Current:

Leader (1850-1860), 6th September 1851, Edition Town of 2, Page 852

Page 852
Page 16
16 of 24

On this page

  • Text (2)

      Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    • Untitled Article

      Untitled Article

    • Untitled Article

      Untitled Article

  • Transcript

    • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

      Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

      Untitled Article

      the secret of most paradoxes . How many neglected geniuses would willingly emulate that youth " fired the Ephesian dome" upon the chance of being seen in the light of their incendiarism ! France has no lack of such men — eager for iclat at any cost . This week we hear of one , M . Leon de Montbeillard , who has published a work on Spinoza . If that glorious Jew has one characteristic more eminent than another , it is commonly supposed to be the geometric precision and exactitude of his logical demonstrations . To say that Spinoza was a rigorous logician is like saying ftiat Shakspeare was dramatic and Milton

      imaginative—a platitude unworthy of an original mind , a truism beneath notice . M . Montbeillard declines to walk in such a beaten path . He denies Spinoza ' s logical merit . Spinoza a logician ; fi done ! Read this treatise and learn better . What all the world has hitherto supposed to be Bevere deductive logic , only to be escaped by a refusal to accept the premisses , is here shown to be nothing bu- a pedantic array of pretended axioms and theorems , which are attacked and overturned by this adventurous author avec une assez grande fadfitS . We have not seen the work , but we have not a doubt of the facility !

      Untitled Article

      PROUDHON ON REACTION AND REVOLUTION . Idee GenSrale de la RSvolution , Au XIX Siecle . Choix d'Etudes sur la Pratique Revolutionnuire et Induslrielle . Par . P . J Proudhon . W . Jeffs . After Comte there is no one in France to compare with Proudhon for power , originality , daring , and coherence . His name is a name of terror . He is of no party , no sect . Like Ishmael , his hand is raised against every one , and his blows are crushing . In some respects he reminds us of

      Carlyle : there is the same relentless scorn for his adversaries , the same vehement indignation against error , the same domineering personality , the same preference for crude energy of statement , the same power of sarcasm ; but there is none of the abounding poetry which is in Carlyle , none of the the genius ; and there is an excess of dialectics such as Carlyle would turn aside from . If Carlyle is the Prophet of Democracy , Proudhon is its Logician and Economist .

      Proudhon loves to startle . It suits his own vehement , combative nature . We do not think he does it from calculation so much as from instinct ; he does not fire a musket in the air that its noise may call attention to him , but from sheer sympathy with musket shots . Whatever may be the motive , the result is unquestionable : attention is attracted and fixed . A treatise on the gradual disintegration of property would have met with few readers ; but his Qu ' est-ce que la Propriety , opening such a

      terrific cannonade with the startling war-cry , La Propriety c est le vol , could not but rouse the most lethargic . And no of all his works ; no matter how arid the subject , his style makes it startling , interesting . If he were , like many of his countrymen , merely a stylist , and could only startle , the English reader would resent his paradoxical artifices ; but no one can read twenty pages without perceiving that there is terrible earnest beneath these deliberate exaggerations . In his first Memoir on Property , for example , there is this

      passage : — ' What form of government , shall we prefer ? How can you ask ? rcplicu one of my young renders ; of course you are Republican ! Republican , yen ; but that word defines nothing . Itespuhlica in the public object ; and whoever desires a , public object , under whatever form of government , may call himself republieim . Kings are republican . Well , then , you are a Democrat ? No . What ! can you be a Monarchic ? No . Constitutionalist ? Heaven forbid ! Aristocrat ? Not in tho leant . Do you wish for a mixed government . ? Still leas . What an ; you then ? / am an Anarchist . "

