Introduction
A social system in its decline, a new system arrived at maturity and approaching its completionâsuch is the fundamental character that the general progress of civilization has assigned to the present epoch. In conformity with this state of things, two movements, differing in their nature, agitate societyâone a movement of disorganization, the other of reorganization. By the former, considered apart, society is hurried towards a profound moral and political anarchy, which appears to menace it with a near and inevitable dissolution. By the latter it is guided to the definitive social condition of the human race, that best suited to its nature, and in which all progressive movements should receive their completest development and most direct application. In the coexistence of these two opposed tendencies consists the grand crisis now experienced by the most civilized nations; and this can be understood only when viewed under both aspects.
From the moment when this crisis began to show itself to the present time, the tendency of the ancient system to disorganization has predominated, or rather it alone is still plainly manifested. It was in the nature of things that the crisis should begin thus, so that the old system might be sufficiently modified to permit the direct formation of the new social system.
But now that this condition has been fully satisfied and the Catholico-feudal system has lost its power, as far as is possible, until the new system has been inaugurated, the preponderance still maintained by the negative tendency constitutes the greatest obstacle to the progress of civilization and even to the abolition of the ancient system. Its persistence forms the first cause of those terrible and continually renewed shocks by which the crisis is accompanied.
The only way of ending this stormy situation, of staying the anarchy that day by day invades societyâin a word, of reducing the crisis to a simple moral movementâconsists in inducing the civilized nations to abandon the negative and to adopt an organic attitude; turning all their efforts towards the formation of the new social system as the definitive object of the crisis and that for the attainment of which everything hitherto accomplished is only a preparation.
Such is the prime necessity of the present epoch. Such also is the general scope of my labors and the special aim of this essay, the object of which is to set in motion the forces capable of bringing society into the track of the new system.
A brief examination of the causes that have hitherto hindered and still do hinder society from frankly assuming an organic attitude should naturally precede an exposition of the measures necessary for effecting this object.
The numerous and repeated attempts made by the people and kings to reorganize society prove that the need of such a reorganization is generally felt. But on both sides it is only felt in a vague and imperfect manner. These two kinds of attempts are, though for different reasons, equally vicious. To the present time they have not, nor could they have, produced any real organic result. Far from tending to terminate the crisis, these efforts only contribute to prolong it. Such is the true cause that, in spite of so many efforts, by keeping society in the negative track, leaves it a prey to revolutions.
To establish this fundamental proposition, it is sufficient to take a general view of the attempts at reorganization undertaken by kings and the people.
The error committed by kings is easier to understand. For them the reorganization of society means the re-establishment pure and simple of the feudal and theological system in all its integrity. In their eyes no other means exist of terminating the anarchy that results from the decline of this system.
It would be unphilosophical to regard this view as if it were dictated mainly by the special interests of the governing classes. Chimerical though it be, this idea naturally presented itself to minds seeking, in good faith, a remedy for the existing crisis. They feel in its entire extent the need for a reorganization; but they have not considered the general progress of civilization, and, viewing the present state of affairs under one aspect only, they do not perceive the tendency of society to establish a new system more perfect, and not less harmonious, than the ancient one. In a word, it is natural that this view should be taken by rulers, since from their position they must of necessity perceive more clearly the anarchic state of society and consequently experience more forcibly the necessity for applying a remedy.
This is not the place to insist on the manifest absurdity of such an opinion, which is now universally recognized by the majority of enlightened men. Doubtless kings, while seeking to reconstruct the ancient system, do not comprehend the nature of the present crisis and are far from having measured the magnitude of their enterprise.
The downfall of the feudal and theological system does not spring, as they believe, from recent, solitary, and in some sort accidental causes. Their downfall, in place of being the effect of the crisis, is, on the contrary, its source. The decline of this system has come to pass continuously during the preceding centuries, by reason of a series of modifications, independent of the human will, to which all classes of society contributed, and of which kings themselves have often been the first agents and most eager promoters. In a word, it was the necessary consequence of the progress of civilization.
In order then to re-establish the ancient system, it would not be sufficient to push society back to the epoch when the existing crisis began to reveal itself. For, even supposing this could be done, which it could not, we should have merely replaced the body politic in the situation that necessitated the crisis. Retracing past ages, it would be requisite to repair, one by one, all the losses suffered by the ancient system during six centuries in comparison with which all that it has lost for the last thirty years is of no importance.
No other mode of effecting this would be possible but to annihilate all the results of civilization that have caused this decline.
Thus, for example, it would be absurd to assume that the eighteenth-century philosophyâitself the direct cause of the downfall of the ancient system considered in its spiritual aspectsâcould be destroyed unless we also assumed the annihilation of the sixteenth century, of which the philosophy of the last century is only the consequence and development. But, as the Reformation of Luther is, in its turn, simply a necessary result of the progress of the sciences of observation introduced into Europe by the Arabs, the re-establishment of the ancient system would not have been secured unless the positive sciences had been also suppressed.
In like manner, under temporal aspects, we should be led, step by step, to the necessity for replacing the industrial classes in a state of servitude, since in the last resort the enfranchisement of the commons is the first and general cause of the decline of the feudal system. Finally such an enterprise is set in its true light by this reflection, that after overcoming so many difficulties, the least of which taken by itself surpasses the power of man, we should have gained nothing but the postponement of the definitive fall of the ancient system by thus obliging society to recommence its destruction, since the principle of progressive civilization inherent in human nature would not have been extinguished.
It is manifest that no person could entertain a project that is monstrous, whether we consider its magnitude or its absurdity. Man, in spite of himself, belongs to his epoch. Those who oppose, as they believe, the greatest resistance to the progress of civilization unconsciously obey its irresistible influence, nay themselves second it. . . .
The manner in which the people have hitherto understood the reorganization of society is no less erroneous than that adopted by kings, though in a different way. Their error, however, is more excusable, since it lies in a misconception of the new system towards which the progress of civilization transports them, though its nature has not, as yet, been clearly determined; while kings pursue an enterprise the entire absurdity of which is plainly demonstrable, even by a superficial study of the past. In a word, kings are at variance with facts, the people with principles, the last being always more difficult to grasp. But it is much more important to eradicate the misconception of the people than that of kings, because the former constitutes an essential obstacle to the progress of civilization, and alone gives some show of reason to the latter.
The characteristic view that predominates in the popular mind as to the mode of reorganizing society indicates a profound ignorance of the fundamental conditions nece...