ABSTRACT
II Synthesis of socialism and liberalism Does a social truth exist? In other words, can we conceive of and must we pursue a perfect social organization, either from the point of view of justice or from that of utility? We observe that this is not precisely a question dividing socialists and economists. The socialists say: ‘There is a social question; this question has not been solved and our society is imperfect. We must strive for a perfect society and, thereby, solve the social question.’ Now, what is the economists’ answer? They say: ‘There is no longer a social question because this question has been solved scientifically, if not politically.’ Some say: ‘It has been solved regarding economic advantageousness but not regarding justice.’ The others say: ‘It has been solved from the point of view of both justice and advantageousness.’ Strictly speaking, the discussion between economists and socialists has always been about the state of the solution of the social question, not on its existence. Let us, therefore, temporarily put aside the economists; we will see them again later on our path. The socialists, who admit the existence of the social question and of social truth, are opposed by the liberal school, which denies them. This is what Mr. Edmond Schérer said in his article in the Temps of 30 December 1862, reviewing a series of articles by Mr. Adolphe Guéroult. Mr. Schérer observed and showed the opposition between liberalism and socialism, the one believing in the perfectibility pure and simple of the society and the other in its possible perfection. I criticized this article in my three letters entitled ‘Socialism and liberalism’.ii I still think that this article could not be better inspired, not because one cannot define liberalism and socialism in several other ways, but because it is done this way: before the question of how one must do social science, the question is put whether there is or is not a [181] social science. However, having discussed this question with Mr. Schérer, I will discuss it now with Mr. Prévost-Paradol, another no less unwavering liberal. This champion, I must say, is sometimes not so very impressive; but since there is an abundance of divergent points of view, we can benefit from multiplying our
examples. Within the genre of the liberals, there are several types; there are, among others, those for whom the simple statement of the social question is a reason for gaiety; this is a type worth knowing. Mr. Prévost-Paradol belongs to this school, and so, in his reply, in the Journal des Débats, to an editor of the Constitutionnel, he rejected a manifestation of the socialist mind (one would not have expected to see the socialist cause in the hands of the Constitutionnel) by a manifestation of the liberal mind, expressed in the following excessively impertinent and disrespectful way:
We do not want to leave this writer, who is, after all, ingenious, instructive, and worthy of the attention of those who are interested in our political history, without quarrelling with him. In one of his articles in which he does us the honour of challenging us, Mr. Giraudeau blamed us for not having provided ‘the solution of the social problem’. We could hardly believe our eyes when reading this false charge. There are persons who are able to speak naively of the solution of the social problem. There are others who are living with it and for whom those four words mean spirit, talent, justice, patriotism, and reason. However, M. Giraudeau is not among the latter. He is undoubtedly not serious when he asks us to produce, as a lost object, the solution of the social problem, whereas we never bragged about solving it and never expected cheap popularity by promising it. However, why does not Mr. Giraudeau, in the improbable case that he is one of those who expect the solution of the social problem soon, urge the government to implement it? If it exists, why keep this wonderful secret so long? Why not publish it and post it up on the walls? For 16 years, numerous [182] fellowcitizens have expected each morning to find it in the Moniteur! But, instead of being helpful in the fulfilment of this rightful expectation, Mr. Giraudeau turns suddenly to us, who have never talked about the matter, nor deluded anybody about it, and peremptorily imposes on us the task of finding the solution of the social problem. This is almost a bad trick on the part of Mr. Giraudeau, and, anyway, it is an oratorical procedure unworthy of his normal method of discussion; but we bear no grudge against him. This moment of neglect has undoubtedly been caused by a moment of embarrassment. The solution of the social problem is the cream pudding of the writers of his school; it makes for a noisy argument and takes the place of reasoning. It is a sort of poetic padding that indicates the absence of the Muse rather than the bad faith of the writer.2
