Religion first! Conservative and liberal Catholic thought

A strong reaction against liberal economic thought came from the Catholic camp.^{[145] [146]} For them, political economy was simply a Protestant ideology and had to be fought on the basis of traditional Catholic values.

VUleneuve-Bargemont and Economic politique chretienne

Villeneuve-Bargemont^[150] began an administrative career under the First Empire, and continued it under the Restoration. At the time of the July Revolution, he was prefect of the Department of Nord and Councillor of State. As a legitimist, he did not accept the July Monarchy and had to leave his position. For a time (1830-31), he represented the Department of Var at the National Assembly and took part to the (failed) legitimist plot against Louis-Philippe organised by the Duchess of Berry.

His main claim to fame was his 1834 book, Economiepolitique chretienne, for which, as an epigraph, he chose a sentence from Edmund Burke’s 1795 Thoughts and Details on Scarcity: “Patience, labour, sobriety, frugality, and religion, should be recommended... all the rest is downright fraud”. The book is a well- documented, three-volume work which caused a sensation because of its tone, a powerful denunciation of the evil of pauperism and its supposed causes - the policies dictated by political economy - and its proposal to develop a Christian political economy as an alternative approach. The book benefited from Villeneuve- Bargemont’s extensive field experience: he had been a prefect in a region where the textile industry was developing, he could see the emergence of pauperism and was convinced that it was the consequence of the new industrial system.

Destitution, under the sad and harsh new word ofpauperisme, overruns entire classes of the population,... has a tendency to expand progressively, follow­ing the very increase of industrial production;... it is no longer an accident, but the forced condition of a large number of the members of society.

(Villeneuve-Bargemont 1834, I, 28)

To document his approach, he sought to gather the greatest possible amount of data and, in this perspective, he asked for information from his colleagues in charge of other departements. This was a pioneering attitude: at that time, documented research on pauperism was just at its beginning, and the great books by Louis- Rene Villerme, Tableau de l’etat physique et moral des ouvriers employes dans les manufactures de coton, de laine et de soie,^[152] and Eugene Buret, De la misere des classes laborieuses en Angleterre et en France,^[153] were only published in 1840. It is true that there was already a literature on poverty - for example the successful Le visiteur du Pauvre by Joseph-Marie de Gerando (1820),^[154] and Tanneguy Duchatel’s De la charite dans ses rapports avec l’etat moral et le bien-etre des classes infe- rieures de la societe (1829) - but they had been written from a liberal point of view and were much narrower in scope. For Villeneuve-Bargemont, political economy itself was at the root of all evil, since the industrial system was its work: “we are led to think that this science overestimated itself; that it rather taught the art of the production of wealth than that of distributing it with equity and that, instead of relieving destitution, it has probably contributed to its propagation. This doubt is serious” (1834, I, 30).

One basic theme of Economiepolitique chretienne was the identification of lib­eral political economy with “English political economy” - or “the English system” - represented by Smith and Say. This idea was not new. Sismondi had already pre­sented England as a remarkable example of how a highly civilised country could go astray and make important mistakes in economic policy because of the existence of wrong doctrines.

while focusing the attention of my readers on England, I wanted to show, in the crisis that she endures, both the cause of our present sufferings... and the story of our own future if we continue on the basis of the principles that she followed.

(Sismondi 1827, I, xvi)

But the criticism was radicalised by Villeneuve-Bargemont: the writings of Malthus and of Sismondi, he stated, “showed that, while the manufacturing sys­tem in England could enrich... the industrial entrepreneurs, this was at the expense of the wealth, health, morality and happiness of the working classes” (Villeneuve- Bargemont 1834, I, 15). The “English system” was the (d)evil, an expression of the harmful influence of the Protestant religion.

While Catholicism had walked firmly but cautiously to the conquest of civilisation through the freeing of the peoples, the progressive emancipation of slaves and serfs, by means of the development of agricultural property... Protestantism... generated the industrial entrepreneurs or speculators who,... basing their profits on the low price of wages, an excessive labour and the monopoly and concentration of capital, gradually put the working class back under the yoke of serfdom and feudal vassalage from which Catholicism had freed them. Thus, in Protestant states and in nations which later adopted their economic doctrines, entire populations were to fall again under a despotic yoke, but without having the protection of the clergy and the huge resources of charitable and religious institutions as a remedy to their destitution, unlike in the past.

