Tag Archives: Comte de St. Simon

A Consequence of Capitalism

Posted on by

Comte de Saint-Simon disparaged laissez-faire industry in “The Incoherence and Disorder of Industry”, saying that capitalists are not concerned with the well being of society and are solely individuals looking to profit. This leads to men emphasizing their cunning and shrewdness and leading them to be “lost to humanity”. ((Comte de Saint-Simon, The Incoherence and Disorder of Industry)) Marx took an equally negative stance on capitalism in “Estranged Labor” although he chose to focus on the worker and not the capitalist. Marx argued that every step of the production process estranges the worker from the product they are creating, as the more the worker produces, the less he is able to possess. The worker is also estranged from the process of production, as Marx writes, “labor produces for the rich wonderful things – but for the worker it produces privation”. ((Karl Marx, Estranged Labor 1844. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/labour.htm)) Workers are estranged through the process of production as they are not affirmed by their work and they do not enjoy it. Marx wrote that as men are alienated from their work their labor becomes forced labor, therefore workers only feel completely free when performing animal functions, such as eating, drinking and procreating.

Marx and Saint-Simon highlight similar issues with how capitalism impacts interpersonal relationships. Saint-Simon points out that men are inherently competitive and that this leads them to enter a potentially lucrative industry, creating a few successful men and many who are completely ruined. In a similar vein, Marx discusses the estrangement between men as those who produce are under the dominion of those who own the means of production. This creates a dichotomy between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ in terms of who wields the most influence in society and has the most opportunity.

Marx and Saint-Simon were both writing near the nineteenth century when the Industrial Revolution was impacting many different areas. Many of the problems they identified with capitalism are still present in society today, is there any way to correct for these issues or reduce their impact? Is today’s society reducing the divisions between workers and owners or are the divisions growing?

A Manifesto So Compelling, Intriguing, Controversial, and Most Importantly, Still Relevant Today

Posted on by

The Communist Manifesto (1848)

Author: Karl Marx (1818-1883)

  • One of the most important and influential intellectuals of the nineteenth century
  • Economic situation was very volatile, but usually in poverty
  • Banned from entering many locations due to his radical ideas

Context:

  • Published in 1848
  • Industrial Revolution is either in full swing or starting to take hold, depending on location
  • The Communists has become feared by many in Western Europe, yet the group itself does not have a clear purpose, direction, or organization
    • Many of its members are not that knowledgeable of the complexities and history that Marx was able to notice
  • Western Europe is on the verge of revolution in many different locations – especially Germany

Language:

  • The Manifesto seems to be split into two in this regard:
    • Some sections are very dense with heavy academic wording and style → hard to read
    • Some sections are very straightforward and easy for everyone to understand
      • The list Marx made towards the end of the second section
      • The last words of the Manifesto, which are in all caps and are in simple terms
    • Marx, who ran his own newspaper, likely did this on purpose. Newspapers could publish excerpts from the Manifesto that were clear and easy for everybody to understand. Meanwhile, academics and the well versed could read through the denser sections and understand Marx’s intentions.

Audience:

  • The workers of the world, academics, and political elites were all likely part of the target audience of Marx.
  • Current Communists at the time of Marx’s writings were also part of Marx’s audience because it was in this document that Marx tried to shape the direction of the Communist Party/League.

Intent:

  • Marx was trying to spread the idea of Communism to the rest of Europe and was trying to organize the Communist Party/League.
  • Marx also has a few other motives:
    • Rebuke the Communist Party/League’s critics and return the challenge back in their direction
    • Explain how Communism is different from the varying strands of socialism
    • Explain the history of the bourgeois and the proletariat – highlighting constant class struggle
    • Establish the current state of Communism and revolutionary possibilities across Western Europe

Message:

  • The factory workers, or the proletariat, are the latest in a constant series of class struggle throughout history. The bourgeois are also part of this cycle, and they currently are in a revolution against the feudal powers of old. (These revolutionary beliefs come to fruition in the revolutions of 1848.) For the time being, the proletariat should help the bourgeois in these revolutions. Eventually, the proletariat will revolt against a bourgeois ruling class.
  • It lays the framework for the Communist Party/League, setting it apart from other Socialist groups.
  • All the workers in the world should unite against the capitalism and bourgeois class that oppresses them.

Why:

  • The Communists have been recognized as a threat by many of the Western European powers, and as such, Marx thinks it fitting that he set a standardized position of the Communists and provide leadership to a relatively incoherent movement.
  • Marx likely developed these views after seeing the horrors that capitalism and the Industrial Revolution have caused throughout Western Europe. On top of his own being witness to these situations, he likely has read the writing of many of those before him who also shared some of his thoughts.

Relationship to Previous Readings:

  • Marx alludes to a couple of the writers we have read before, such as Owen and St. Simon. However, despite likely agreeing with their assessment of the negatives of the Industrial Revolution, he distances the Communists from them. In short, in Marx’s perspective, Owen and St. Simon wanted to work within the system and improve all classes, not just the working class. Meanwhile, Marx clearly favors the working class and wants an overthrow or overhaul of the system.
  • Marx is advocating for a complete one hundred eighty degrees from Adam Smith. As opposed to allowing the economy to run its course, as Smith advocates, Marx desires from the state to completely control, balance, and equalize the economy.

Questions:

  • What is the appeal of the Communist Party/League and/or Marxism?
    • Placing yourself in the context of a factory worker, would you want to join?
  • Although we will likely touch upon this later, in what ways did the Soviet Union (USSR) and the People’s Republic of China veer away from the Communist Manifesto?

