Introduction to ‘Economists and Saint-Simonism’

– The Globe contains the most detailed and valuable criticism of existing conditions and particularly of economic conditions—a fact however which Herr Grün could not know. (Marx and Engels. [1845–1846] 2018. The German Ideology (IV.Grun, 4))

– There is scarcely a thinker of any importance, in France, at the present moment, who is largely indebted to St. Simonism… (Mill, Examiner, [1834] 1986, Feb. 2th, 68–69)

– … And if you are thinking of the history of socialism—not the influence of socialism, but the history of socialist theory—I have really no doubt at all that, Marx apart, Saint-Simon, and especially his disciples, were the most intellectually interesting and, I think, influentially the most important thinkers (Robbins [1979–1981] 1998, 233)

The exact status and importance to be accorded to St. Simonism in the history of the discipline of economics remains rather uncertain, in contrast to the much greater recognition it has received in the history of other disciplines. Thus, first and foremost sociology (due to the direct connection with Auguste Comte, and hence the work of Durkheim, Mauss, Anton Menger, Weil, Gurvitch, Ansart, Eckalbar, etc.) but also philosophy (Ricoeur, Macherey, Frick, for example), literature (H. Heine, W. Benjamin, Stendhal, Balzac, Flaubert…), history (Gille, Cameron, Carlisle, Ratcliffe…), and political science (Bouglé and Halévy, I. Berlin, Iggers, Stedman-Jones, Musso…) have seemed much more engaged with certain aspects of the St. Simonian heritage. In economics, by contrast, investigations of the legacy of the master, Henri de Saint-Simon (1760–1825), and of the School formed temporarily by the disciples (especially between 1825 and 1832), which was extended in various ways up to the Second Empire, have not seemed important.

Three reasons can perhaps be offered to explain this particular situation in economics:

• First of all, the understanding of St. Simonism seems to be a matter of philosophical and religious, or social and political considerations rather than a question of economics, a discipline which during this period was still in the process of acquiring its autonomy as a “new science”. For many, the identification of a political economy associated with Saint-Simon himself has proved to be difficult, being reduced to a few rare direct references to Turgot, Smith and especially Say. The so-called industrialist doctrine of Saint-Simon, initially associated with that of Ch. Comte and Dunoyer, is perceived as being conceptually out of step with the foundations of the so-called classical economy of Smith, Ricardo and even Say. Rather than economics, it seems to fall under the heading of a philosophy of history engaged in developing Condorcet’s notion of perfectibility. With the notable exception of the six editions of the famous History of the Economic Doctrines of Charles Gide and Charles Rist (from 1909 to 1947), the histories of economic thought written in the 20th century most often tend to marginalise Saint-Simon. Thus while Schumpeter (1954), just before his “Review of the Troops” devoted to the period 1790–1870, dedicates three penetrating pages to “St. Simonian socialism”, he does so in the name of an opposition between the history of doctrines and the history of analysis: where the contribution of the St. Simonians to analysis is judged to be slender.¹ The importance of the disciples, for their part, has been analysed above all from the point of view of economic history: it is the innovative practical achievements of the St. Simonian bankers and engineers concerning major infrastructures (canals and railways) and the banking system, characteristic of French industrialisation in the first third of the 19th century and then during the Second Empire,² that have been studied, much more so than the founding texts of the doctrine.

• Secondly, the rapid assimilation, from the 1840s onwards, of the Saint-Simonian movement to “socialism” and even more so to “utopian socialism” or “romanticism” (in a “Marxist” reading) has also led to its being presented as a clumsy prefiguration of theoretical and scientific Marxism in economics. The subsequent decline of Marxist studies in economics, and the serious reintroduction into the history of economic ideas of the diverse and pluralist socialist approaches, have not yet produced their full effects in economics. A certain relegation has therefore persisted. Moreover, the recent debate about potentially “totalitarian” utopias, in the face of an economics discipline that is strengthening its arsenal of positive methods and is a typical representative of “realism”, has served to reinforce that sense of relegation. The economists’ mistrust of any approach perceived as sociological, or as depending on the study of religious or even sectarian movements, has therefore dominated.

• Finally, the complexity of the Saint-Simonian movement may have contributed to the difficulty of identifying an organised body of economic thought within St. Simonism. In effect, the doctrine itself was constituted at the juncture between 18th century thought and that of the 19th century; however, it can be assimilated neither to Auteuil’s circle of ideologues and his movement (Roederer, De Tracy, Say, etc.), nor to Coppet’s group (Necker, Sismondi, etc.). In addition, this body of thought also goes far beyond with the industrialist, associationist, worker and even managerial perspectives associated with the 19th and early 20th centuries. There are surely several St. Simonisms, as yet only poorly identified. Saint-Simon’s role as an encompassing intellectual matrix, at the frontiers of liberalism, socialism, and sometimes even technocratism and corporatism, is certainly often recognised. But what is there in common between Saint-Simon’s defence of the least expensive government possible, the defence by the disciples Enfantin and Bazard of a State depositary of the entire social fund of capital, the ardent promotion of limited companies of capital by Chevalier and the brothers Pereire in the imperial St. Simonism under Napoleon III, or the associationist socialism of the Leroux brothers? The scientific availability of the texts, which is still largely incomplete, has also hampered the possibility of accurate, nuanced and updated readings.

