REFORM VERSUS REVOLUTION:VICTOR CONSIDERANT AND THECOMMUNIST MANIFESTO'

RONDEL V. DAVIDSONPan American University

DESPITE VOLUMINOUS PUBLICATIONS RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENTof Marxism, the specific origins of the Communist Manifesto re-main subject to scholarly debate. One of the most important and

unresolved controversies deals with the relationship between Marx andEngels' publication of 1848 and the French Fourierist, Victor-ProsperConsiderant's Manifeste de la democratie pacifique, originally publishedin 1843 as the introduction to his newspaper, DSmocratie pacifique, andreissued in book form under the tide, Principes du sodalisme, Manifestede la democratie au XIXe siecle, in 1847. What little scholarship hasbeen produced on this subject is extremely polemical, superficial andinconclusive. For a more accurate assessment of the contributions ofMarx and, more particularly, of Considerant to nineteenth-century social-ism, a comprehensive understanding of the connection between thesetwo documents is imperative.^

LITERATURE ON THE SUBJECT

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

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

2 Although Marx expressed many of the ideas found in the Communist Manifestoin earlier writings, particularly his and Engels' The Holy Family (1845), and Povertyof Philosophy (1847), none of these works predates the first publication of Conside-rant's manifesto in August, 1843. Since the Communist Manifesto represents a morecomprehensive and a more thoroughly developed expression of Marx s concepts thanthese 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 intendto neglect Engels and his important role in drafting the Communist Manifesto. Ofparticular significance is Engels' unpublished essay of 1847, "Principles of Commun-ism," which the two used as a starting point for their manifesto ol 1848. Althoughcertainly a coincidence, it is interesting to note that Engels drafted this documentwhile he was in Paris at almost the same time Considerant's manifesto appeared inbook form under the similar title, Principes du socialisme.

REFORM VERSUS REVOLUTION 7 5

argument that Marx and Engels drew heavily from Considerant's mani-festo. Writers such as Sorel (n.d.:32) and Cohen (1946:111) haveaccused Marx of plagiarizing from the Manifeste de la democratie paci-fique, and Brandes (1925:115) states in his biography of FerdinandLassalle that the Communist Manifesto is "almost a mere translationfrom Victor Considerant . . ."

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

Pro-Marxist writers have responded to these charges of plagiarism bya rather eflFective ruse of their own—they have, by and large, ignoredthem. Most Marxian accounts of the development of the CommunistManifesto do not mention Victor Considerant. The only serious attemptby a pro-Marxist to counter these charges was made by Bernstein. Writingin Science and Society, Bernstein (1949:58-67) recognizes these allega-tions against Marx and simply declares that they are false. Without com-paring the two documents or without indicating the contents of Consid-erant's manifesto, he proceeds to acclaim the originality and profundityof the Communist document. As with the anti-Marxist polemics, Bern-stein's vague generalities prove of little value to the serious student ofsocialism.

Unfortunately, the most able scholars have passed over the oppor-tunity to resolve this controversy. While briefly alluding to a possibleconnection between the two manifestoes, intellectual historians such asBarzun (1958:177), Lichtheim (1961:61-62), and Hammen (1969:171),in their otherwise brilliant and penetrating analysis of Marxism, refrainfrom describing the relationship. None of these writers makes any at-tempt to compare the two works or to indicate what Considerant's mani-festo contains or how it might be considered a forerunner of the commu-nist declaration. Their failure to clarify the problem has left a serioushiatus 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 theactivities and writings of Victor Considerant. Despite the fact that mostUnited States' historians have inexplicably ignored Considerant's role inEuropean history, he was one of the best known and most influentialsocial critics of tfie period 1836-1849. After having obtained the rank ofcaptain in the French army, he abandoned a secure military position foran uncertain career as a socialist writer and propagandist. As the leaderof the Fourierist movement, Considerant, more than any other individual,popularized its ideas. He authored over 20 books, numerous pamphletsand essays, and edited three newspapers. His publications, particularlyDestinSe sociale (1836-1844) and the Exposition abrigSe du systimephalansterien de Fourier (1845), brought Fourier's ambiguous and some-times preposterous ideas out of obscurity, rationalized tihem and placedthem before the public. Under Considerant's leadership, the £cole sociS-taire, the official Fourierist society, organized branch societies in almostevery major city in Europe and in the United States and disseminatedpropaganda throughout the world.

