CLAUDE HENRI DE ROUVROY, COMTE DE ST. SIMON

The Incoherence and Disorder of Industry

There were many critiques developed to comprehend the implications of early industrialization. Claude Henri de Rouvroy (1760-1825), better known as the Comte de Saint-Simon, detested laissez-faire political economy, advocating instead, in an enduring French tradition, an industrialized state directed by science, and an enlightened class of industrialists to address the needs of the poor. St. Simon, who also fought in the American Revolution, used a self-made fortune to promote numerous large-scale industrial enterprises which left him an impoverished man. His writings, especially The New Christianity, had little impact during his lifetime but influenced subsequent generations of French social theorists. His most enduring legacy was perhaps his influence on Auguste Comte, who founded the doctrine of Positivism.

In industry, as in science, emphasis is centred entirely on individualism; the sole sentiment which dominates all thinking is egotism. The industrialist is very little concerned about society's interests. His family, his capital and the personal fortune he strives to attain, constitute his humanity, his universe, his god. All those pursuing the same career are inevitably enemies . . . and it is by ruining them that he attains personal happiness and glory.

Problems which are no less serious exist regarding the organisation of work. Industry possesses a theory, which it might be believed holds the key to the harmonisation of production and consumption. Now this theory itself is the principal cause of disorder; the economists seem to pose the following problem:

"If it is accepted that leaders of society are more ignorant than those they govern; if it is supposed, moreover, that far from favouring the development of industry, these leaders wished to hinder its development, and their representatives were the born enemies of the producers, what kind of industrial organisation is suited to society?"

Laissez-faire, laissez-passer! Such has been the inevitable solution; such has been the single, general principle which they have proclaimed. The economists have thought by this to resolve with a stroke of the pen all questions relating to the production and distribution of wealth; they have entrusted the realisation of their schemes to personal interest, without realising that the individual, irrespective of his insight, is incapable of assessing total situations.... Well then! what is the picture we see before us? Each industry, deprived of direction, without any guidance other than personal observation, which is always imperfect ... strives to become informed about consumer needs. Rumour has it that a branch of production offers wonderful prospects; all endeavour and capital are directed towards it, everyone dashes blindly into it. . . . The economists immediately applaud the stampede because in it they recognise the principle of competition. . . . Alas! What results from this struggle to the death? Several fortunate individuals triumph ... the price is the complete ruin of innumerable victims. A necessary consequence of this over-production in certain sectors, this uncoordinated activity, is that the equilibrium between production and consumption is always affected. Innumerable crises result, those commercial crises which terrify speculators and frustrate worthwhile projects. Honest and hard-working men are ruined and morale is injured by such events; such people come to believe that to succeed something more than honesty and hard work are needed.

They become cunning, shrewd and sly; they even boast about these characteristics; once they have assumed this position, they are lost to humanity.

Let us add now that the fundamental principle, laissez-faire, laissez-passer, assumes that personal and social interests always coincide, a supposition which is disproved by innumerable facts. To select only one example, is it not clear that if society sees its interest in the establishment of a steam engine, the worker who lives by his hands cannot share this sentiment? The reply to the workers' objection is well-known; for example, printing is cited, and it is true that today it occupies more men than there were transcribers before its invention, therefore it is concluded and stated that in the long run a new equilibrium is obtained. An admirable conclusion! And until then what will happen to the thousands of hungry men? Will our reasoning console them? Will they bear their misery patiently because statistical calculations prove that in future years they will have food to appease their hunger?