History in French Liberal Thought, 1814-1834: the Contribution of Charles Comte and Charles Dunoyer

CLASS, SLAVERY AND THE INDUSTRIALIST THEORY OF HISTORY IN FRENCH LIBERAL THOUGHT, 1814-1834: THE CONTRIBUTION OF CHARLES COMTE AND CHARLES DUNOYER DAVID MERCER HART KING'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE MAY 1990 DECLARATION OF LENGTH OF THE DISSERTATION I declare that the length of the dissertation "Class, Slavery and the Industrialist Theory of History in French Liberal Thought, 1814-1834: The Contribution of Charles Comte and Charles Dunoyer" does not exceed eighty thousand words, excluding footnotes and bibliography. David Mercer Hart Faculty of History King's College, Cambridge Signed: Date: DECLARATION I declare that this dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration. Signed: Date: ii ABSTRACT The work of Charles Comte and Charles Dunoyer spanning the years from 1814 to 1834 demonstrates that a reassessment of the nature of nineteenth century liberalism in general, and early nineteenth century French liberalism in particular, is required. The picture of nineteenth century liberalism which emerges from traditional accounts does not prepare one for the kind of liberalism advocated by Comte and Dunoyer, with their ideas of class analysis, exploitation, the relationship between the mode of production and political culture, and the historical evolution from one mode of production to another through definite stages of economic development. We have been told that liberals restricted themselves to purely political concerns, such as freedom of speech and constitutional government, or economic concerns, such as free trade and deregulation, and eschewed the so-called "social" issues of class and exploitation. I will argue in this thesis that there was a group of liberals in Restoration France which does not fit this traditional view. Charles Comte and Charles Dunoyer combined a traditional liberal concern with political and constitutional liberty and a social theory of class and exploitation which they developed during the late 1810s and 1820s. I discuss at some length their interest in the nature of slave labour, in particular its profitability and its class structure, as well as Dunoyer's industrialist theory of history. Since their strong advocacy of private property, individual liberty and laissez- faire economic policies makes it impossible to classify them as "proto-socialists" or "early socialists" however much their theories may have influenced later socialists including Karl Marx, one is obliged to classify them as liberals. Yet, they are quite unlike the mainstream liberals of the early nineteenth century we have come to know through traditional accounts. It is my conclusion that historians, with a very few exceptions, have badly misunderstood the nature of early nineteenth century liberalism by focusing excessively on political and economic policy matters. A study of liberals like Comte and Dunoyer shows there is another dimension to liberalism which has never been adequately appreciated, a "social" dimension in which the problems of class, exploitation and the evolution of societies through definite economic stages played an important rôle. iii INTRODUCTION The work of Charles Comte and Charles Dunoyer spanning the years from 1814 to 1834 demonstrates that a reassessment of the nature of nineteenth century liberalism in general, and early nineteenth century French liberalism in particular, is required. The picture of nineteenth century liberalism which emerges from traditional accounts does not prepare one for the kind of liberalism advocated by Comte and Dunoyer, with their ideas of class analysis, exploitation, the relationship between the mode of production1 and political culture (or "morals" as Dunoyer expressed it), and the historical evolution from one mode of production to another through definite stages of economic development. One has been led by many historians to expect that these issues were the exclusive preserve of the early utopian socialists, such as Auguste Comte and the Saint-Simonians, or the Marxists. Since it was Karl Marx who developed the most influential theory of class conflict and historical evolution through economic stages, it has been assumed that these ideas were somehow peculiarly "socialist." They are considered by some historians even to be a distinguishing feature of this tradition of thought. On the other hand, we have been told, liberals restricted themselves to purely political concerns, such as freedom of speech and constitutional government, or economic concerns, such as free trade and deregulation, and eschewed the so-called "social" issues of class, exploitation and the relationship between the mode of production and political culture. I will argue in this thesis that there was a group of liberals