for their manufactured goods. England, tormented by overproduction of goods, makes superhuman eflForts to pour her products over all the earth.

She breaks open by cannon shot the closed doors of the Chinese Empire.

She incessantly crosses the globe with arms in hand demanding consumers." And in the Communist Manifesto (1964:7), one reads, "The need of a constantly expanding market for products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. . . . The cheap prices of its commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians' intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate." Regarding the aflBnity of rhetoric it is interesting to note that Considerant (1847:45-46) used the term "communism" with the exact same meaning as did Marx and Engels.

Apparently, the two adopted the term as Considerant had defined it in the Fourierist declaration. In the Manifeste de la dSmocratie pacifique, Considerant attacked those he termed as "Political Communists" for attempting to dupe the proletariat into establishing "Egalitarian Communalism" and for propounding the destruction of private property through revolution and force.

In addition to phraseology, Considerant pointed to the same societal defects as did Marx and Engels. In fact, Considerant's attack on nineteenth-century capitalism is a more comprehensive analysis. According to Considerant (1847:1-2), the past was characterized by the exploitation of one class at the expense of another. In ancient society the free men oppressed the slaves, and in the feudal society, the nobility "trampled under foot" the peasants and serfs. The French Revolution of 1789 supposedly established freedom and equality by destroying the old order, by proclaiming equality before the law, and by creating a system of political democracy through various forms of representative government.

But, as Considerant (1847:4-6) argued, the Revolution only destroyed the old order; it did nothing to organize and guarantee the principles of equality and democracy which it theoretically proclaimed. In reality, the Revolution of 1789 was a destructive force which replaced an old form of feudalism with a "new feudalism." The new feudalism created a different, but no less powerful and oppressive aristocracy based upon capital and not land.

Under the mask of protecting individual freedoms, the systems of laissez-faire economics and free enterprise forced the masses of working people into abject slavery. In Considerant's opinion, the term free enterprise was an insidious catch phrase which had been utilized by one class of people to subjugate another class. He argued that economic anarchy was as bad as political anarchy. Under the prevailing system of "anarchical competition" and "blind warfare," a few individuals possessed all the advantages, capital, education, talent, and powerful positions in society. The proletariat, the most numerous class, could not possibly compete on an equal basis with the upper classes because they had no capital, no education, and no opportunity to develop their skills.

REFORM VERSUS REVOLUTION

jg

Thus, he concluded, "The system can lead to nothing but general bondage, the collective infeudation of the masses who are destitute of capital, of the instruments of work, of education, and of industrial arms, to the endowed and well-armed capitalist class."

According to the Fourierist, the system not only enslaved the lower class, but it progressively increased their misery. Unregulated capitalism produced a process of triple competition which resulted in the continual depreciation of workers' salaries. Competition between entrepreneurs for markets motivated them to lower prices and this, in turn, forced them to lower salaries. Because the ranks of the proletariat were rapidly increasing, competition between workers for jobs forced them to agree to work for lower wages. Finally, scientific and technological advances forced the worker to compete wdth machines for employment. These three forms of rivalry placed the worker in a defenseless position (Considerant 1847:8-9).

The proletariat was not the only class which suffered from anarchical competition. Considerant (1847:9-10) was one of the first nineteenthcentury writers to sound the alarm for the middle class. According to him, the large entrepreneurs "sucked up" and "progressively crushed" small and middle-sized industry, commerce, and agriculture. At the present rate of attrition, the middle class would soon be reduced to the position of proletariat and would disappear from the social and economic scene.

With the exploitation and decline of both the lower and middle classes, the system of unlimited competition led directly to the establishment of monopolies. Considerant (1847:11) declared, "Our system of free enterprise is a colossal mechanism of enormous power, which incessantly sucks up the national riches to concentrate them in the great reservoirs of the new aristocracy and which creates the starving legions of the poor and the proletarian." Moreover, this development of monopolies created serious economic and political problems. The consolidation of wealth, both in terms of capital and land, established a "vicious circle" which would stop the flow of products and result in economic chaos and instability. Because only a few controlled the money, the masses, whose salaries continually depreciated, were unable to purchase all the goods.

