{"id":1244,"date":"2021-11-20T08:01:18","date_gmt":"2021-11-19T21:01:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/davidmhart.com\/wordpress\/?p=1244"},"modified":"2026-06-27T16:05:24","modified_gmt":"2026-06-27T06:05:24","slug":"j-b-say-and-the-transformation-of-restoration-french-liberalism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/davidmhart.com\/wordpress\/j-b-say-and-the-transformation-of-restoration-french-liberalism\/","title":{"rendered":"J.B. Say and the Transformation of Restoration French Liberalism"},"content":{"rendered":"

Note<\/strong>: This post is a continuation of an earlier one on the scandalous neglect of classical liberal sociology (especially classical liberal class analysis). See \u201cThe Scandalous Neglect of Classical Liberal Sociology<\/a>\u201d (30 May, 2021).<\/p>\n

Note 2<\/strong>: A longer version of this was written for my website (with lengthy quotes).<\/p>\n

The writings of the economist Jean-Baptiste Say (1767-1832)<\/a> had a profound impact on the thinking of Charles Comte (1782-1837)<\/a> and Charles Dunoyer (1786-1862)<\/a> in the years 1814 to 1817. We can trace this impact in the essays they wrote for their journals Le Censeur<\/em> (July 1814 – Sept. 1815)<\/a> and Le Censeur europ\u00e9en<\/em> (Jan. 1817 – Apr. 1819)<\/a>. ((On the history of these journals see the three articles by \u00c9phra\u00efm Harpaz, \u201cLe Censeur<\/em>, Histoire d\u2019un journal lib\u00e9ral,\u201d Revue des sciences humaines<\/em>, Octobre-D\u00e9cembre 1958, 92, pp. 483-511; \u201cLe Censeur europ\u00e9en<\/em>, histoire d\u2019un journal industrialiste,\u201d Revue d\u2019histoire \u00e9conomique et sociale<\/em>, 1959, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 185-218 and vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 328-57; and \u201cLe Censeur europ\u00e9en<\/em>: histoire d\u2019un journal quotidien,\u201d Revue des sciences humaines<\/em>, 1964, pp. 113-116, pp. 137-259; which have been republished together in a book: Le Censeur. Le Censeur europ\u00e9en. Histoire d\u2019un Journal lib\u00e9ral et industrialiste<\/em> (Gen\u00e8ve: Slatkine Reprints, 2000).))<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Comte and Dunoyer were trained as lawyers and their earliest forays into politics showed them to be fairly standard defenders of \u201cpolitical liberalism\u201d such as freedom of speech and association, constitutional limits on state power, and opposition to “despotism” whether monarchical or imperial (i.e. Napoleonic) in form. In the pages of their journals we can see their intellectual transformation during this period into advocates of a new kind of “social” and “economic” liberalism. This transition occurred under the influence of their reading of the sociologist Saint-Simon, the historian Augustin Thierry (who later became an editorial assistant to Comte and Dunoyer), the royalist historian of the French monarchy and aristocracy, Montlosier, the liberal political theorist Benjamin Constant, and then most importantly the industrialist and political economist Jean-Baptiste Say, which we can trace in their book reviews.<\/p>\n

Say\u2019s economic theory in particular provided them with a much larger framework for their liberalism which would now include a theory of the antagonism or struggle (la lutte) between the productive \u201cindustrial\u201d class and the unproductive parasitical \u201cruling\u201d class, as well as a new \u201cindustrialist\u201d theory of history which explained how societies moved through different stages based upon their very different \u201cmeans of production\u201d and the different forms the conflict between the \u201cindustrial\u201d and the \u201cruling\u201d class took in these different stages of economic development. Among these stages, they were particularly interested in slavery, which they regarded as the archetypal form of class rule and exploitation, and the newest form of rule and exploitation by a bureaucratic class of government officials which had appeared under Napoleon and which seemed to be kind of class rule which wold govern France in the near future.<\/p>\n

That these two liberals developed quite sophisticated ideas about class conflict and the transition of societies from one economic stage to another some thirty years before Marx did is striking and needs to be better known and appreciated by scholars.<\/p>\n