(Villeneuve-Bargemont 1837, 25)

Villeneuve-Bargemont (1834, I, 57-8, n.1 for example), praising “the beautiful words of Madame de Stael”, took up her criticism of political economy and the modern free-market society: that of being based on a narrow sensationist philoso­phy which ignored sentiments and ethics. Hence, as in Smith and Say, “a system based on an insatiable self-love and a deep contempt for human nature” (1834, I, 22); “moral and religious considerations” were neglected, “with the consequence that, basing the principle of work and civilisation on a continuous excitement of the needs”, the production of wealth was based on “industrial monopoly” (Villeneuve-Bargemont 1836, 87) - the phrase “industrial monopoly” meaning here that all the forces of society were directed at the extension of factories, indus­try and commerce, to the detriment of agriculture.

But which route? Two main complementary approaches were proposed to remedy the situation. The first consisted in putting an end to the “industrial monopoly” and thus in redirecting the development of the country in a more natural way, with agriculture as the pivotal sector - all other activities being subordinate to it -, together with a change in final demand, a limitation of needs and a fair distribution of income with decent wages. This first approach was to be accompanied by state intervention favouring public assistance and public instruction, the creation of agricultural colonies, of workers’ associations for mutual aid, of savings and provident institutions, and so on. The second and probably more important solution, in Villeneuve-Bargemont’s eyes, was a nec­essary moral reform based on religion and charity, without which the above­mentioned policy could not really be implemented. This would allow a structural change in economic behaviour, based on the conviction that happiness and wel­fare require neither continuous material accumulation nor ever-changing needs - an important aspect of welfare being the spiritual development of humanity - and that this change would be favoured by the practice of the main Christian virtue: charity.

Let us base... the French system on a just and wise distribution of the products of industry, on an equitable remuneration of labour, on the develop­ment of agriculture, on an industry applied to the product of the land, on the religious regeneration of man, and finally on the great principle of charity.

(1834, I, 15)

“Industrial egotism will, no doubt, answer: Master, your words are harsh!.... To you, maybe. But they are clear and soft to hearts which are not closed to justice and truth” (1834, I, 385-6).

The insistence on charity is a basic feature of the Catholic authors of the time. They often opposed charity to philanthropy. In relieving poverty, charity is efficient because it establishes a positive personal link between persons, while philanthropy (of which the English poor laws were the best example) is institutional, blind, auto­matic and favours the development of destitution - a point of view also shared by many liberal authors.

Economiepolitique chretienne made an impression on the public and was taken seriously by the new specialised press. Theodore Fix wrote a series of two favour­able papers in his Revue mensuelle d’economiepolitique (Fix 1834). Not surpris­ingly, the Catholic network of influence praised the book. In Revue europeenne, for example, Franςois Lallier welcomed a new school in political economy (Lallier 1835). Franςois-Felix de Lafarelle-Rebourguil, in Duprogres social auprofit des classes populaires non indigentes, while critical, nevertheless devoted an entire chapter to Villeneuve’s book, stressing its importance for the “charitable or Chris­tian school” (Lafarelle-Rebourguil 1839, I, 50-72). But some critics also stressed its theoretical weakness.

Behind the moral school, do we not already see an attempt to build a Chris­tian school of political economy, which accuses Chrematistics because, it is said, it is English and, consequently, probably pagan - so that the genu­ine political economy cannot be but Catholic, apostolic and Roman? In this industrial doctrine, all is focused on charity, on alms; the most important, for industry, is to re-establish a Chaplain general. A most estimable man... expresses these strange proposals.

(Vincens 1836, 7-8)

Lamennais, L'Avenir and Charles de Coux

Another criticism of liberal political economy came from a group of Catholic activists who gathered around Felicite de Lamennais.^[157] At the turn of the 1830s, Lamennais became disappointed by the reactionary policy of the Restoration. Without abandoning his philosophy of history based on “common sense”, he took a liberal turn and proposed an alliance between the Church and the liberals, an approach which had proved successful for the independence of Belgium in 1830. Accordingly, he called for the introduction of some fundamental rights - liberty of conscience, liberty of the press, liberty of teaching - and for the separation of the Church and the State, the Church only recognising the authority of the pope. At the time of the July Revolution, he and some disciples like the clerics Antoine de Salinis (1798-1861) and Philippe Gerbet (1798-1864)^[158] were joined by a Domini­can monk, Henri-Dominique Lacordaire (1802-1861), and by some laymen like Charles de Coux (1787-1864) and Charles Forbes de Montalembert (1810-1870). Together, they founded a daily newspaper, L 'Avenir - whose motto was “God and Liberty” - and the Agence generale pour la defense de la liberte religieuse, with the joint purpose of fighting for freedom of teaching and to serve as a publishing house.

