Every social revolution--M. Cousin will tell you--is effected only by the realization of an idea, either political, moral, or religious. When Alexander conquered Asia, his idea was to avenge Greek liberty against the insults of Oriental despotism; when Marius and Caesar overthrew the Roman patricians, their idea was to give bread to the people; when Christianity revolutionized the world, its idea was to emancipate mankind, and to substitute the worship of one God for the deities of Epicurus and Homer; when France rose in '89, her idea was liberty and equality before the law. There has been no true revolution, says M. Cousin, with out its idea; so that where an idea does not exist, or even fails of a formal expression, revolution is impossible. There are mobs, conspirators, rioters, regicides. There are no revolutionists.
Society, devoid of ideas, twists and tosses about, and dies in the midst of its fruitless labor.
Nevertheless, you all feel that a revolution is to come, and that you alone can accomplish it. What, then, is the idea which governs you, proletaires of the nineteenth century?--for really Icannot call you revolutionists. What do you think?--what do you believe?--what do you want? Be guarded in your reply. Ihave read faithfully your favorite journals, your most esteemed authors. I find everywhere only vain and puerile _entites_;nowhere do I discover an idea.
I will explain the meaning of this word _entite_,--new, without doubt, to most of you.
By _entite_ is generally understood a substance which the imagination grasps, but which is incognizable by the senses and the reason. Thus the SOPORIFIC POWER of opium, of which Sganarelle speaks, and the PECCANT HUMORS of ancient medicine, are _entites_. The _entite_ is the support of those who do not wish to confess their ignorance. It is incomprehensible; or, as St. Paul says, the _argumentum non apparentium_. In philosophy, the _entite_ is often only a repetition of words which add nothing to the thought.
For example, when M. Pierre Leroux--who says so many excellent things, but who is too fond, in my opinion, of his Platonic formulas--assures us that the evils of humanity are due to our IGNORANCE OF LIFE, M. Pierre Leroux utters an _entite;_ for it is evident that if we are evil it is because we do not know how to live; but the knowledge of this fact is of no value to us.
When M. Edgar Quinet declares that France suffers and declines because there is an ANTAGONISM of men and of interests, he declares an _entite;_ for the problem is to discover the cause of this antagonism.
When M. Lamennais, in thunder tones, preaches self-sacrifice and love, he proclaims two _entites_; for we need to know on what conditions self-sacrifice and love can spring up and exist.
So also, proletaires, when you talk of LIBERTY, PROGRESS, and THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE, you make of these naturally intelligible things so many _entites_ in space: for, on the one hand, we need a new definition of liberty, since that of '89no longer suffices; and, on the other, we must know in what direction society should proceed in order to be in progress. As for the sovereignty of the people, that is a grosser _entite_than the sovereignty of reason; it is the _entite_ of _entites_.
In fact, since sovereignty can no more be conceived of outside of the people than outside of reason, it remains to be ascertained who, among the people, shall exercise the sovereignty; and, among so many minds, which shall be the sovereigns. To say that the people should elect their representatives is to say that the people should recognize their sovereigns, which does not remove the difficulty at all.
But suppose that, equal by birth, equal before the law, equal in personality, equal in social functions, you wish also to be equal in conditions.
Suppose that, perceiving all the mutual relations of men, whether they produce or exchange or consume, to be relations of commutative justice,--in a word, social relations; suppose, Isay, that, perceiving this, you wish to give this natural society a legal existence, and to establish the fact by law,--I say that then you need a clear, positive, and exact expression of your whole idea,--that is, an expression which states at once the principle, the means, and the end; and I add that that expression is ASSOCIATION.
And since the association of the human race dates, at least rightfully, from the beginning of the world, and has gradually established and perfected itself by successively divesting itself of its negative elements, slavery, nobility, despotism, aristocracy, and feudalism,--I say that, to eliminate the last negation of society, to formulate the last revolutionary idea, you must change your old rallying-cries, NO MORE ABSOLUTISM, NO MORE NOBILITY, NO MORE SLAVES! into that of NO MOREPROPERTY! . . .
But I know what astonishes you, poor souls, blasted by the wind of poverty, and crushed by your patrons' pride: it is EQUALITY, whose consequences frighten you. How, you have said in your journal,--how can we "dream of a level which, being unnatural, is therefore unjust? How shall we pay the day's labor of a Cormenin or a Lamennais?"Plebeians, listen! When, after the battle of Salamis, the Athenians assembled to award the prizes for courage, after the ballots had been collected, it was found that each combatant had one vote for the first prize, and Themistocles all the votes for the second. The people of Minerva were crowned by their own hands. Truly heroic souls! all were worthy of the olive-branch, since all had ventured to claim it for themselves. Antiquity praised this sublime spirit. Learn, proletaires, to esteem yourselves, and to respect your dignity. You wish to be free, and you know not how to be citizens. Now, whoever says "citizens" necessarily says equals.