Considerant played a significant role in the French Revolution of1848, serving the Second Republic in the Constitutional Assembly, theLuxemburg Commission, the Constitutional Committee, the Committeeof Work and the National Assembly. As a result of his bitter oppositionto the presidency of Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, Considerant was exiledfrom France in 1849. In 1855, he established an unsuccessful, althoughimportant, communal experiment near Dallas, Texas, knovm as La Re-union. When Napoleon III lifted the ban on him in 1869, Considerantreturned to Paris where he lived the remainder of his life as a socialistsage of the Latin Quarter. He died in Paris in 1893, a citizen of theUnited 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 hisnumerous publications were as well known as those of Louis Blanc,Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Louis-Auguste Blanqui, Etienne Cabet, andLedru-RoUin. By mid-nineteenth century standards, Considerant's booksand his newspapers were circulated widely. The Martifeste de la dSmo-cratie pacifique was probably a more influential document in socialisthistory prior to the 1870s than was the Communist Manifesto. In additionto its publication in newspaper form in 1843, Considerant's manifestowent through three editions in book form in Paris, two in 1847 and onein 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 visitto the French capital, no relationship ever developed between the two.

REFORM VERSUS REVOLUTION -JJ

Arnold Ruge attempted to induce Considerant, along with several otherParis radicals and socialists, to collaborate with Marx in writing for theirproposed Cerman-French publication, Deutsche-Franzosische Jahrbiicher.Considerant refused any contact with the Cerman radicals. He apparent-ly did not know, in 1843, who Marx was, and he was unwilling toassociate himself with the revolutionary image of Ruge. There is no evi-dence to indicate that Marx and Considerant ever met during any of Marx'svisits to Paris. Moreover, the voluminous letters and manuscripts of bothmen which have been preserved indicate that the two never correspondedwith each other. Although Considerant ("Correspondances," 1826-1893)did join the First International in 1871, he never considered it a Marxistorganization, and he had no contact with the Marxist members.

What relationship existed between Marx and Considerant was theo-retical and confined specifically to the impact of Considerant's writingson the development of Marx's thinking during the formative years of1843-49. By their own admissions, Marx and Engels were thoroughlyfamiliar with Considerant's writings, particularly his newspaper and theManifeste de la dSmocratie pacifique. In fact, the two communists fre-quently indicated their respect and preference for the Fourierist critiqueof contemporary society (Rheinische Zeitung, 1841-1842). This affinityis particularly evident in Engels' unpublished essay, "A Fragment fromFourier on Trade."

COMPABISON OF THE TWO MANIFESTOES CMTIQUE OF CAPITALISM

The Communist Manifesto clearly demonstrates Considerant's infiuenceon Marx and Engels' thinking. The charge of plagiarism stems from thesimilarity between the two manifestoes concerning their analysis ofnineteenth-century society in general and capitalism in particular. In thisregard, the Manifeste de la dimocratie pacifique definitely foreshadowsthe Communist Manifesto. Throughout Marx and Engels' declaration,the rhetoric parallels Considerant's. Such words as "class struggle," "classwar," "feudal lords," "oppressed proletariat," and "exploitation" appearprofusely in both documents. In a few places, whole sentences demon-strate a striking similarity. For example, in the Fourierist manifesto Con-siderant (1847:10-11) stated, "Society tends to split more and moredistinctly into two great classes: a small number possessing all or nearlyall the domain of property, of commerce and of industry; and the greatnumbers possessing nothing, living in absolute collective dependence onthe holders of capital and the machines of work, compelled to hire outfor an uncertain salary and always losing their power, their talents, andtheir forces to the feudal lords of modern society." In the declaration of1848, Marx and Engels (1964:3) proclaimed, "Society as a whole is moreand more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classesdirectly facing each other—bourgeoisie and proletariat." Regarding thedevelopment of economic imperialism Considerant (1847:22-23) de-