L'Avenir was published from 10 October 1830 to 15 November 1831 and developed progressive ideas which were eventually condemned by pope Gregory XVI (Encyclical Mirari Vos, 15 August 1832). The Lamennais group accepted the judgement but Lamennais himself progressively broke with the Church and moved towards socialism - his Paroles d'un croyant, published in 1834, caused a sensation among a wide readership. The other members of the group went on fighting in favour of Catholicism and they progressively formed an influential net­work, with journals such as the Revue Europeenne, Le Correspondant, the daily L 'Univers and, on the impulsion of Gerbet, an intellectually ambitious periodical, L 'Universite catholique. Recueil religieux, philosophique, scientifique et litteraire - first published in 1836 -, the aim of which was to develop, in each field of knowl­edge, a “Catholic science”.

In 1830, the economist of the group was Charles de Coux^[159] who, as a child, had been raised in Great Britain where his family emigrated during the Revolution. He returned to France in 1803 but resumed travelling abroad and settled in Paris only in 1823. On 20 February 1830, he wrote a long letter to Lamennais proposing some critical reflections on political economy from a Christian perspective. The same year, he took part in the foundation of L'Avenir, in which he published political papers and a series of two articles titled “Economie politique” (Coux 1830-31) where he stated his project. The Agence pour la defense de la liberte religieuse published his Essais d'economie politique (1832), a short book composed of two lectures which were part of a series organised by the group and titled “Conferences de philosophie catholique”. Lamennais encouraged Coux to develop his ideas. An opportunity presented itself when the Belgian episcopate decided in 1834 to found a Catholic university, first located in Malines and then in Louvain. The chair of political economy was held by Coux until 1845 when he returned to Paris as the director of the Catholic newspaper L'Univers. After the February Revolution, he left L'Univers and, together with Lacordaire, Antoine-Frederic Ozanam (1813­1853) and Henry Maret (1805-1884), he became a member of the editorial staff of the newly founded liberal journal L'Ere nouvelle, the organ of the first “Democratie chretienne” (but, like Lacordaire, he left some months later).

In Malines and Louvain, Coux developed his ideas. However, some of his lectures had an audience beyond his own circle because, under the title “Cours d’economie sociale”, they were published in L'Universite catholique from its first issue in 1836 until 1840. L'Universite catholique also asked for the collaboration of Villeneuve-Bargemont - who, from 1836 to 1838, gave the journal a “Cours sur l’histoire de l’economie politique”, the origin of his 1841 book, Histoire de l'economie politique - and Louis Rousseau who, from 1840 to 1842 gave a series of papers also titled “Cours d’economie sociale”, the substance of which formed his 1841 book, Croisade du XIX^e siecle. Appel a la piete catholique a l'effet de reconstituer la science sociale sur une base chretienne.

Coux, who had connections in Ireland, also collaborated in the new Dublin Review, first published in 1836. Among his papers were “Christian political econ­omy” (1837, on Villeneuve-Bargemont) and “Saint-Simonism” (1838, on Saint- Simon and the Saint-Simonians).^[160] He criticised Villeneuve-Bargemont’s project of a reorganisation of society on the basis of agriculture as a solution to pauperism: an excess supply of labour, he noted, can exist in agriculture as well as in manufactur­ing, and “unhappy Ireland is a living proof of the utility, nay more, of the necessity of commercial industry” (1837, 166). As for Saint-Simonianism, he saw it as “a practical proof that incredulity is no preservative against complete degradation of the intellect” (1838, 139), even if Catholics would be satisfied to see “that these innovators... were obliged to have recourse to the institutions of our Church, although... they disfigured and degraded them” (1838, 140).