Karl Marx and Comte de Saint-Simon

Posted on by

Author: Comte de Saint-Simon

– Born October 17th, 1760 in France and died May 19th 1825 in Paris.

– Belonged to a poor aristocratic family, had a bumpy education, and joined the army at 17.

– Aided the Americans in the Revolutionary War.

– Gained wealth due to the Reign of Terror, but quickly became bankrupt and attempted to take his own life.

 

Context:

– Wrote during a very tumultuous time in France’s history, before industrialization.

– Witnessed the hight of the French Revolution, and the rise of Napoleon.

 

Language:

– He often uses a fairly sarcastic tone to mock society and its views.

– He uses casual speech, and attacks certain parties in his essay.

– He has a very jaded view and it is present in his work, most likely caused by the state of his life (see above).

 

Audience:

-He most likely seems to be speaking to his peers, since he does not speak in an explanatory tone, but a casual one.

 

Intent:

-He is trying to convince his peers that something is amiss in society.

-He is trying to show that the economy is broken.

 

Message:

– Laissez-faire, laissez-passer! does not help the common people.

– “Will they bear their misery patiently because statistical calculations prove that in future years they will have food to appease their hunger?”

 

Author:  Karl Marx

– Born May 5th, 1818 in Trier, died March 14th 1883 in London.

– Born into a wealthy middle-class family, was educated at the universities of Bonn and Berlin.

– Moved to France, but was later exiled to England.

-Briefly wrote fiction, as well as nonfiction.

 

Context:

– His views and works were extremely liberal at the time, and he had issues publishing his works.

– Was active during the rise of Communism, and wrote in its favor.

-His works quickly started dramatic changes in Europe (especially after publishing the Communist Manifesto in 1848).

 

Language:

– Can be rather poetic at times, with repetition commonly seen in poems.

– Use of philosophical rhetoric commonly seen in Plato and Socrates’ work.

– Very explanatory, often repeating points.

 

Audience:

– Most likely geared towards a lower demographic (such as laborers), because of the repetition and explanatory tone.

 

Intent:

– To show that Capitalism cheapens the worth of the lower-class worker, by forcing them to produce more and better products with no regard for themselves.

 

Message:

-Laborers are being alienated by their work, and are becoming more barbaric because of this.

 

Comte De Saint-Simon, The Incoherence and Disorder of Industry

Posted on by

 

Author:(1760-1825), Also known as Claude Henri de Rouvroy, comte de Saint-Simon was a French economist who challenged his nation’s traditional economic composition.  He believed that the economy should be strategically industrialized eather than run it a Laissez-faire manner.  This was one of the earlier writings advocating socialism.  His thinking that the common man was a hard worker demonstrates his positive reflxtion on human nature.

Context:  France had always had a capitalist economic structure.  Comte de Saint-Simon was a rising political figure in France.  He believed that it was more beneficial to society to fit the needs of the working class rather than the wealthy or “idle” class.  He felt that through an enlightened industrial class, products could be raised to fit the needs of the poor.  

Language: Comte de Saint-Simon uses a persuasive tone that is design to appeal to the reader’s sense of emotion.  He uses words that attempt to convice the audience that people should be hard workers dedicated to the betterment of society rather than their own interests.

Audience:  Saint-Simon is addressing the common people of France.  Wants to convince the majority of society that his new economic system is better than the old Laissez-fair system.  He realizes that the wealthiest class will not support his system so he does not attempt to reach them.  In fact, he even blames their own greed for the flaws in French society.

Intent:  The essay is intended to create support for his alternative to France’s existing economic structure.  He intends to spread his belief in the common man’s hardworking nature to the middle class in French society.  He believes this composition as opposed to the existing capitalist structure would raise the standard of living for society.  Likewise, he realizes that if his political system is implemented, he will likely be viewed as the face of French economics.

Message:  The message of the essay is that society be tailored around the working man.  He asserts that the working class is the cornerstone of the economy, however, the elite, or idle class, benefits the most from it.  He advocates an economy that is based around virtues rather than the cut-throat nature of capitalism and he believes that it would make society better as a whole.

 

 

The Dangers of a Laissez Faire Economy

Posted on by

Owen, Comte de St. Simon, and Marx share similar disdain for laissez faire economies. All three vilify the effects of a free market, in stark contrast to the beliefs of Adam Smith. Owen and Comte de St. Simon are most explicit in their attacks on the free market, blaming its systems and its supporters for the overwhelming decadence of industrial Europe. They argue that laissez faire economies rewards those who exploit others while punishing those with any shred of decency or respect for their fellow man. This compels men to become more selfish and deceitful, or else face monetary destitution, the latter being the more appealing option to most. By this process, men aspiring to the same goal are forced into competition and rivalry, turned against each other by their economic situation. Owen pleads with the people of England to recognize this unnatural animosity, but the proponents of laissez faire economies are firm in their conviction that the interests of the individual and the interests of the society are intertwined. But as Owen elucidates, the laborers who manufacture the products which benefit society are often deprived of the fruits of their labor. The benefits of a free market economy are only immediately realized by those who are selfish and shameless, while the honest working people are left to trudge through fiscal turmoil.

While the United States’ economy is not a completely free market, the ideals of capitalism are still held in high regard by many U.S. citizens. However, as these authors have made obvious, a laissez fair economy is often only advantageous to a minority of the population. Do the pros of capitalism outweigh the cons? Is equality of opportunity more important than equality of outcome? Would we be a better nation if we were more fiscally equal? Or are we a better nation under the ideals of capitalism?