78 Social Science Quarterly

clared, "Industrial nations try mightily to obtain foreign markets fortheir manufactured goods. England, tormented by overproduction ofgoods, 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 con-sumers." And in the Communist Manifesto (1964:7), one reads, "Theneed of a constantly expanding market for products chases the bour-geoisie over the whole surface of the globe. . . . The cheap prices of itscommodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down allChinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians' intensely obstinatehatred of foreigners to capitulate." Regarding the aflBnity of rhetoric itis 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 inthe Fourierist declaration. In the Manifeste de la dSmocratie pacifique,Considerant attacked those he termed as "Political Communists" forattempting to dupe the proletariat into establishing "Egalitarian Com-munalism" and for propounding the destruction of private propertythrough revolution and force.

In addition to phraseology, Considerant pointed to the same societaldefects as did Marx and Engels. In fact, Considerant's attack on nine-teenth-century capitalism is a more comprehensive analysis. Accordingto Considerant (1847:1-2), the past was characterized by the exploita-tion of one class at the expense of another. In ancient society the freemen oppressed the slaves, and in the feudal society, the nobility "tram-pled under foot" the peasants and serfs. The French Revolution of 1789supposedly established freedom and equality by destroying the old order,by proclaiming equality before the law, and by creating a system ofpolitical democracy through various forms of representative government.But, as Considerant (1847:4-6) argued, the Revolution only destroyedthe old order; it did nothing to organize and guarantee the principles ofequality and democracy which it theoretically proclaimed. In reality, theRevolution of 1789 was a destructive force which replaced an old formof feudalism with a "new feudalism." The new feudalism created adifferent, but no less powerful and oppressive aristocracy based uponcapital and not land.

Under the mask of protecting individual freedoms, the systems oflaissez-faire economics and free enterprise forced the masses of workingpeople into abject slavery. In Considerant's opinion, the term free enter-prise was an insidious catch phrase which had been utilized by oneclass of people to subjugate another class. He argued that economicanarchy was as bad as political anarchy. Under the prevailing systemof "anarchical competition" and "blind warfare," a few individuals pos-sessed all the advantages, capital, education, talent, and powerful posi-tions in society. The proletariat, the most numerous class, could notpossibly compete on an equal basis with the upper classes because theyhad 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 bond-age, the collective infeudation of the masses who are destitute of capital,of the instruments of work, of education, and of industrial arms, to theendowed and well-armed capitalist class."

According to the Fourierist, the system not only enslaved the lowerclass, but it progressively increased their misery. Unregulated capitalismproduced a process of triple competition which resulted in the continualdepreciation of workers' salaries. Competition between entrepreneurs formarkets motivated them to lower prices and this, in turn, forced themto lower salaries. Because the ranks of the proletariat were rapidly in-creasing, competition between workers for jobs forced them to agree towork for lower wages. Finally, scientific and technological advancesforced the worker to compete wdth machines for employment. Thesethree forms of rivalry placed the worker in a defenseless position (Con-siderant 1847:8-9).

The proletariat was not the only class which suffered from anarchicalcompetition. Considerant (1847:9-10) was one of the first nineteenth-century writers to sound the alarm for the middle class. According tohim, the large entrepreneurs "sucked up" and "progressively crushed"small and middle-sized industry, commerce, and agriculture. At the pres-ent rate of attrition, the middle class would soon be reduced to the posi-tion of proletariat and would disappear from the social and economicscene.