The outcome was overproduction followed by economic depression. He (1847:23) argued, "The most civilized nations collapse under the deadly weight of overproduction, and the legion of workers, falsely stripped of purchasing power by the conditions of their salary, cannot participate in the consummation of this exorbitant production: Is it not logical that this inhuman industrial regime which tiireatens fatal ruin to the consumers and which so miserably remunerates the workers destroys, itself by closing all markets and channels of consummation?"

In addition to economic instability, the system produced two alarming political consequences. First, the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few resulted in the "infeudation of the government to the new aristocracy." With economic power came political domination. In Consid-

8o

Social Science Quarterly

erant's mind, it did not matter what political system prevailed in what country; they all succumbed to economic domination. The "financial barons" controlled the king in France, the czar in Russia, and the Parliament in England. Even in the United States, which was so proud of its democracy, the economic giants had subjugated the Congress (Considerant 1847:12-13, 42, 70-71). Second, the free enterprise system, with its overproduction and cyclic tendencies, led directly to economic imperialism. Because of the masses' deficient purchasing power, capitalist countries sought colonial empires as an outlet for their goods. Often this frantic search resulted in the use of force and imperialistic war. Again, the political structure made no difference. England, supposedly the most liberal and democratic of the European nations, most vigorously pursued the subjugation of foreign peoples for the purpose of economic domination (Considerant 1847:23-24).

The defects and inequities in the social and economic structure above delineated, created a "social hell" characterized by the division of classes into two warring camps. Considerant's manifesto (1847:20) is profuse with statements such as, "The capitalist and the workers are in flagrant warfare. The workshop of production, of distribution, and of remuneration is notbing but an eternal battlefield." But the deplorable conditions of tbe majority of people in Europe could not continue indefinitely.

Considerant argued that the masses would not starve while the "financial lords" amassed great wealth. If reform did not come, violent revolution would erupt between the haves and have nots. As he put it, "If the wisest minds in the governments, the intelligent and liberal bourgeoisie, science, and technology do not perceive this problem, it is certain that the movement which is dominating European societies [laissez faire capitalism] will lead directly to social revolution, and we will march to a European Jacquerie" (Considerant 1847:13-14).

Anyone familiar with the Communist Manifesto can see that the above summary of the critique of laissez faire capitalism found in the Manifeste de la democratie pacifique could almost serve as a resume of "Part I" of the communist declaration. Indeed, recent scholarship has emphasized the diverse French origins of many of the ideas expressed in the communist document. But most of these writers have concluded that Marx and Engels made an important contribution by drawing a proliferation of concepts together from numerous sources and synthesizing them in their manifesto.^ It must be stated categorically, however, that Considerant's publication synthesized and lucidly expressed all of Marx and Engels' critical interpretations of nineteenth-century society several years before the publication of the Communist Manifesto. As demonstrated, the basic ^ In a weak moment, Marx himself admitted that he borrowed many of the ideas found in the Communist Manifesto in a now famous letter to Joseph Weydemeyer, March 5, 1852. It is also important to note that numerous other writers had been or were attacking laissez-faire capitalism in a similar vein, most notably Sismondi and Proudhon. But none of their expositions on society compares so closely with Marx as does Considerant's manifesto.

REFORM VERSUS REVOLUTION

8l

components of the Marxian analysis of unregulated capitalism—the growth of monopolies, the concentration of wealth, the political preponderance of big business, the exploitation of the proletarian masses, the destruction of the middle class, class antagonism, overproduction, cycUcal tendencies in the national economy, economic imperialism, and the historical development of classes based on economic confiicts of production, an idea Marx considered as one of his most original and important contributions —are enunciated with much detail and clarity in the Manifeste de la dSmocratie pacifique—in fact he expressed most of the concepts in various other writings as early as 1832. See, for example, Considerant (1832; 1835).