      For a grave writer this is " startling , " in it not ? A man deliberately proclaiming anarchy to be his aim , his ideal ! Do not , however , take him at his word . No no more inean « to preach "disorder , " than by his definition of property he means to preach brigandage . By " anarchy , " | he means no more than what our admirable friend Herbert Spencer wets forth as the goal to which civilization in irresistibly tending , viz , the final disappearance of Go » erw » wai 5 ^ 'p « ji » 'fll ^ -s »< nnit ; ce » Kary because men

      will ha \* JeirfraM"fiq ^ fcf » jtoffl ™! tJieinnelveM us to need no T ^ V ^^ t ^ M 6 iQj ^ p this point we hIuiII have Hohirctwn % ^ - 9 ayfiAhj ( j ^ may clear up the ' :,- --- ~ \ % M * - \ \ V *

      ambiguities and reconcile discrepancies ; but we postpone doing so until we arrive at the subject in our analysis of Proudhon ' s last work , which now lies before us , and to which we propose devoting a much larger space than is customary , partly because of the interest attached to Proudhon ' s name , and partly because the work not being translated will be beyond the reach of many readers . It consists of seven etudes or chapters : —1 . Reactions determine revolutions . 2 . Is there sufficient reason for a revolution in the nineteenth century ? 3 . On the Principle of Association . 4 . On the Principle of Authority . 6 . Social liquidation . 6 . Organization of oeconotnic forces . 7 . Dissolution of Government in the oeconomic organization .

      The plan it will be seen is comprehensive ; the execution has all Proudhon ' s peculiarities . We shall consider each section in succession , merely premising that , unlike almost all revolutionary writers , instead of dedicating hia work to the Pro le ' taires he dedicates it to the Bourgeoisie , declaring that the Middle Classes have from time immemorial been the most intrepid and most adroit of revolutionists . What will Louis Blanc say to that ?

      Proudhon opens his first section with a refutation of the error current equally among the Party of Resistance and the Party of Movement , that a Revolution can in its early stages be arrested , driven back , avoided , or transformed . He says , we believe truly , that a revolution is a force against which all human strength is powerless ; it grows and is fortified by the very resistance it encounters . Indeed , whoever looks at revolution as the growth of society , must see that it is irresistible , if life continue : the seed will burst , the bud will blossom ! But , as Proudhon says , a revolution may be directed , moderated , retarded—it may be slow and peaceful instead of being spasmodic and vehement . Give the ship sea-room , that is all .

      Every revolution at first assumes the position of an accusation against a vicious condition of society , which the poor suffer most from—it is a complaint on the part of the People . It is not in the nature of the masses to revolt , unless against suffering . Is that to be repressed , persecuted ? No ; a Government whose policy consists in eluding the wish of the masses , and repressing their outcries , denounces its own incompetence . The nation is ill ,

      unhappy . Attend to it , listen to its sorrows , study the causes of its discontent , allow if you will for the necessary exaggeration of ignorance and suffering ; but be sure there is something wrong . Do that honestly and the revolution will accomplish itself peaceably . Avoid it , repress the cries , deny the evil , call the whole false and factioiis because exaggeration has mis-stated some part , do this and . !

      There are two causes noted by Proudhon as opposing the regular peaceable development of revolutions : established interests , and pride of the Government . These are always together . What is a complaint but the signification that established interests are not identical with national interestsand the signification that Government has mismanaged its work ? Proudhon therefore undertakes to point out . the share which Reaction has in determining the course of a revolution . " If the revolution did not exist , he sure of this , the reaction would invent it . The Idea conceived vaguely under

      the impulse of want , becomes clear and decisive under contradiction , and grows into a right . And as all rights are reciprocal , as you cannot deny one without at , the same time sacrificing them all , the result in that u reactionary Government is led away by the phantom which it pursues , and by dint of wishing to save society from a revolution , it interests the entire society in that revolution . It was thus the ancient monarchy first dismissed Turgot , then iNecker ; opposed all reforms , discontented the tiers otat , parliaments , clergy , nobility , and created the revolution . "

      So it is . Men are scared by phantoms in broad daylight ; Le Spectre Hout / e , the phantom of their own fears , makes them desert the Truth , desert Justice , abjure Iteasou , and fly to Force— -blind , brutal , stupid , miicidal Force , rather than listen to the complaints of the masses , and stud y their disease ; and when exasperated HulYc . r ' ing breaks forth into Violence , then we hear of the wicked press which misled the masses , and taught them to revolt , of " dangerous demagogues " who deceived them by lying promises of getting their woes lightened . Surely the way to disarm the press of itn power , the demagogue of bis influence , in not to gag the one and imprison the other , but to examine honestly and trace to its source , that , injustice which gave writer and orator their subject ?

