-
6. Individualism and Fraternity
- Liberty Fund
- Chapter
- Additional Information
82 [vol. 7, p. 328. “Individualisme et fraternité.” Possibly June 1848. n.p.] A systematic view of history and the destiny of mankind, which seems to me to be as erroneous as it is dangerous, has recently been produced.1 According to this system, the world is divided into three principles: authority , individualism, and fraternity. Authority relates to the aristocratic eras, individualism to the reign of the bourgeoisie, and fraternity to the triumph of the people. The first of these principles is above all incarnated in the pope. It leads to oppression by stifling personality. The second, inaugurated by Luther, leads to oppression through anarchy. The third, announced by the thinkers in La Montagne, has given birth to true freedom by shrouding men in the ties of harmonious association. As the people have been the masters in only one country, France, and for a short period, in ’93, we still know the theoretical value and practical attractions of fraternity only through the attempt so noisily made at it at that time. Unfortunately, union and love, personified in Robespierre, were only half able to stifle individualism, which reappeared the day after 9 Thermidor.2 It still prevails. What is individualism, then? The author of the work to which we are referring defines it as follows: “The principle of individualism is that which, taking man out of society, makes him the sole judge of what surrounds him and of himself, gives him 1. Bastiat is possibly referring to the first two volumes of a history of the French Revolution (Histoire de la Révolution française, 1847) that the socialist Louis Blanc had published just prior to the outbreak of the February Revolution of 1848. (See also the entry for “Blanc, Louis,” in the Glossary of Persons.) 2. Date of the arrest of Robespierre (27 July 1794). He was guillotined the following day. 6 Individualism and Fraternity Individualism and Fraternity 83 an exalted view of his rights without indicating his duties, abandons him to his own resources, and, with regard to all matters of government, proclaims the system of laissez-faire.”3 That is not all. Individualism, the driving force of the bourgeoisie, was bound to invade the three major branches of human activity: religion, politics , and industry. From this sprang three major individualist schools: the school of philosophy, with Voltaire as its leading light, which by demanding freedom of thought led us to a profound moral anarchy; the school of politics , founded by Montesquieu, which, instead of political freedom, brought us an oligarchy based on a property franchise; and the school of economists, represented by Turgot, which, instead of economic freedom, bequeathed us competition between rich and poor to the advantage of the rich.4 We see that up to now humanity has been very poorly inspired and that it has gone wrong at every turn. This has not, however, been through lack of warnings, since the principle of fraternity has always issued its protests and reservations through the voices of Jean Huss,5 Morelli, Mably, and Rousseau and through the efforts of Robespierre. But what is fraternity? “The principle of fraternity is that which, considering the members of the extended family as being interdependent, tends to organize the various forms of society, the work of man, in line with the model of the human body, the work of God, and bases the power of government on persuasion and the voluntary acquiescence of the heart.6 This is M. Blanc’s system. What makes it dangerous in my view, apart from the brilliance with which it is set out, is that in it the true and the false are intermingled in proportions that are difficult to determine. I have 3. (Bastiat’s note) Blanc, Histoire de la Révolution française, vol. 1, p. 9. [Bastiat is quoting from the 1847 edition of Blanc’s work.] 4. (Bastiat’s note) Blanc, Histoire de la Révolution française, vol. 1, pp. 350–51. [Bastiat is again quoting from the 1847 edition of Blanc’s work. In this passage Bastiat is summarizing Blanc’s critique of eighteenth-century theories of individualism.] 5. Jan Hus. 6. (Paillottet’s note) As Bastiat had not finished copying the passage of the book he is dealing with by hand in his manuscript, I have had to make good this lacuna and present the whole sentence. With regard to the last few words, I make so bold as to say that they imply a contradiction with the...