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO MANIFESTOES REGARDING SOLtTTIONS

Although both manifestoes attacked the social and economic structure with an almost identical analysis and both demanded a complete reorganization of society, the similarity ends at that point. Anyone who reads the two documents in their entirety will note that following the criticism of capitalism Marx and Considerant went their separate ways. In terms of both the model social structure and the methods to be employed to establish their Utopian societies, the two documents differ markedly.

Regarding the means to the ends, a fundamental and significant conflict must be noted between the two declarations. Marx and Engels looked to class war and revolution to overturn the prevailing system. Moreover, they viewed the proletarian revolution as inevitable and as historically determined by economic forces.^ Although Considerant recognized the possibility of such a conflict and even predicted civil war if reform did not come, he rejected revolution as a solution. As a pacifist, Considerant denounced all forms of violence and war. More important, he believed that revolution simply replaced one form of tyranny with another. The Revolution of 1789 provided the best example. As a result of that conflagration, the capitalistic class had replaced the old feudal nobility as the masters and oppressors of society. In Considerant's mind, future revolutions would be no better, as he (1847:21) declared, "When a class of people make a revolution for the purpose of redistributing the wealth, and when they are victorious, they do not share their spoils. They pursue the conquered and take everything."

Fundamental to this disagreement over revolution and the use of force was a difference between Considerant's and Marx's attitude toward the proletariat. Although Considerant clearly defined the class conflict as an historical development, he did not consider class struggle as inevitable or as an instrument for social progress. He consistently rejected the Marxian appeal to only one class. Although the Fourierist program called *For interpretations of Marx's concept of revolution, see Tucker (1970), Schaff (1973), and Hook (1973).

82

Social Science Quarterly

for total amelioration of the destitute position of the working people, Considerant (1847:24, 51-53) viewed the inequities of nineteenth-century society as a threat to all classes, and in his manifesto he petitioned all elements of society to support a reform program for the lower ranks of society. As with the use of force, he argued that any program appealing to only one class would increase class antagonism and hatred and could never create a harmonious society.

Considerant's concept of democracy reflects his aversion to revolution and class dictatorship. In explaining why he chose the term "Peaceful Democracy" for the tide of tfie manifesto and for the title of his newspaper, he warned that various revolutionary groups were perverting the concept of democracy. Because of the growing popularity of the term democracy, particularly among the lower classes, radical parties were seizing the term and using it as "a flag of revolution and war." Considerant (1847:60-62, 67) argued that true democracy could never be based on the use of force; democracy and coercion were antithetical. Democracy must be based on "intellectual combat" as opposed to force, because "martial arms" could never destroy ideas. Democracy, as he indicated, implied the organization and guarantee of political, social, and economic freedom and equality of opportunity for all classes, not just the proletariat. In his mind, any democratic structure must be based upon the voluntary and peaceful reorganization of society, and the majority must never be allowed to crush the minority.

Marx clearly understood this intrinsic conflict between his concept of revolution and Considerant's attitude of peaceful democracy. Attempting to negate the influence of those advocating class amelioration by satirizing their views, Marx and Engels (1964:58) declared, "They, the followers of Fourier, Saint Simon, and Owen, endeavor, therefore, and that consistently, to deaden the class struggle and to reconcile the class antagonisms. They still dream of experimental realization of their social Utopias, of founding isolated 'phalansteres,' of establishing 'home colonies,' of setting up a 'Little Icaria,' duodecimo editions of the New Jerusalem, and to realize all these castles in the air, they are compelled to appeal to the feelings and purses of the bourgeoisie." Although Marx and Engels were ridiculing the Fourierists, Considerant would not have objected to the basic premise of the above quotation, only to its tone.