What was Coux’s project? In his 1830 letter to Lamennais, in his 1832 Ess- ais and in the lectures published in L'Universite catholique, Coux reported the same story. While in England and the United States, he was struck by the contrast between these Protestant nations and many Catholic countries, the best example of which was Spain. The first were wealthy, the second poor. He was shocked by the link which apparently existed between the religion prevailing in a country and the social and economic state of that country: did Catholicism form an obstacle to economic development, while the Protestant faith favoured it? Coux’s faith was shaken because he could not understand how the “true religion” could put believers at such a disadvantage. It is true, he stressed, that the material conse­quences of a religion cannot be a proof of its truth - it was the task of apologet­ics to develop this truth, with totally different arguments. But he thought that God could not have neglected these material aspects, and that consequently the “true religion” should also possess some principles to ensure the prosperity of the community.

I knew that the aim of the true religion... should not be the temporal hap­piness of man, but I also understood that it is obliged to ensure it... like an additional reward, granted without being promised, because otherwise the society in possession of the absolute truth would not be what it must be: the aristocracy of mankind.

(Coux 1830, 81)

The important economic problems that first arose in England during the first dec­ades of the century were a kind of revelation, because they were not temporary, as was first thought, but structural, permanent and intimately linked to the economic system. “Unfortunately, destitution deceived all expectations and thwarted the cal­culations of the economists: it has grown according to a geometric progression and will end in dreadful chaos” (1830, 81). The arrogant prosperity of the Protestant countries was just a delusion, and it became clear that the economic system at the origin of this delusion contained seeds of self-destruction. Political economy was thus responsible for this situation. “The language of the economists reveals the depth of the social scourge; their teaching made this scourge, since they govern the world. They are the priests of money” (1832, 50).

How is it possible to refuse to acknowledge that the industrial school, the school founded by Adam Smith, took a wrong turning..., when we look at the present state of England and France? In both countries, amidst appalling distress..., there are huge amounts of wealth; but all around a starving mob is rising up.

(1832, 55)

Examining some main doctrines put forth by economists, Coux rejected the prin­ciple of population of “the Protestant Malthus”, and, as Villeneuve-Bargemont did later, criticised political economy for its focus on production and neglect of the distribution of income. He also rejected the economists’ “wrong concept of wealth” - which focused only on material wealth exchanged in markets - and their disregard for all non-tradable elements (institutions, sets of beliefs, morals and so on) which are in fact more important and make up the social wealth, without which material production could not take place.^[161] Yet, while harshly criticising its harmful consequences, denouncing “the outburst of all cupidities” and stating that

men solely led by their self-interest can only join together “as wolves do when they are chasing the same prey” (1832, 84), Coux was forced to accept the central hypothesis of political economy because, as in the Jansenist approach, the basic selfish and maximising behaviour of agents is explained by theology.^[162] As it is impossible to change it, it could at least be possible to neutralise its effects. In this perspective, Coux introduced the concept of “economie sociale” (social econom­ics). His idea was to “give political economy what it is lacking”, that is, to include political economy in a larger set of theoretical propositions intended to give it its real meaning - a meaning without which it remains partial and therefore danger­ous as in the English approach.^[163] The production of material wealth supposes the existence of society, and society supposes sociability: social economics studies the conditions of this social link. Its object is to determine which form of society is the most capable ofsecuring it, therefore favouring the creation ofwealth in ajust and stable environment. This link is designated by religion. It is based on a fundamental ethical value: sacrifice. This point “distinguishes fundamentally Christian politi­cal economy from anti-Christian political economy. The former considers sacrifice as the principle which generates wealth, but for the latter it is cupidity” (1836, II, 161).

How should we understand this sacrifice? It is the Christian virtue which puts charity, love for one’s neighbour, at the centre of action, and which makes human beings behave virtuously even to their own detriment. In such a way, a lasting social link is created. Not only is this virtuous behaviour compatible with the mate­rial prosperity of a nation, Coux stated, it is the only way to achieve it. Any sacri­fice to the benefit of others certainly impoverishes the person who makes it. But this person in turn receives the benefits of the sacrifices made by others, and in this way the general welfare is increased.

If the sacrifices of the Catholic were lost for society, if the hardships he endures, his unselfishness, his charity, his good faith, the purity of his mores, would not turn to the benefit of anybody, we would not have anything to answer to the anti-Catholic economists. But... the Christian sacrifice, while finding its principle in the love for God, always... turns to the benefit of others, and if it impoverishes those who make it, it enriches others. But we all are the others of others, and, consequently, each member of a Catholic society finds in the sacrifices of the other members a great compensation of his own ones. Nay, he is a hundredfold rewarded since... the more the spirit of sacrifice is vigorous, the greater are the social advantages that are divided between all.