With the exploitation and decline of both the lower and middle classes,the system of unlimited competition led directly to the establishment ofmonopolies. Considerant (1847:11) declared, "Our system of free enter-prise is a colossal mechanism of enormous power, which incessantlysucks up the national riches to concentrate them in the great reservoirsof the new aristocracy and which creates the starving legions of the poorand the proletarian." Moreover, this development of monopolies createdserious economic and political problems. The consolidation of wealth,both in terms of capital and land, established a "vicious circle" whichwould stop the flow of products and result in economic chaos and insta-bility. Because only a few controlled the money, the masses, whose sal-aries 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 deadlyweight of overproduction, and the legion of workers, falsely stripped ofpurchasing power by the conditions of their salary, cannot participate inthe consummation of this exorbitant production: Is it not logical thatthis inhuman industrial regime which tiireatens fatal ruin to the consum-ers and which so miserably remunerates the workers destroys, itself byclosing all markets and channels of consummation?"

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

8o Social Science Quarterly

erant's mind, it did not matter what political system prevailed in whatcountry; they all succumbed to economic domination. The "financialbarons" controlled the king in France, the czar in Russia, and the Parlia-ment in England. Even in the United States, which was so proud of itsdemocracy, the economic giants had subjugated the Congress (Consider-ant 1847:12-13, 42, 70-71). Second, the free enterprise system, with itsoverproduction and cyclic tendencies, led directly to economic imperial-ism. Because of the masses' deficient purchasing power, capitalist coun-tries sought colonial empires as an outlet for their goods. Often thisfrantic search resulted in the use of force and imperialistic war. Again,the political structure made no difference. England, supposedly the mostliberal and democratic of the European nations, most vigorously pursuedthe subjugation of foreign peoples for the purpose of economic domina-tion (Considerant 1847:23-24).

The defects and inequities in the social and economic structure abovedelineated, created a "social hell" characterized by the division of classesinto two warring camps. Considerant's manifesto (1847:20) is profusewith statements such as, "The capitalist and the workers are in flagrantwarfare. The workshop of production, of distribution, and of remunera-tion is notbing but an eternal battlefield." But the deplorable conditionsof tbe majority of people in Europe could not continue indefinitely.Considerant argued that the masses would not starve while the "financiallords" amassed great wealth. If reform did not come, violent revolutionwould erupt between the haves and have nots. As he put it, "If thewisest minds in the governments, the intelligent and liberal bourgeoisie,science, and technology do not perceive this problem, it is certain thatthe movement which is dominating European societies [laissez fairecapitalism] will lead directly to social revolution, and we will marchto a European Jacquerie" (Considerant 1847:13-14).

Anyone familiar with the Communist Manifesto can see that the abovesummary of the critique of laissez faire capitalism found in the Manifestede la democratie pacifique could almost serve as a resume of "Part I" ofthe communist declaration. Indeed, recent scholarship has emphasizedthe diverse French origins of many of the ideas expressed in the commu-nist document. But most of these writers have concluded that Marx andEngels made an important contribution by drawing a proliferation ofconcepts together from numerous sources and synthesizing them in theirmanifesto.^ It must be stated categorically, however, that Considerant'spublication synthesized and lucidly expressed all of Marx and Engels'critical interpretations of nineteenth-century society several years beforethe publication of the Communist Manifesto. As demonstrated, the basic

^ In a weak moment, Marx himself admitted that he borrowed many of the ideasfound 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 beenor were attacking laissez-faire capitalism in a similar vein, most notably Sismondiand Proudhon. But none of their expositions on society compares so closely withMarx as does Considerant's manifesto.

REFORM VERSUS REVOLUTION 8 l

components of the Marxian analysis of unregulated capitalism—the growthof monopolies, the concentration of wealth, the political preponderanceof big business, the exploitation of the proletarian masses, the destructionof the middle class, class antagonism, overproduction, cycUcal tendenciesin the national economy, economic imperialism, and the historical devel-opment of classes based on economic confiicts of production, an ideaMarx considered as one of his most original and important contributions—are enunciated with much detail and clarity in the Manifeste de ladSmocratie pacifique—in fact he expressed most of the concepts in variousother 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 structurewith an almost identical analysis and both demanded a complete reor-ganization of society, the similarity ends at that point. Anyone who readsthe two documents in their entirety will note that following the criticismof capitalism Marx and Considerant went their separate ways. In termsof both the model social structure and the methods to be employed toestablish their Utopian societies, the two documents differ markedly.Regarding the means to the ends, a fundamental and significant conflictmust be noted between the two declarations. Marx and Engels lookedto class war and revolution to overturn the prevailing system. Moreover,they viewed the proletarian revolution as inevitable and as historicallydetermined by economic forces. Although Considerant recognized thepossibility of such a conflict and even predicted civil war if reform didnot come, he rejected revolution as a solution. As a pacifist, Considerantdenounced all forms of violence and war. More important, he believedthat revolution simply replaced one form of tyranny with another. TheRevolution of 1789 provided the best example. As a result of that con-flagration, the capitalistic class had replaced the old feudal nobility asthe masters and oppressors of society. In Considerant's mind, futurerevolutions would be no better, as he (1847:21) declared, "When a classof people make a revolution for the purpose of redistributing the wealth,and when they are victorious, they do not share their spoils. They pursuethe conquered and take everything."