DIFFERENCES BEGABDING THE PERFECT SOCIETY

Finally, regarding the ultimate, perfect society, the manifestoes differ on many points. It is somewhat true, as Lansac (1926), and others have noted, that there are similarities between Marx's communal structure and the Fourierist phalanstery. When Marx and Engels (1964:33-41, 62) called for an international movement based upon "the union and agreement of democratic parties of all countries" and the abolition of

REFORM VERSUS REVOLUTION

83

nationalism, the "centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the state," the "establishment of industrial armies," the "combination of agriculture and manufacturing industries," tbe "gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country," "free education for all children in public schools," "the combination of education with industrial production," and the political, economic and social emancipation of women, they were reiterating programs which Considerant (1836; 1840; 1842; 1844; 1847), and others, had been advocating for several years. In a more general sense, botb Marx and Considerant sought to create a social and economic structure which would effect a compromise between individual needs and aspirations and the needs of society as a whole. Particularly, botb hoped to create a social structure which would allow the individual to act in his own best interest and to be able to do so without adversely aflFecting others in society. And it is interesting that Marx and Engels (1964:41) referred to their proposed social structure as "an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." As every social and political activist of the 1848 period understood, the term association, made popular earlier by the Saint-Simonians, belonged to the Fourierist domain. When Considerant and a few of his colleagues founded the Fourierist movement in 1832, they selected the name Ecole soci6taire (Association School) for their ofiBcial organization, and the Fourierists always referred to their phalanstery as an association in which individual activities would improve society (Considerant 1847:20-22).

Despite these specific and general parallels in their proposed social organizations, Considerant and Marx differed significantly in their concepts of an association. These fundamental contradictions are clearly demonstrated in the two manifestoes. Marx and Engels (1964:25-31, 62) in adopting the labor tbeory of value, proposed the establishment of a totally equaiitarian society based upon the complete abolition of private property and private capital. Considerant never accepted tbe labor theory of value nor the concept of equaiitarian communalism. In fact, Considerant, or Fourier for that matter, should not even be classified as a socialist, at least not in the pure definition of socialism. In the Manifeste de la democratie pacifique and in other writings, Considerant rejected the idea of totally abolishing private capital and private property holding.

He argued that the development of property holding was a civilizing and essentially historical development which was now impossible to destroy.

He declared that "the sentiment of property is a formal element of human individuality," and that it would be dangerous and impossible to destroy the individual drive to collect personal wealth through property and capital. Rather than abolish private wealth, Considerant declared, "On the contrary, it is a question of finding and establishing the most perfect, the most secure, the most free, the most mobile, and, at tbe same time, the most social forms of property holding by harmonizing the individual interests with the general interests. It is necessary to unite property, not by promiscuous and egalitarian communalism, confused and barbaric.

84

Social Science Quarterly

but by the Hierarchical Association, a voluntary and intelligent combination of all individual property" (Considerant 1847:45).

Considerant viewed the association as an arrangement whereby private property and capital would be united with labor. His communal structure depended on the investment of private capital and property. The phalanstery would serve simply as the tenant, and remuneration would be based upon the input of capital and labor. For the practical application of this principle, Considerant abolished salaries in the association and devised an elaborate system of dividends, the rudiments of which were first propounded by Fourier, which would be distributed to all participants in proportion to the amounts of capital, labor, and talent contributed by each. Considerant's concept of talent included not only managerial skills, as has been assumed by some students of Fourierism, but included any particular proficiency which added measurably to the wealth of the commune. Annually, the value of all production would be divided, three twelfths for skill, four twelfths for capital, and five twelfths for labor. Thus, the Fourierist association provided, not for the abolition of property and capital and the completely equal distribution of wealth, but for a combination of capital value and labor value based on a more equitable relationship than presently existed under laissez faire capitalism. It is significant to note, however, that labor would receive a slightly higher share of the profits than capital in Considerant's system.

CONCLUSIONS

The preceding comparison of the ideas expressed in the Communist Manifesto and in the Manifeste de la democratie pacifique, thus, demonstrates a similarity in some areas but a marked divergence in others.

