Anti-tech reflections on Saint-Simon, thinker of industrialism

Having succeeded in arousing genuine faith among his followers, Claude-Henri de Rouvroy de Saint-Simon (1760-1825) (not to be confused with his ancestor the Saint-Simon memorialist) is still among the most profound influences of today's pro-industry reformists^[1]. First, we will proceed with a brief work of simplifying his theses, to then give free rein to criticisms and reflections from an anti-tech perspective.

PRESENTATION of Saint-Simonism

Let us briefly summarize Saint-Simon's work, which has several facets: economic doctrine, historical doctrine, the first steps of sociology, a form of socialism, but also mystical.

In its sociological and economic fringe, the work of Saint-Simon (who inspired Auguste Comte) proposes to analyze society by strictly complying with observable, empirical and positive facts. For Saint-Simon, the story consists of three main phases: feudal society, period of destabilization, industrial society. According to him: “A system is needed to replace a system.^[2] ”; thus, industrial society would have complied with this law of reason by succeeding feudal society. Inaugurating class analysis, Saint-Simon differentiates and opposes non-producers (“owner-renters”, idlers) to producers (workers and entrepreneurs). In his vision, the opposition of these classes leads to their confrontation, which makes it possible to act on the transition from one phase to another. In this sense, the war between producers and non-producers would have brought about the triumph of industrial society.

Attached to the socialist current after his death, Saint-Simon saw himself as a messiah announcing a society based on the competence of the industrious, the most capable in order to ensure human happiness. Its utopia was conditioned on the search for a social ideal of justice and abundance, only possible within the framework of the young industrial society, succeeding the Ancien Régime and the Revolution. But Saint-Simon's connection to the socialist tradition results above all from the work of his followers, in particular Prosper (known as “Father”) Enfantin — polytechnician, engineer. Note that Father Enfantin (see the religious reference) is particularly known for his attempt at a community experience with some forty faithful, in 1832, in the 20th century^E arrondissement of Paris, rue de Ménilmontant. For Saint-Simonians, politics should act in favor of the poorest and most numerous class in society. Also, for Saint-Simon, the progress of industry and science realizes the “law of progression” of humanity. It is therefore easier to understand where the respect accorded to him by many socialists and liberals came from.

“[...] Society is gradually moving,... towards the industrial constitution, the true final destination of the civilized human species^[3] ”.

Such prophetic (and self-fulfilling) accents offer us an excellent transition to address the last point of this theoretical summary: its mystical side. Logically pursuing his doubtful hope in “progress”, Saint-Simon promoted a “New Christianity”, to bring about a new golden age — no longer situated in the past but in the industrial future: “The golden age of the human race is not behind us, it is at the forefront, it is in the perfection of the social order.^[4].” To quote the academic Pierre Musso, “For the disillusionment of the world led by the Enlightenment, New Christianity substitutes the cult of industry, work and progress^[5] ”. His new monotheism being industrial, Saint-Simon claims without batting an eye that: “The industry is one; all its members are united by the general interests of production.^[6].” Now let's get to the heart of our point, to the anti-tech criticism.

ANTI-TECH CRITICISMS AND REFLECTIONS

Since various points deserve to be addressed, the concern for brevity requires us to divide them into numbered paragraphs.

1. Like a number of anarchist theorists (Malatesta, Kropotkin)^[7], etc.) or communists, Saint-Simonism advocates the use of industry in order to achieve human happiness and all the wishes for material abundance. This defect in anarchism, which is the belief in the possibility of a good industry, can only be criticized in the light of historical experience. Although we easily understood that the transformative power of the world of the 1^era Although the Industrial Revolution may have blinded those who wanted beneficial social change, the fact remains that the increase in industrial activity was already showing a tendency to destroy all forms of natural life and to prevent free living. In this sense, the warning of naturian anarchists who, before the 1900s, tried to advocate a life free from technological progress, shows that blindness in this area was not unanimous. If it were all in all normal that the thought of the 19th^E century is lost in blind faith in science and industry; it is now criminal to do the same. Changing an inherently destructive force for good is impossible..

2. However, the academic and technocratic doxa strives to make Saint-Simon the founder of socialism, she conveniently forgets the person of François Noël (“Gracchus”) Babeuf, father of the “Conjuration of Equals”. It also forgets that Saint-Simonism is a matter of opportunity, neither capitalist nor democratic, looking for the slightest possibility of gaining influence (in this sense, it is a “at the same time”, capable of adapting to all regimes as long as they carry the industrial germ within them).