(1836, I, 93)

But what obliges men to adopt such a behaviour so opposed to the nature of man after the Fall? It is, Coux states, not only the belief in a God, but in a “rewarding and vengeful God” who infallibly rewards and punishes men during their eternal life. In a kind of Pascal’s wager, human beings compare their immediate and tem­poral interest, which is always uncertain, with their eternal interest, which is cer­tain. They are still led by cupidity, but by “the cupidity for the goods of another life, the craving for an imperishable wealth” (1836, I, 96). Self-interest is always the prime mover, but “an enlarged, inflated self-interest, extended beyond the grave” (1836, I, 280). Sociability is based on this fact. There is no state of nature, no social compact. Only religion matters, a religion based on a revelation because what is just or unjust, good or bad, must be clearly stated from the outset and independent of the actions and opinions of men.

The lectures published by Coux in L 'Universite catholique develop this point of view extensively and propose a typology of societies based on the possible combinations of two elements: what he calls the “legitimate order” (based on reli­gious beliefs) and the “legal order” (based on political structures). The aim of these developments is to show that Catholicism is the only religion capable of generating genuine and lasting prosperity. The lectures are a work of apologetics, and Chris­tian political economy is used as a weapon against the Protestants.^[164] Beyond these statements, the rest of Coux’s proposals are weak. When, for example, he tried to present remedies for the distress of the country, his solutions, based on the func­tioning of free markets, are insignificant. For example, to increase wages, he stated that the solution consisted in acting on the labour supply to reduce it. And while he was later in favour of the creation of worker’s associations and a reduction of the length of the working day, in his paper on “Economie politique” published in L 'Avenir, he traditionally referred to the institutions of the Catholic Church, such as the celibacy of the clergy (which avoids an increase in the population and thus in the labour supply)^[165] and the religious feast-days (which are public holidays and reduce the quantity of supplied labour) - supplemented by an ethics that holds luxury tastes and goods in contempt (thus reducing the needs of the workers). The point is restated in his 1837 paper in the Dublin Review:

The old Dutch East Indian Company, in order to keep up the price of their spices, burned a part of those which they gathered in abundant years. The Church did the same; she consumed a part of the labour of the workmen by the multitude of her religious festivals; and the labourer then sold his remaining working days more dearly than he would have sold the whole year of labour, if he had consented to work all the year: and in the pomp of these festivals were held out to him unexpensive enjoyments, which turned his mind from more costly pleasures. The Church had nicely calculated that the labourer should gain the most and expend the least that was possible. The Catholic economists assert, that the Reformation, by suppressing ecclesiasti­cal celibacy, has rendered powerless the different clergy which it has created; and that, by suppressing festivals, it has brought into the market that supera­bundance of labour which is now mistaken for a redundancy of population.

(Coux 1837, 197)

From Rousseau’s Christian tribe to Perin’s apologia of renunciation

The dissemination of Catholic ideas on political economy benefited from Villeneuve- Bargemont and Coux’s publications. Other authors, of course, occasionally took part in the debates, with other proposals to relieve pauperism. For example, an anonymous paper titled “Des coalitions d’ouvriers”, published in Revue Europee­nne in 1834 (vol. 8, n. 31), proposed an association between capital and labour in the form of workers’ participation in the profits of the activities in which they are involved. At the practical level of social policy and charitable action, some groups were very active, first, for example, around Armand de Melun, and, in the second half of the century, around Albert de Mun (1841-1914) (Moon 1921, Duroselle 1951, Misner 1991). But, for our purpose, the most ambitious (though very differ­ent) attempts were those of Louis Rousseau and Charles Perin.^[166]

Rousseau S Christian tribes

In L 'Universite catholique and Croisade du XIX^e siecle, Rousseau insisted on the necessity of associations. He had been for a time interested in Saint-Simoniansm and Fourierism but his approach was finally Catholic in the traditional way: noth­ing positive can be done without a spiritual reform of society, based on Catholic teaching. “The monk is the soldier of unity” (1841, 180). However, in his fight against pauperism, “exploitation of man by man” and in favour of a just remu­neration of labour, he stated that “one would be mistaken to think that, to solve the philosophical questions related to the organisation of society, it is sufficient to oppose the precepts of Christian morals to the degrading theories of the school of Adam Smith” (1841, 7) - probably an implicit criticism of Coux. These precepts are necessary, but one must go further and act concretely in the economic sphere, respecting and harmonising the two great principles of private property and the right to live from one’s labour. The aim of a harmonious society, Rousseau insisted, cannot be reached with political action. Focusing on the form of government and the political regime was a blind alley, because it did not deal with what forms the core of society and the social link, the organisation of labour: “political science is radically incapable of founding liberty on justice, and of reconciling justice with industry, and all these constituent elements with social unity” (1841, 39). What is really capable of changing society is an action in the field of production and dis­tribution, a different organisation of labour based on association: “the new path of salvation for civilisation is... the principle of association” (1841, 330), a principle that Christianity is titled to claim as its own (1841, 12). Rousseau recognised that this principle is also advocated by “several philosophical sects” (1841, 330), but in an obscure or extravagant way, as in Charles Fourier’s writings.

