p Let us look back. In the person of Saint-Simon, French Utopian socialism enters the scene as the direct continuation of the work performed by the ideologists of the third estate in the eighteenth century. It champions the interests of this estate against those of 524 the aristocracy. But in doing so it has two distinctive features. First of all, under the influence of the events of 1793, it rejects the idea of the class struggle.  [524•*  Secondly, it insists on attention to the plight of the disinherited, proclaiming—even in the form of religious precepts—as a duty the all-round improvement of the condition of "the poorest and most numerous class”. The fulfilling of this duty falls primarily on "the leaders of industry”, who are ordained to play a directing role in social life. To Saint-Simon and the Saint-Simonists, the interests of the leaders of industry are in complete conformity with the interests of the working class.

p Fourier and his followers penetrate much more deeply into the mysteries of the rising capitalist order. Nevertheless, they no less determinedly reject the class struggle; they, too, address themselves to the “rich” and not to the “poor”. The great majority of the founders of other socialist systems follow the example set by these first two schools of Utopian socialism. The plans of social reform drawn up by these founders represent nothing else but a series of measures promising to reconcile the classes through the establishment of social harmony. The authors of these plans consider that the initiative for their realisation must belong to the upper classes. In other words, the Utopian socialists leave no room for the self-activity of the proletariat: indeed, the very concept of the latter, at first, does not emerge from their general conception of the "working class”. This is in keeping with the comparatively undeveloped state of social relations in France in the first quarter of the nineteenth century. The very rejection of politics, which we know to be one of the main distinguishing features of Utopian socialism, is in the closest causal connection with these poorlydeveloped social relations. Consciousness does not determine being; it is being that determines consciousness. So long as the proletariat had not emerged as an independent social force, the political struggle could signify only the struggle between different sections of the ruling class, who had not the slightest interest in the fate of "the poorest and most numerous class”. Consequently the political struggle presented no interest at all for the Utopian socialists, inasmuch as they were seeking to better the lot of just that class. Besides, politics spells struggle, while the Utopian socialists did not want struggle: their aim was to reconcile all sections of society. Consequently, they declared politics a mistake, 525 and concentrated their attention on the social field. It seemed to them that reforms adopted in this field had no relation to politics, and so social reformers could live at peace with any government.  [525•*  It is timely to add, finally, that the formation of such a view was facilitated by the reaction against the belief, current in the eighteenth century, that the political activity of the rulers was the cause and the social system the effect.

p The Utopian socialists retained their political indifference for a long time. We know already that this indifference explains their sometimes naive and sometimes unattractive political intriguing. But as France’s economic development advanced, the contradiction of interests between wage-labour and industrial capital became more acute. And as it became more acute, the "poor class" of that country became the proletariat. I made reference earlier to Reynaud’s statement to the effect that the destruction of the nobility had been prepared by the bourgeoisie and completed by the proletariat. These remarkable words show that, already at the beginning of the 1830s, some representatives of French Utopian socialism (true, very few), had begun to recognise the enormous political importance of the working class. This awakening consciousness was undoubtedly aroused by the impressions of the July revolution. If it did not develop much between July 1830 and February 1848, the collapse of the monarchy of Louis Philippe gave it a powerful impulse. The Fourierists, who had previously declared politics to be a mistake, themselves began to engage in politics. Elected as a "representative of the people”, Considerant joined the Montagnards and, in 1849, had to flee the country because of his participaton in the well-known demonstration of June 13.^^244^^ In the revolutionary period of 1848 to 1850, Proudhon, Pierre Leroux, Louis Blanc, Buchez, Vidal and some others were deputies too. Of all the outstanding representatives of Utopian socialism, Cabet was the only one occupied in this period mainly with establishing his communist colony “Icaria” in Texas. “Politics” turned out to be stronger than utopia. It imposed itself on Utopian socialism, which had erstwhile called it an error.  [525•**  But even while acting on the political scene, the Utopian socialists did not cease to be Utopians. In the period of the most acute class struggle, they 526 went on dreaming of the reconciliation of classes. In the pamphlet I have already cited, Le socialisme devant le vieux monde, ou le vivant devant les marts, Considerant expressed his sincere regret that the bourgeoisie had given a bad example to the proletariat by forcibly abolishing the privileges of the nobility during the Great Revolution. On April 14, 1849, the same Considerant delivered a big speech before the National Assembly in which he proposed that the Assembly allocate funds to the Fourierists for the setting up of phalansteries. It need hardly be said that the Assembly did not grant any funds. Finally, I will mention the well-known errors committed by Louis Blanc in 1848.

Dragged into the political arena by the very course of events in France, the Utopian socialists were unable to work out correct tactical principles for the simple reason that there was no sound theoretical basis to be found for such principles in Utopian socialism.  [526•*  This brings us to the question: what then is the distinguishing feature, the presence of which in a given socialist system imparts to it a Utopian character, regardless of whether details of the system are worthy of attention and approval? This question is the more relevant here since anyone with an inadequate knowledge of the subject might imagine that the word “utopian” has no precise theoretical meaning, and when applied to some plan or system simply indicates disapproval. Indeed the word “utopia” was known to the French Utopian socialists, and when one of them, say Fourier, wished to express his dissatisfaction with some aspects of some other socialist school, for example, the SaintSimonist, he called it, among other things, Utopian. Of course, to proclaim that a particular system was Utopian was tantamount to proclaiming it impracticable. But not one of the Utopian socialists had a clear conception of the criterion by which the practicability of a given system could be judged. This is why the word “utopia” had only polemical significance in the writings of the Utopian socialists. Nowadays, we see this differently.