      Doubtless , to many Whig minds it appears , that Government has thoroughly fulfilled its functiorj and has lent benign attention to the " complaints ' which rise to it from out the sorrowing masses nor can any impartial observer deny that , compare d with other nations , England has had the advantage of far greater attention given to the " condition of the People question" by the indirect labours of philanthropists , noble and gentle . Hence much of our superior security . But that England ' or any other country , is free from the charge Proudhon brings of eluding and repressing by all practicable means the deep-voiced protests of some social malady , we unequivocally deny . It will , however , first be necessary to settle the nature of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century .

      The Revolution of ' 89 was Political j the Revolution of ' 48 was Social . In the first the struggle was for The Rights of Man ; in the second the struggle was for The Rights of Labour . Before ' 89 the People were politically no more ihan things ; they conquered their existence as men and citizens by a fearful and gigantic combat . Their political existence thus secured , they had then to conquer their social existence . They had been slaves to Privilege ; they were now slaves to Capital . They found citizenship a vain distinction without Socialism . They cared less for a Republic than for the Organization of Labour .

      Such , reduced to its ultimate terms , we believe to be the Revolution of the Nineteenth Century ; such is the Idea animating it ; and the admirable instinot of the populace , persisting in the formula of a " Republic democratic and social" ( so little understood by the vulgar Republicans of the Provisional Government and elsewhere , who only aped the Revolution of ' 89 ) , unequivocally points that way . If this be so , we ask , whether any Government has opened its ears to this universal Labour cry ? Has it directed itself to the Organization of Labour ?

      Has it studied , the subject , fostered experiments , given countenance , invited discussion ? No ; it has done what it always does—avoided or suppressed the question . Even in free-spoken England—although the right of discussion cannot be taken away—what has been the treatment of those who directed themselves to the Labour question ? Has Government solicited their advice ? has it appointed any competent body to examine the question ? Has it not been content to fling the word Socialism as an outrage , and to ignore the matter as much as possible ? As to France , let

      Proudhon speak : — "In 1848 , the proletariat , suddenly interposing in the quarrel between the middle class and the Crown , made its cry of misery heard . What was the cause of that misery ? Want of work was the answer . The People , therefore , demanded work : its protest went no further . Those who had just proclaimed the Itepublic in the name of the People , having

      promised to find work , the People ardently emoraccu the republican cause . In default of a more positive interest , the People accepted a bill on the Republic . That was a sufficient cause for it to take the Republic under its protection . Who could have supposed that those who signed the schedule would have no tnougM but for its destruction ? ' Work and Bread lor Work , ' such was in 1848 the petition of the workingclasses : such was the immovable basis given by them

      to the Itepublic , such was the revolution . " The proclamation of the Republic , the act oi a more or less intelligent , of a more or less usurping minority , on the 25 th of February , 1848 , was therefore , one thing ; and the revolutionary question <« labour , which made this Republic an object ot interest , and alone f ^ ave it a real value in the eyes ol tn « masses , was another . No : the Republic of February ik not the revolution , it m the plodgo of the revolution . It hn » been no fault of those who havo governed that Republic , from the hig hest to the lowest , i < the pledge him not perished : the People nav now to decide on what conditions they shall in luturo be intrusted with its guardianship . i

      ' At first , thin demand for work did not appear the least , exorbitant to the new leaders , none of wn ) had hitherto Btudied political ( economy . , contrary , it was a subject for mutual congratulat e What a People was that which , in its day oi i umph , asked neither for bread nor amuB < »» ent » s ^ the Roman People had dona—pattern et ( hrcensf ,, only work 1 Wh / it . n guarantee for the morality , dinciplino , tho docility of the labouring cl " , ^ What a pledge of security for a Govern "" '"i « . ^ must be confessed that it wad with tho best in the world and the inont praiseworthy HC " " , ¦ that the Provisional ( Government proclaimed int . j

      to lahour . These words doubtless betrayed ig »<> " j ' but the intention was there . And what canii , done with the . French People by tho main e »"" of intentions ? There w » s no bourgeois , now . ^ quarrelsome , who was not at that moment i

      Untitled Article

      852 C |) £ 3 Lt& 1 ftt + [ Saturday , — ¦— - —— -j— _ - . — — — ~ - _ --- -

  • Citation
    • Leader (1850-1860), Sept. 6, 1851, page 852, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1899/page/16/