In the last two decades, however, this dominant marginalisation of St.Simonism in the history of economic ideas has undergone some notable inflexions. A reintegration of Saint-Simon’s positions into the political economy of the time has been carried out (Steiner 2006; Faccarello and Steiner 2008; Cunliffe and Erregers 2013). Analysis of the monetary and banking theses has highlighted certain paradoxes (in particular Yonnet 2004). Different studies opened up new avenues of research (for instance Forget 2001). Studies linked to the contracts financed by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR Utopias 19, sd Ludovic Frobert; et ANR St-Simonism 19–21, sd. M. Bellet) have also permitted us to update and diversify our approaches, drawing on a less superficial understanding of the variety of socialisms which existed before Marx (Bellet 2020). This work has also underscored the difficulty of using the usual categorizations of liberalism and socialism, particularly in dealing with the economic debates of the first third of the 19th century (for instance Lutz 2019 about commercial crisis; or Coste 2020 about debt). In the same way, the reopening of economics to broader questions, particularly the relationship between economics and religion, has led, for example, to a study of the meaning of the “industrial religion” defended by Saint-Simon (Musso 2017; Bovens and Lutz 2019). Finally, the complete edition of the works of Saint-Simon (2012), as well as versions of certain economic texts by the disciples, sometimes in English (Jacoud 2010, 2019), have been made available.³

This new stage has thus led to a closer consideration of the role of St. Simonism in the history of economic ideas. Among the possible paths of study, we may thus insist on the following paradox: it does not make much attention to see that significant economists and economic thinkers of the 19th and 20th centuries devoted time to reading Saint-Simon and the St. Simonians, and wrote a significant amount about them.

We may in this respect identify at least twelve authors or pairs of authors: in the 19th century, A. Blanqui, C. Gide and C. Rist, J.-S. Mill, K. Marx and F. Engels, A. Marshall; at the juncture of the 19th and 20th centuries, A. and L. Walras and V. Pareto; and, in the 20th century, F. Hayek, W. Eucken, E. S. Mason, P. Sraffa, and F. Perroux. The interest of these authors in St. Simonism has sometimes remained unknown; or, when it is mentioned, it is most often presented in a partial, repetitive and formulaic manner. This is the case, for example, with the quotations from Marx and Engels concerning the so-called utopian socialism of Saint-Simon and his disciples, or Hayek’s evocations concerning the emergence of a constructivist and liberticidal rationalism.

The aim of the present booklet is to review the resurgence of St. Simonism from the perspective of four significant economists. The purpose is twofold. On the one hand, it is a question of unearthing, where necessary via new knowledge, the precise and substantial references of these authors made to St. Simonism and of situating them; and on the other hand, we seek to highlight the reasons for and the effects of this recurring reference to St. Simonism, which spans decades and sometimes more than a century of economic history. In chronological order, the following four essays set out the intentional engagment with St. Simonism by Auguste and Leon Walras (presented by G. Jacoud and J.-P. Potier), Vilfredo Pareto (presented by T. Demals and A. Hyard), Edward S. Mason (presented by L. Frobert) and Piero Sraffa (presented by M. Bellet and A. Lutz).

The text written by Jacoud and Potier precisely underlines the importance and the crisscrossing dynamics of the personal and intellectual relations between the father Auguste Walras, his son Léon, and certain St. Simonian disciples, from 1860 to the end of the 19th century. The role of St. Simonism in the education of Leon Walras proves to be particularly significant, insofar as it helps to delimit the author’s socialist claims. Without ever having adhered to St. Simonism, Leon Walras validates a series of economic positions characteristic of St. Simonism, such as the duality between the idle and the workers, or the socialisation of the earth (defended in fact only by the disciples). In the context of the strong upsurge of socialisms in the historical period in question, the St. Simonian reference is used by L. Walras to establish the difference from what he will sometimes defend, namely a “scientific socialism”. This socialism does not contradict true liberalism, provided that one correctly positions the three levels of scientific construction well: pure economy (not understood by the St. Simonians), applied economy, and moral economy (regarding which the St. Simonian’s claims can be re-articulated).