In the end, we shall plant our philosophical banner between the earthiness of political economy and the Icarian flight of the Phalansterian school; we shall have to argue against heartless bourgeois people and unrestrained poets. To some we shall say that the system in which they believe, by founding public wealth on the antagonism of individual interests, has established in fact the reign of egoism; to others that their moral ramblings, by calling to replace the austere virtues on which the constitution of the family rests by the most revolting promiscuity, would make of society a filthy whorehouse. To the former, we must oppose the principle of charity; to the latter, that of purity - eminently social principles, whose heavenly types are Jesus and Mary.

(1841, 22-3)

Hence Rousseau’s plan for an association in agriculture, which he called a “Tribu chretienne” (Christian tribe), of which he outlined the main features (1841, 315-21 and 491-501), stating that the final status could only be decided by the participants. In a nutshell, this “tribe” would be composed of 1,200-1,500 people and work on an estate of 2,000-2,500 hectares. It would associate three kinds of people: the owners of capital, the managerial staff of the productive activities, and the workers - and also some clerics (whose status is not clear among the categories of participants) for the education of children^[167] and to maintain the moral values of all members. There would be no wage system, but the profits of the exploitation would be shared on the basis of one-third for each category. This community, moreover, would not be strictly devoted to agricultural work, but would also develop indus­tries useful to its good functioning and the daily life of its members - thus reducing the risks of imbalance between supply and demand. It would also possibly function as a consumer cooperative for its members, with the help of a local currency.

Rousseau was aware that this project of a Christian tribe looked modest in rela­tion to the more ambitious one of an in-depth reform of society. He also admitted that the beginnings of such an enterprise would not be easy and would require a certain charitable spirit, especially from the providers of land and capital. But he was convinced that the association would be economically profitable in the end and that, together with its moral values, its harmony and the happiness of the partici­pants, it would induce other people to create similar associations, not necessarily based on agriculture. This progressive movement was supposed to result in social harmony, the “social unity” of the country. It was worth undertaking this fight: it was a new crusade, the “croisade du xιx^e siecle” (the nineteenth-century crusade) as the title of his 1841 book states. Rousseau tried to collect funds - and, ironically enough, even looked for some government support - but unsuccessfully. He once wrote of Fourier: “Honour to Charles Fourier who founded the social economy! Honour to the alchemists who founded chemistry!” (1841, 11-12). But, was he himself not an alchemist or “unrestrained poet”?

Perin 's modern Christian guilds

Another route was taken by Charles Perin, who followed in the footsteps of Villeneuve-Bargemont and Coux. He was a lawyer, professor of public law and political economy at the Catholic University of Louvain, and a corresponding mem­ber of the Institut de France. He had been a student of Charles de Coux, and in 1845, at the age of 30, succeeded him to the chair of political economy when Coux returned to Paris. He published a lot during his long active life and can be compared to his liberal fellow citizen Gustave de Molinari: their life spans were almost identi­cal and they were both very active in their respective camps. He started publishing when he was still a student, with a memoir titled “Du progres des idees religieuses en economie politique” (1839), which set the tone for his future works. But his publications really started in a decisive way in reaction to the 1848 Revolution (Les economistes, les socialistes et le christianisme, 1849, and “Du socialisme dans les ecrits des economistes”, 1850). Like Coux, but with a more conservative approach, he was at that time the most economics-minded author of the Catholic tradition. Through his many writings - which include his celebrated treatise De la richesse dans les societes chretiennes (1861, dedicated to Coux), Le socialisme chretien (1879), Les doctrines economiques depuis un siecle ( 1880), Lepatron: sa fonction, ses devoirs, ses responsabilites (1886) and Premiers principes d'economie poli­tique (1895) - he systematically developed his conception of social Catholicism. This is the reason why he not only fought constantly against liberal economists and socialists, but also criticised liberal Catholics and those who were called Catholic or Christian socialists. He had international connections, especially with the Cath­olic hierarchy in France and the Vatican and - while not agreeing with it on all points (although he could see a global confirmation of his ideas in it) - he supported the social doctrine of the Church stated in Leo XIII's 1891 Rerum Novarum^[168] - especially in L’economiepolitique d’apres l'encyclique sur la condition des ouvri- ers (1891) and “Le juste salaire d’apres l’encyclique Rerum Novarum” (1896) that he appended to the second edition of Premiersprincipes d’economiepolitique.