Fundamental to this disagreement over revolution and the use of forcewas a difference between Considerant's and Marx's attitude toward theproletariat. Although Considerant clearly defined the class conflict asan historical development, he did not consider class struggle as inevitableor as an instrument for social progress. He consistently rejected theMarxian 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-centurysociety as a threat to all classes, and in his manifesto he petitioned allelements of society to support a reform program for the lower ranks ofsociety. As with the use of force, he argued that any program appealingto only one class would increase class antagonism and hatred and couldnever create a harmonious society.

Considerant's concept of democracy reflects his aversion to revolutionand class dictatorship. In explaining why he chose the term "PeacefulDemocracy" for the tide of tfie manifesto and for the title of his news-paper, he warned that various revolutionary groups were perverting theconcept of democracy. Because of the growing popularity of the termdemocracy, particularly among the lower classes, radical parties wereseizing the term and using it as "a flag of revolution and war." Consider-ant (1847:60-62, 67) argued that true democracy could never be basedon the use of force; democracy and coercion were antithetical. Democ-racy 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 economicfreedom and equality of opportunity for all classes, not just the prole-tariat. In his mind, any democratic structure must be based upon thevoluntary and peaceful reorganization of society, and the majority mustnever be allowed to crush the minority.

Marx clearly understood this intrinsic conflict between his concept ofrevolution and Considerant's attitude of peaceful democracy. Attempt-ing to negate the influence of those advocating class amelioration bysatirizing their views, Marx and Engels (1964:58) declared, "They, thefollowers of Fourier, Saint Simon, and Owen, endeavor, therefore, andthat consistently, to deaden the class struggle and to reconcile the classantagonisms. They still dream of experimental realization of their socialUtopias, of founding isolated 'phalansteres,' of establishing 'home colo-nies,' of setting up a 'Little Icaria,' duodecimo editions of the New Jeru-salem, and to realize all these castles in the air, they are compelled toappeal to the feelings and purses of the bourgeoisie." Although Marx andEngels were ridiculing the Fourierists, Considerant would not haveobjected 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 differon many points. It is somewhat true, as Lansac (1926), and others havenoted, that there are similarities between Marx's communal structure andthe Fourierist phalanstery. When Marx and Engels (1964:33-41, 62)called for an international movement based upon "the union andagreement of democratic parties of all countries" and the abolition of

REFORM VERSUS REVOLUTION 83

nationalism, the "centralization of the means of communications andtransportation in the hands of the state," the "establishment of industrialarmies," 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 ofeducation with industrial production," and the political, economic andsocial emancipation of women, they were reiterating programs whichConsiderant (1836; 1840; 1842; 1844; 1847), and others, had been advo-cating for several years. In a more general sense, botb Marx and Con-siderant sought to create a social and economic structure which wouldeffect a compromise between individual needs and aspirations and theneeds of society as a whole. Particularly, botb hoped to create a socialstructure which would allow the individual to act in his own best interestand to be able to do so without adversely aflFecting others in society. Andit is interesting that Marx and Engels (1964:41) referred to their pro-posed social structure as "an association in which the free developmentof each is the condition for the free development of all." As every socialand political activist of the 1848 period understood, the term association,made popular earlier by the Saint-Simonians, belonged to the Fourieristdomain. When Considerant and a few of his colleagues founded theFourierist movement in 1832, they selected the name Ecole soci6taire(Association School) for their ofiBcial organization, and the Fourieristsalways referred to their phalanstery as an association in which individualactivities would improve society (Considerant 1847:20-22).

