We had last
Thursday’s posting on the minimum wage hike in Seattle in mind while doing some
research into early nineteenth century socialism, especially the varieties
promoted by Henri de Saint-Simon, Félicité de Lamennais, and Charles
Fourier. All three claimed their systems
were either a new version of Christianity, or replaced Christianity, whatever
best suited their purposes.
 |
| Charles Fourier |
This led us to an
article, “Religious Union of Associationists” in the March 1847 issue of The American Whig Review . . . which, of
course, you no doubt have lying around the house or have seen in the doctor’s
waiting room. We were at first amused by
the anonymous author’s remarks. We
didn’t know that people in the early nineteenth century could be so . . .
sarcastic. He (or possibly she) clearly
did not like Fourierism.
Also interesting
was the fact that the author, clearly not a Catholic, was offended at the way
the followers of Charles Fourier, the founder of Associationism, were quick to
“borrow” Catholic religious music, language, and symbols, but graft their own
meanings on to them. Orestes A. Brownson
also noted this, in an essay, “Socialism and the Church,” written about the
same time. As Brownson put it,
 |
| Orestes Brownson |
The spirit that works in the children of disobedience must . . .
affect to be Christian, more Christian than Christianity itself, and not only
Christian, but Catholic. It can manifest itself now, and gain friends,
only by acknowledging the Church and all Catholic symbols, and substituting for
the divine and heavenly sense in which they have hitherto been understood a
human and earthly sense. Hence the
religious character which Socialism attempts to wear. It rejects in name no Catholic symbol; it
only rejects the Catholic sense. If it
finds fault with the actual Church, it is because she is not truly Catholic,
does not understand herself, does not comprehend the profound sense of her own
doctrines, fails to seize and expound the true Christian idea as it lay in the
mind of Jesus, and as this enlightened age is prepared to receive it. The Christian symbol needs a new and a more
Catholic interpretation, adapted to our stage in universal progress. (Orestes
A. Brownson, “Socialism and the Church,” Essays
and Reviews, Chiefly on Theology, Politics, and Socialism. New York: D. & J. Sadlier & Co.,
1852, 499-500.)
But we
digress. Our concern here is a
commentary on the remarks made by a Fourierist lecturer, the Reverend William
Henry Channing
(1810-1884), a Boston Unitarian socialist who — surprise! — moved in the same
circles as Orestes Brownson . . . and who seems to have irritated Brownson a
trifle by his wholesale “borrowings” from the Catholic Church to vest his
variety of Fourierist socialism with the prestige of what the anonymous author
in the Whig Review considered the
oldest and most venerable Christian church.
As the anonymous author said, after attending one of Channing’s services/lectures/shows
in Boston,
 |
| William Henry Channing |
Mr. Channing remarked that
it was a well-known and generally-admitted principle in political economy, that
high or rising wages are the surest sign of public prosperity; and yet, said
he, in face of this knowledge we everywhere see people trying to engage labor
at the lowest possible rates. This is
one of the inconsistencies which he charges the present misarrangement of
society with forcing upon us. Probably
he forgot to add, that high or rising wages are a sign of public prosperity
only on condition that the employer is absolutely obliged to pay them; and that
if paid gratuitously or voluntarily, they are a sign of no such thing, but
rather of the reverse. (“The Religious
Union of Associationists,” The American
Whig Review, March 1847, 494-495.)
Now, that didn’t sound right,
so we read it a couple more times . . . and it still didn’t sound right. Then we realized we were reading an article
written in 1847 from the perspective of 2017, and things started to make sense.
Free market (sort of). No minimum wage. No really big wealth differentials in the
economy.
Meaning?
 |
| "Hard Times" Token |
Meaning that if workers were
well off, and had alternate sources of income, an employer would be “absolutely
obliged” to offer higher wages in order to be able to hire enough workers. Things would be so good, people could afford
to turn down paying work.
And if things weren’t so
good? Then workers could not afford to
hold out for higher pay, and they would
be the ones “absolutely obliged” to accept whatever an employer was willing to
offer. Things would be so bad, workers would
be willing to take whatever they could get.
Thus, high or rising wages would
be the surest sign of public prosperity, and low wages would mean hard times had come again.
In common with other
socialists and those trained in a socialist mindset, Channing managed to get
this (and a whole raft of other things) exactly backwards. Noting that high or rising wages are a sign
of public prosperity, he assumed that paying higher wages bring about public
prosperity. He confused cause and
effect.
 |
| A model cargo plane to bring back the real planes. |
Like the Cargo Cultists of
the South Pacific a few generations later, who assumed that building airstrips
and docks would bring the cargo planes and ships back, socialists like Channing
(and John Maynard Keynes) assume that you create prosperity by spending more
money.
No, people spend more money
because they are prosperous, not to become prosperous. The former is a common sense
observation. The latter is magical
thinking, the “law of similarity”; if you act as if you are prosperous, you will be
prosperous.
Until the debt comes due,
that is. . . .
Thus, the anonymous author
commented, “Is it in this way that Mr. Channing is going to guide us out of the
labyrinth of sophistry in which he finds us so deplorably involved?” (Ibid.)
Oddly . . . yes. Nineteenth century America saw seemingly
countless attempts to establish utopian socialist communities, many of them
Fourierist — and some of which succeeded . . . as soon as they abandoned
socialist principles, that is. Many
prominent people converted to the various forms of socialism, e.g., the noted journalist Horace
Greeley . . . for whom the Fourierist commune of Greeley, Colorado, was named. The town quickly abandoned its socialist
principles, becoming a form of coop for a while, and then a “regular”
municipality. (See William B. Shaw, “A
Forgotten Socialism,” The New England
Magazine, August 1893, 773-776.)
So, in light of the fact that
high wages are an effect, not the cause of public prosperity, is it still possible
to raise wages somehow when times are hard?
We’ll look at that on Wednesday.
#30#