Perin shared the harsh criticism levelled at liberal political economy by his predecessors. He continuously denounced the eighteenth-century philosophy of sensationism, which promoted materialism, individualism and anti-religious senti­ments, and the 1789 Revolution with its democratic ideas, implementation of free trade and destruction of all intermediary bodies between the State and the citi­zens. For Perin, political economy was the expression of this philosophy, with all its shortcomings. Based on the idea of utility and free trade, basing happiness on consumption, this discipline promoted an economic system based on a continuous excitement of needs and ever-increasing industrial production. It was thus at the origin of the important economic and social difficulties faced by modern societies and favoured the emergence of a new aristocracy - based on money, industry and trade - and a modern form of slavery, worse that the ancient one because industrial­ists were not committed to maintain the workers in all circumstances. These eco­nomic and social plagues could not be cured by liberalism: they were inherent to it. Neither could they be cured by socialism because, in Perin’s view, it was a logical consequence of free trade: it shared the same materialistic views and, as a remedy to the disorders generated by free trade, its aim was to submit everything to an all­powerful State - thus destroying private property, all forms of liberty and in the end any incentive to production. Moreover, some theories of liberal political economy also entailed the same outcome: for example, Perin criticised Frederic Bastiat’s Harmonies economiques and John Stuart Mill’s Principles of Political Economy, asserting that, despite their attachment to liberalism, their theories inevitably lead to socialism because, with their respective theories of rent, they eventually under­mine private property (Perin 1850).

This is not to say, Perin wrote, that every development in political economy is to be rejected outright: “To proscribe political economy because it deals with material interests, the predominance of which is today a danger to the social order, would be to overshoot the mark” and constitute a serious mistake (Perin 1850, 23). Mate­rial life exists and it is necessary to analyse the laws of its progress. But Perin’s reluctant reference to the positive aspects of the discipline is ambiguous, judging by his imprecations against this “fake science”, and this ambiguity is also to be found in his predecessors. Les doctrines economiques depuis un siecle opens with the statement that his aim, in dealing with the doctrines “taught by economists over the last century”, was “to give a better understanding of the theories and practices against which we have to fight every day” (1880, v). Some historical approaches, however, were of interest to him: as an appendix to the book, he republished his 1858 laudatory review of Wilhelm Roscher’s Principes d’economiepolitique and of the “Preface” by the translator, Louis Wolowski: “De l’application de la meth­ode historique a l’economie politique”.

For men and society, the genuine good lies in morals and in the realisation of the real spiritual nature of human beings. The good must subjugate the useful, not the other way round. For Perin, like his predecessors, the solution was a moral reform, based on Catholic teachings and their principles: sacrifice (or “renunciation”) and charity. They imply a moderation of the need for material goods and a deep concern for others. Say had written that “moderation in desires, doing without what we do not have, is the virtue of sheep” (Say [1828-29] 2010, I, 514) - but men are not animals, and as God “gave men the possibility of multiplying the things that are necessary or simply pleasing to them... it is to contribute to the purpose of our creation to multiply our productions rather than to limit our desires” ([1828-29] 2010, I, 53).^[169] But Say, who “in his principles, belongs to the eighteenth century” (Perin 1839, 118), was mistaken, and his reference to religion flawed.