in Restoration France which does 1I have used the expression "mode of production" to translate a variety of terms which Dunoyer uses, such as "la manière même dont ils pouvaient à leurs besoins" (p. 181), "les modes d'existence" (p. 182), "la manière de vivre" (p. 182), "la mode imparfait de subsistance" (p. 185), all of which were taken from a few pages in Charles Dunoyer, L'Industrie et la morale considérées dans leurs rapports avec la liberté (Paris: A. Sautelet, 1825). I chose this translation for two reasons. Firstly, it seemed to carry the meaning of what Dunoyer was trying to say. Secondly, the appropriation of this term by Marxists gives the impression that it was they who invented the concept. By associating it with an obviously liberal social theorist my intention it to show that the term was much more broadly used than is commonly recognised. 1 not fit this traditional demarcation between liberals and socialists. Charles Comte and Charles Dunoyer combined a traditional liberal concern with political and constitutional liberty and a social theory of class and exploitation which they developed during the late 1810s and 1820s. Since their strong advocacy of private property, individual liberty and laissez-faire economic policies makes it impossible to classify them as "proto-socialists" or "early socialists" however much their theories may have influenced later socialists including Karl Marx, one is obliged to classify them as liberals. Yet, they are quite unlike the mainstream liberals of the early nineteenth century we have come to know through traditional accounts. It is my conclusion that historians, with a very few exceptions, have badly misunderstood the nature of early nineteenth century liberalism by focusing excessively on political and economic policy matters. A study of liberals like Comte and Dunoyer shows there is another dimension to liberalism which has never been adequately appreciated, a "social" dimension in which the problems of class, exploitation and the evolution of societies through definite economic stages played an important rôle. When one acknowledges that our understanding of liberalism must be changed in order to include what I have called "the social dimension," it quickly becomes apparent that there are many other nineteenth century liberals who share Comte's and Dunoyer's interest in such things as class and exploitation, but who are often left out of or only selectively used in histories of nineteenth century liberalism. A history of liberalism, based upon my expanded redefinition of what liberalism is, would now have to include, in addition to Charles Comte and Charles Dunoyer, others such as Thomas Hodgskin, Herbert Spencer, Gustave de Molinari, Vilfredo Pareto, and Max Weber, along with the traditionally highly regarded figures such as Benjamin Constant, John Stuart Mill, Richard Cobden, and Alexis de Tocqueville. Even these latter liberals have an interest in class and exploitation which has not yet been fully explored by historians.2 2Benjamin Constant's economic writings have been largely ignored by historians and his most interesting piece of social theory, the "De l'esprit de conquête et de l'usurpation dans leurs rapports avec la civilisation européene" (1814) in De la liberté chez les 2 One looks in vain in recent overviews of the history of liberalism to find any mention of this "social" dimension. John Gray, for example, acknowledges the importance of the idea of the autonomous individual, private property and the free market to liberal theory, but makes no mention of any theory of class, exploitation, or historical development.3 Because the social dimension plays no part in Gray's account of liberalism, it is not surprising that he dismisses Hodgskin, for example, as just one of "a host of lesser figures" who "produced valuable work (unspecified by Gray) in the classical liberal individualist tradition." While grudgingly acknowledging Hodgskin's philosophical individualism, Gray ignores entirely Hodgskin's theory of property and the vitally important idea of class and exploitation which he developed from it.4 Max Weber and Vilfredo Pareto suffer similar fates of dismissive neglect. Spencer is congratulated for his "Principle of Equal Freedom," modernes, ed. Marcel Gauchet (Paris: Livre de poche, 1980) which so influenced Dunoyer, has not always been recognised as such. Mill's interest in social issues is well documented, especially in the Principles of Political Economy (1848), ed. Donald Winch (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1970) and the Essays in French History and Historians. Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, ed. John M. Robson (University of Toronto Press, 1985), but the important discussion of the nature of subjection under feudalism in The Subjection of Women, ed. Kate

Load more