The text by Hyard and Demals shows that in the years 1890–1917 Pareto renewed the legacy of opposition to St. Simonism, namely the supposed contradiction between free competition and the role of the state. Pareto thus extends an old dualistic theme which sets liberalism and socialism in opposition. He does so, moreover, via a rather distant and imprecise reading of the St. Simonian texts, setting aside, for example, a certain number of possible convergences that could perhaps complicate his interpretation.⁴ Pareto uses the classic theme of the opposition between individual freedom and state constraint to facilitate his own categorisation. What interests the author is, on the one hand, the categorisation of a non-science, which includes St. Simonism as a particular component of socialism; and on the other hand, the understanding of the effects of ethico-religious or sentimental systems on reasoning. He thus engages in a project of unmasking the source of illusions, which leads to the understanding that one is not socialist because one is persuaded by reasoning, but that one adheres to this reasoning because one is socialist.

The text by Frobert concerns the interwar period (1928–1931), and the conditions at Harvard which enabled the thorough study of French socialisms by the young Mason, the future father of the “Indutrial Organisation”. His interest in the role of beliefs as regards the manner in which the past and the future is constructed, leads him to purify the St-Simonian thought of the socialist readings which were made of it a posteriori. He is concerned to restore to St. Simonism what constitutes, according to him, its essential and most promising aspect, namely “industrial rationalization”, an indispensable complement to modern liberalism. Mason then masterfully and more subtly pre-empts the managerial interpretations of S. Simonism, which assimilates the organisation of society to the organisation of large firms and their rules of regulation.

The text by Bellet and Lutz, which concerns Sraffa, returns on the one hand to the initial reference to the famous St. Simonian experience of the Crédit Mobilier during the Second Empire, in the context of Sraffa’s first monetary works (1929–1930). Starting from this delimited framework, which nevertheless brought to light broader issues concerning the historical and institutional dimensions of the functioning of the economy, Sraffa later took a surprising interest in the work of the founder St Simon himself. Begun in the late 1950s, after the completion of his seminal work on economics published in 1960, this painstaking initiative was eventually interrupted without it ever being clear whether it corresponded to a desire for publication. The interpretation to be given to this St. Simonian “temptation” remains uncertain, even if the strongest hypothesis seems to be the interest of a “positivist” Sraffa in Saint-Simon’s positions concerning the natural sciences and their necessary but non-mechanical relationship with a science of society.

From these four routes, it is thus possible to highlight some common lessons. First of all, the recurrence of references to St. Simon and the St. Simonian school in economics is significant given the variation in temporalities, the diversity of the economists concerned, and the range of national contexts (here France, Italy, Switzerland, Great Britain and the United States). Secondly, the relationship to St. Simonism is not at all anecdotal. Such reference indeed sometimes plays a significant role in the very formation of the thought of the economists presented here (Walras and Mason); and it has also been deemed sufficiently illuminating to help delineate relevant categorizations within the discipline of economics and between it and other disciplines. The interpretation of St. Simonism has thus been a basis for the discussion of issues of scientific method (Walras and his definition of socialism, Mason and the core of modern industrialism, Sraffa and the relationship to the knowledge of his time). This is sometimes done by reasoning a contrario, in which St. Simonism makes it possible to identify what should not be done (Pareto and the frontier with non-science). Thirdly, for some economists, St. Simonism is sometimes a source of positive nourishment for core notions that stand in need of reactivation: this is the case for instance for the notions of organisation, institution, social evolution, coordination and rational management. In several cases, because of its complexity, the confrontation with it contributes to the displacement of classical notions of socialism and liberalism in both economics and the social sciences. For some economists, however, St. Simonism remains an example of a non-science, stimulating for Walras, or a purveyor of illusions for Pareto. But its role as an intellectual matrix for the study of industrial societies is verified in economics as well. Indeed, the reference to Saint-Simon makes it possible to identify missing links so as to understand an author’s intellectual lineage (undoubtedly that of Marx in Sraffa, for example); but also to discern specific branches (Walras and the various socialisms; Pareto and “mixed” socialism), or even to locate the origin of hitherto unknown bifurcations (Mason and his reading of the history of rationalization).

It would therefore be significant to continue the work presented here by drawing on the studies of other economists, mentioned above. We might still be surprised by the role of the St. Simonisms in the history of economic ideas.

Michel Bellet
University of Lyon, UJM Saint-Etienne, GATE UMR 58 24, France and Agence Nationale de Recherche’s research program (ANR) Saint-Simonism 18–21
[email protected]

Notes

1 Schumpeter does, however, take two things for granted: “a conception of that may be said to adumbrate an economic interpretation of history” and “a perception or a glimpse of the true nature of the capitalist process that acquires particular importance from the fact that neither Marx nor his bourgeois peers had it: Saint-Simon saw the pivotal importance of industrial leadership…” (1954, 462).

2 See Gille (1970). This is also the case in the volumes published under the direction of Perroux and Schuhl (1970–1971), which are largely dominated by economic history.

3 Other scholarly editions of the complete texts of the disciples are in development (Garnier editions).

4 Pareto’s theory of elites, and the hierarchical, elitist and strictly non-egalitarian vision defended by Saint-Simonism; or Pareto's organic and evolutionary vision of human evolution, and Saint-Simon’s physiological approach to social organization.