Despite these specific and general parallels in their proposed socialorganizations, Considerant and Marx differed significantly in their con-cepts of an association. These fundamental contradictions are clearlydemonstrated in the two manifestoes. Marx and Engels (1964:25-31, 62)in adopting the labor tbeory of value, proposed the establishment of atotally equaiitarian society based upon the complete abolition of privateproperty and private capital. Considerant never accepted tbe labor theoryof value nor the concept of equaiitarian communalism. In fact, Consid-erant, or Fourier for that matter, should not even be classified as asocialist, at least not in the pure definition of socialism. In the Manifestede la democratie pacifique and in other writings, Considerant rejectedthe idea of totally abolishing private capital and private property holding.He argued that the development of property holding was a civilizing andessentially historical development which was now impossible to destroy.He declared that "the sentiment of property is a formal element of humanindividuality," and that it would be dangerous and impossible to destroythe individual drive to collect personal wealth through property andcapital. Rather than abolish private wealth, Considerant declared, "Onthe 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 individualinterests with the general interests. It is necessary to unite property, notby promiscuous and egalitarian communalism, confused and barbaric.

84 Social Science Quarterly

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

Considerant viewed the association as an arrangement whereby privateproperty and capital would be united with labor. His communal struc-ture depended on the investment of private capital and property. Thephalanstery would serve simply as the tenant, and remuneration wouldbe based upon the input of capital and labor. For the practical applica-tion of this principle, Considerant abolished salaries in the associationand devised an elaborate system of dividends, the rudiments of whichwere first propounded by Fourier, which would be distributed to all par-ticipants in proportion to the amounts of capital, labor, and talent con-tributed by each. Considerant's concept of talent included not onlymanagerial skills, as has been assumed by some students of Fourierism,but included any particular proficiency which added measurably to thewealth of the commune. Annually, the value of all production would bedivided, three twelfths for skill, four twelfths for capital, and five twelfthsfor labor. Thus, the Fourierist association provided, not for the abolitionof property and capital and the completely equal distribution of wealth,but for a combination of capital value and labor value based on a moreequitable relationship than presently existed under laissez faire capital-ism. It is significant to note, however, that labor would receive a slightlyhigher share of the profits than capital in Considerant's system.

CONCLUSIONS

The preceding comparison of the ideas expressed in the CommunistManifesto and in the Manifeste de la democratie pacifique, thus, demon-strates a similarity in some areas but a marked divergence in others.With regard to critical analysis of laissez faire capitalism, Considerantclearly predates Marx. Whether or not Marx and Engels lifted ideas fromConsiderant's document, it is certain that they were familiar with theManifeste de la dSmocratie pacifique, that it influenced their thinkingboth positively and negatively, and, concerning the critique of society,Marx had nothing new to add.

Concerning methods, solutions, and proposed social structures, how-ever, the two documents are profoundly antithetical. The claim that theCommunist Manifesto is "almost a mere translation of Victor Consider-ant," is a distortion of the facts. All three writers, Marx, Engels, andConsiderant, would have rejected such an interpretation. History mustcontinue to recognize Marx, for better or for worse, as the prime popu-larizer of the ideas of the proletarian revolution and dictatorship. Con-versely, historical scholarship needs to accord Victor Considerant a moresignificant role for his early synthesis of unregulated capitalism and forhis proposals for a more equitable social structure based upon a voluntaryand democratic association of capital and labor.

REFORM VERSUS REVOLUTION 85

REFERENCES

Barzun, J. 1958. Darwin, Marx, Wagner: Critique of a Heritage (GardenCity: 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: FeltrinelliEditore).

Bourgin, H. 1909. Victor Considerant, son oeuvre (Lyons: Imprimeries r6-unies).

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.).