3. Saint-Simonism is still alive today thanks to the combination of two elements: first, its mystical component (a); second, its capacity to penetrate important sectors of the techno-industrial system (b)^[8].

(a) Its mystical component has in particular allowed the passionate dissemination of Saint-Simon's work throughout the world, since the latter's death. His followers, led by a powerful spirit of messianism, were scattered throughout the world, especially in the person of polytechnicians. So the sphere of influence of Saint-Simonism closely followed that of the transmission of engineering knowledge. Collectively, we can cite the Saint-Simonian inspiration of the Suez Canal (even if Ferdinand de Lesseps knew how to impose his own route and not that of the Saint-Simonians), the international influence of the doctrine by the corps of polytechnicians and engineers of bridges and roads (both in Russia, Egypt, and New Caledonia).

(b) Long before Bolshevism, Saint-Simonism led an effective breakthrough in “apolitical” circles to make its doctrine triumph there. Contrary to appearances, trade organizations (e.g., unions) and colleges are places of power. Indeed, the latter make it possible to connect an elite to a population that does not explicitly adhere to their ideology. Infiltrating these bodies allowed the followers of Saint-Simon to gain a considerable influence, which is still alive today, in the technological system. Unlike Bolshevism, which aimed to control all non-communist organizations through their infiltration in order to then achieve revolution, the Saint-Simon doctrine is reformist in nature — thus, its direct action on power networks seems to be better suited to its objective than seeking contact with the masses.

4. Saint-Simon laid the foundations for a scientific and technical interpretation of history: “To interpret time, present and history, Saint-Simon uses a mechanistic regulatory model, inspired by the techniques of his time, in particular the steam engine. He combined it with a physiological referent, at the time of the birth of the Lamarckian clinic and biology. This biotechnological referent allows him to define society as “a real organized machine”, that is to say the combination of a machine and an organism.^[9] In doing so, Saint-Simon attached great importance to designing the company, and the system by extension, on an organic basis, in particular through its flows. Again, to give it primacy in analysis would be to forget Jean Bodin (1530-1596), who assimilated the Republic to a human body very long before Saint-Simon^[10]. However, giving importance to flows is also a characteristic of the anti-tech thinking developed by Theodore Kaczynski, who sees precisely that the system will not be able to survive if we manage to interrupt its transport and communication networks.

5. Saint-Simonian thought, which boils down to putting the industrial enterprise (designed as a new church) at the heart of the village, and giving responsibility for social evolution to perfectly competent people Reminiscingly similar to the present reign of Technocratic class.

(6). Argument Ad-Personam : the denunciation of non-producers did not, however, prevent Saint-Simon from working as a speculator.)

7. The Saint-Simonian conception of social classes fails to include the industrial owner in the working class. In doing so, it is difficult to see in this thought an authentic socialism (despite the common points) since it does not exclude individual property. Where anti-tech finds expression on the subject of classes, it is that all human beings subject to the technological yoke form a class opposed to the technocratic class. Likewise, it is because we are exploited that we want more than anything to see this filthy system perish; it is because we are exploited that we refuse to endorse the myth of self-managed factories and sustainable technological development.

8. In reality, Saint-Simon's work served as intellectual legitimation for an accomplished fact: industrialization in the 18th century.^E And in the 19th^E century. In this sense, he and his philosophy are the products of industrialization. Determined by the material basis of their time, his ideas only allowed (and only allow) to increase the development of the techno-industrial system. The idealist trend (thinking that ideas determine the way the world works) therefore comes up against its greatest obstacle here: material reality. For ATR, the industrial order essentially calls for a hierarchical, centralized class society, dominated by a technocratic elite; the unrestrained search for its own growth conditions its form. Striving to change the system for good is impossible because it is essentially driven by the quest for its own propagation. As Kaczynski taught us, reformism cannot make a society deviate from the path it is taking for long. Only a revolution can, by destroying the system it is fighting.

9. “Progress” is a deadly ideology despite the supposed benefits it brings to humanity. It acts as a replacement for the idea of God for scientists and all the sectors that allow the development of the system. This same progress is paid for by the destruction of all living things and thus threatens the very possibility of our future existence. Our anti-tech ideal is that of regenerated nature, not that of joyful industrial production at the cost of life.

R.F.