Two Approaches of the Economy and Industrial Society in the Early Nineteenth Century Saint-Simon and the Saint-Simonians
Saint-Simonianism was initially part of a broad industrialist movement, founded on French neo-Smithianism, which developed considerably from 1816 to1820. Claude Henri de Saint-Simon placed particular emphasis on the role of work, the division of labour, and supported full development of an industrial society.
This society was designed to become the culmination of the perfectibility of mankind. The historical development, Saint-Simon asserted, was hampered by an opposition between two classes: workers and idlers. However, the term worker in this case encompasses foremen, active capitalists as well as the “working class” or “proletariat” - all terms used by Saint-Simon. The idlers are inactive capitalists who consume without producing. Saint-Simonianism is thus a theory that is critical of the rentier system and not, as it is often thought, a theory of exploitation in the Marxian sense. Salaries and profits are not distinguished by Saint-Simonians and an unjustified monopoly over the land and means of production lie in the way of closer productive affinity between workers and these means of production. A historical trend was supposed to bring gradually these two components closer together (with a gradual drop in rent and interest) with the aim of achieving worldwide production.The reforms suggested were thus intended to match workers and means of production: new “constitution of property”, that is, property more easily transferable, inheritance called into question, progressive taxation, contestation regarding indirect taxation on consumption, development of material and immaterial infrastructure (credit, canals and railways). This new society was analysed as if it were a social workshop - association was substituted for competition, administration for government - and criticism was voiced against poverty and the precarious situation of non-owners (influenced in part by Sismondi’s work).
The social objective was based on a triptych associating three human functions within a social entity (feelings, ideas and interests) combined with three dimensions of the social workshop (morality and religion, science and industry). It became the “improvement of the condition of the last and largest class” (Saint-Simon 2012: 2505), associated with two rules of justice which in one form or another proved to be an inspiration for all future socialism: a rule of distribution of the means of production (according to ability), and a rule concerning material and immaterial remuneration (according to performance). Saint-Simon thus argued in favour of a non-egalitarian and meritocratic society linked to industrial capacity.Disciples developed the historic typology of societies with a distinction between “critical” and “organic” phases, leading to the suppression of the “exploitation of man by man”. Enfantin and E. Pereire formulated an economic analysis of the progressive transformation of society while pushing for centralized and state organization - revolving mainly around the crucial role of the banking system but also centralization by the state of part of the inheritance. Despite social conflict arising from use of machines, tariffs and wages (and in particular the first revolt of the Lyon silk workers, the “Canuts”, in 1831), as well as the failed July 1830 Revolution, the definition of “workers” is maintained, as are profit sharing schemes between workers and industrialists.
In spite of the break-up of the Saint-Simonian school of thought after 1832, brought about by official repression and in-fighting, crucial developments took place on the economic front well into the Second Empire - developments of the banking sector, railways, industry, creation of companies (something Marx later called imperial socialism) on a national and international level from Suez to Algeria. Saint-Simonians showed a remarkable aptitude for reconversion in business and political life, the clearest example certainly being Michel Chevalier (1849). This propensity for reconversion is almost certainly due to the ambiguity of Saint-Simonian ideas and the fact that various interpretations were possible (technocracy, corporatism, and even socialism). While it remained profoundly attached to the integration of the proletariat within industrial society and to a series of significant and anticipatory reforms, this school of thought mainly advocated enhanced industrial organization and non-rentier capitalism which guaranteed a position for the working class in proportion with abilities and performance in the social workshop.