Because of original sin and the Fall, society would always be divided into two classes, rich and poor. Neither class trusts the other, and each has its own flaws - laziness and depravity for the poor, most of the time the result of depravation, and cupidity and social violence for the rich, exacerbated by free trade. To get out of this state of affairs, the poor should be able to live in dignity, according to their con­dition, provided that private property is not called into question. “The whole eco­nomic question boils down to the labour question” (1891, 8). In particular, workers must be paid a “just” or “normal wage”, that is, what is necessary for them and their families to live decently - and not a “current” or market wage determined by the supply and demand of labour. Both workers and bosses should change attitudes and adopt a moral life. But, as for Rousseau, moral exhortations, while neces­sary, are not sufficient to solve the problem. Something more is needed: the right institutional context, that is, in Perin’s view, association. Workers’ associations of course (mutual benefit societies, mentoring networks, any association based on the principle of mutuality), but bosses’ associations as well, in order for them to gain a better view of markets and possibly coordinate their charity initiatives. However, Perin states, the best form would be an association which assembles both workers and their bosses in their workplace. With this precision: this kind of association, “as Catholics conceive it, far from being egalitarian, is essentially hierarchical” (1879, 38) and it is up to the boss to take the initiative to create them (1886, 144). The boss must follow his “duty of social paternity”, a moral duty towards the employees, in the form of patronage: “there will be no serious attempt to reform our economic order except through patronage” (1886, 156). This patronage must be placed under the banner of religion, and would include, among other things, the religious educa­tion of workers, an attention to their morality, family life and decent housing, their intellectual and professional development, hygiene in workshops, care and support in case of workplace accidents, promotion of mutual assistance and provident hab­its (1886, 110-37).

It is easy to understand how much self-sacrifice is required on both sides in such a work. The person to whom the patronage is addressed must renounce, to a certain extent, his own will; he must bow his intelligence to a higher intelligence and a more reliable reason than his own; he must make this admission, which is always so painful to the self-esteem of even the hum­blest, of his moral inferiority and of the superiority of others. For his part, the boss has no lesser sacrifices to make. He must accept the duty of patron­age, which will take away his leisure time, which will put him in habitual contact with men who are often rude, sometimes even profoundly vicious; he will have to lower his intelligence to the level of these narrow minds, which are usually stubbornly closed in their prejudices and their ignorance. Sacrifice and renunciation will be necessary on both sides, and in many cases, on the part of the boss, he will have to go to the point of complete self-abnegation.

(1861, II, 374-5)

This association would be the modern “Christian guild”, not an imitation of the medieval institution, but a guild adapted to the modern context and based on liberty: contrary to what was proposed by some authors like Albert de Mun, there must be no compulsory membership. Mutual trust among all members of the productive community would ensue and the sacrifices made by the boss would result in the workers’ acceptance of their own sacrifices and condition. Finally, in all these processes, the State must not intervene: its role is to secure a legal context for associations and to enact laws to protect the weaker part of society against possible negative actions by the powerful, for example, regulat­ing the employment of women and children and the maximum working time of men.

Like Rousseau and most social reformers of the time, Perin believed in the irre­sistible force of example. He was convinced that, progressively, such guilds would be successful and eventually be adopted throughout the economy, thus realising his long-life dream of a pacified society under the banner of Catholicism.

The guild is the great means of salvation, the supreme remedy for our eco­nomic difficulties, because it is the guild that will bring about the moral reform of our industrial classes. Through it, the Church will solve the eco­nomic problem and restore peace to our societies.

(1891, 18)

But these guilds, in the end, would not be able to suppress market fluctuations and crises, as Perin implicitly admits. They can only mitigate their most nega­tive effects on workers through the action of associations and the charity of the rich.

An unexpected analytical outcome

A final point must be noted as regards the debates about social Catholicism and the multiple discussions which followed the publication of Rerum Novarum. The focus was again put on justice in economic exchanges, accompanied by a revival of some Scholastic vocabulary like “just price” and “just wage”, with particular attention to the latter. A just economy, and a just society, should bring harmony among the participants in all activities, whatever their place in the production processes. It is in these circumstances that Maurice Potron (1872­1942), a Jesuit, who graduated from the Ecole Polytechnique and was a first-rate mathematician, made an outstanding contribution to economic analysis. In his economic publications, from 1911 onwards, and in order to find a solution to the determination of these just prices and wages in a viable economy, he imagined for the first time an input-output system and used the recently established Perron- Frobenius theorem (see Chapter 7, this volume; Bidard et al. 2009; Bidard 2014; Bidard and Erreygers 2016). His contributions remained unfortunately neglected for a long time, probably because he was a self-taught economist, employed a very idiosyncratic vocabulary in this field, published his papers in confidential or mathematical journals and used mathematical tools that very few people could understand.

4.