With regard to critical analysis of laissez faire capitalism, Considerant clearly predates Marx. Whether or not Marx and Engels lifted ideas from Considerant's document, it is certain that they were familiar with the Manifeste de la dSmocratie pacifique, that it influenced their thinking both positively and negatively, and, concerning the critique of society, Marx had nothing new to add.

Concerning methods, solutions, and proposed social structures, however, the two documents are profoundly antithetical. The claim that the Communist Manifesto is "almost a mere translation of Victor Considerant," is a distortion of the facts. All three writers, Marx, Engels, and Considerant, would have rejected such an interpretation. History must continue to recognize Marx, for better or for worse, as the prime popularizer of the ideas of the proletarian revolution and dictatorship. Conversely, historical scholarship needs to accord Victor Considerant a more significant role for his early synthesis of unregulated capitalism and for his proposals for a more equitable social structure based upon a voluntary and democratic association of capital and labor.

REFORM VERSUS REVOLUTION

85

REFERENCES

Barzun, J. 1958. Darwin, Marx, Wagner: Critique of a Heritage (Garden City: Doubleday and Company).

Bernstein, S. 1949-50. "From Utopianism to Marx," Science and Society 14, no. 1 (Winter): 58-67.

Bo, D. D. 1957. Charles Fourier e le Scuola Societaire (Milan: Feltrinelli Editore).

Bourgin, H. 1909. Victor Considerant, son oeuvre (Lyons: Imprimeries r6unies).

Brandes, G. 1925. Ferdinand Lassale (New York: Bernard G. Richards Co.).

Cohen, M. R. 1946. The Faith of a Liberal (New York: Henry Holt and Co.).

Considerant, V. 1832. "La Civilisation ruinant ses pauvres," Phalanstere [Paris] 2: 25-27. . 1835. Destin6e sociale (Paris: Bureau de La Phalange). . 1836. N6cessite d'une demiere debacle politique en France (Paris: Librairie phalansterienne). . 1840. De la politique g6n6rale et du role de la France en Europe (Paris: Bureau de La Phalange). . 1842. Bases de la politique positive, Manifeste de Tficole societaire (Paris: Librairie phalansterienne). . 1844. Chemins de fer (Paris: Librairie societaire). . 1847. Principes du socialisme, Manifeste de la d6mocratie au XIXe siecle (Paris: Librairie phalanst^rienne). . 1849. Le Socialisme devant le vieux monde ou le vivant devant les morts (Paris: Librairie phalanst6rienne).

Davidson, R. V. 1973. "Victor Considerant and the Failure of La Reunion," Southwestern Historical Quarterly 76, no. 3 (January): 277-296.

Dommanget, M. 1929. Victor Considerant, sa vie, son oeuvre (Paris: Editions sociales internationales).

Hammen, O. J. 1969. The Red '48ers: Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons).

Hook, Sidney. 1973. "Myth and Fact in the Marxist Theory of Revolution and Violence," Journal of the History of Ideas 34, no. 2 (April-June): 263-280.

Lansac, M. 1926. Les conceptions methodologiques et sociales de Charles Fourier (Paris: Librairie philosophique de J. Vrin).

"Les Correspondances de Victor Considerant." 1826-1893. Housed in the Archives Nationales (Paris).

Lichtheim, G. 1961. Marxism: An Historical and Critical Study (New York: Praeger Publishers).

Marx, K. and Engels, F. 1964. The Communist Manifesto, ed. Paul M. Sweezy and Leo Huberman (New York: Monthly Review Press).

Rheinische Zeitung. 1841-1842. (Cologne).

Schaff, Adam. 1973. "Marxist Theory on Revolution and Violence," Joumal of the History of Ideas 34, no. 2 (April-June): 263-280.

Sorel, G. n.d. La decomposition du Marxisme (Paris: Alcan).

Tcherkesoff, W. 1902. Pages of Socialist History: Teaching and Acts of Social Democracy (New York: C. B. Cooper).

Tucker, Robert G. 1970. The Marxian Revolutionary Idea (New York: W. W. Norton & Co.).