What made their form of liberalism unique, as well as those other French liberals who followed in their footsteps (such as Bastiat and Molinari), was this combination of political liberalism (limited government and rule of law), economic liberalism (free markets and laissez-faire policies), and social (or sociological) liberalism (class analysis, the evolution of societies thorough economic stages). The combination of these three different dimensions to their liberal theory made their version of liberalism a very radical, rich, and interesting one, one which I believe sets them above their contemporary English counterparts. ((On Comte\u2019s and Dunoyer\u2019s \u201cindustrialist theory of history\u201d see my unpublished PhD \u201cClass Analysis, Slavery and the Industrialist Theory of History in French Liberal Thought, 1814-1830: The Radical Liberalism of Charles Comte and Charles Dunoyer\u201d (Cambridge, 1994) online here<\/a>.))<\/p>\n

In fact, what Say\u2019s economic ideas did was to show them the interconnectedness of the political, the social, and the moral worlds in a way which even the ideas of Adam Smith did not, at least as explicitly. (They do if you view his Theory of Moral Sentiments<\/em> (1759) and the Wealth of Nations<\/em> (1776) together, which at the time was not usually done.) We can see this very clearly in the first review of his Treatise<\/em> which was supposed to appear in September 1815 which was confiscated by the police.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The first of Say\u2019s works to be reviewed (the author signed as \u201cX\u201d and was probably Comte) was his official report for the French government on the economic impact of the wars on the English economy, De l’Angleterre et des Anglais<\/em> (On England and the English) in volume 6 of Le Censeur<\/em> (1 June, 1815). The reviewer thought that Say\u2019s ideas were so important that the journal would soon publish a review of Say\u2019s Treatise<\/em>. [See the bibliography of Say\u2019s works here<\/a> ; and Say, De l\u2019Angleterre et les Anglais<\/em> (Paris: Arthus Bertrad, 1815). [ facs. PDF<\/a> ] Comte and Dunoyer were still asserting the seminal importance of Say\u2019s work in 1819-20 when their journal became a daily news paper, also called
\nLe Censeur europ\u00e9en<\/em>. By then a fourth edition of Say\u2019s Treatise<\/em> had been published which they were describing as \u201cwithout contradiction one of the most important books which have been published since the beginning of the 19th century. [Le Censeur europ\u00e9en<\/em>, 14 October, 1819, quoted in Harpaz, pp. 128-29, fn 5.]<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Next to be reviewed, also by Comte, was Say\u2019s major Treatise on Political Economy<\/em>, the 1st edition of which was published in 1803 (but not reviewed in C or CE), the 2nd edition of which appeared in 1815 and reviewed in volume 7 of Le Censeur<\/em> which should have appeared in September 1815. However, that issue of their magazine was seized by the police and the journal was forced to close for a period of 15 months while the two lawyers hid from the police and battled the censors in the courts. Some copies of this issue were saved so we have access to it. [See the review by Comte, CR \u201cTrait\u00e9 d\u2019\u00e9conomie politique, ou simple exposition de la mani\u00e8re dont se forment, se distribuent et se consomment les richesses, par M. J.B. Say\u201d (C, T.7, 6 Sept. 1815), pp. 43-77) in HTML (to come) and facs. PDF<\/a>; and Say\u2019s Trait\u00e9<\/em>: the facs. PDF of the 3rd ed. [vol.1<\/a> and vol.2 <\/a> ] and the HTML<\/a> and facs. PDF<\/a> of the 6th ed. of 1841; and the rather old (1821) English trans. of the 4th ed. of 1819 by Princeps in HTML<\/a> and facs. PDF – vol.1<\/a> and vol.2<\/a>.]<\/p>\n

As he stated on the opening page:<\/p>\n

\nA l\u2019aff\u00fbt comme nous le sommes de toutes les id\u00e9es, de tous les ouvrages qui peuvent exercer une influence favorable sur le sort [44] de la nation, le *Trait\u00e9 d\u2019\u00e9conomie politique* de M. Say ne pouvait nous \u00e9chapper. Nous l\u2019avons lu avec l\u2019attention qu\u2019il m\u00e9rite, et nous pouvons affirmer que nous connaissons peu de livres qui renferment autant de notions saines, autant de vues imm\u00e9diatement applicables et utiles. Nous le d\u00e9clarons, cet ouvrage nous para\u00eet avoir compl\u00e8tement tire l\u2019\u00e9conomie politique de l\u2019empire des opinions syst\u00e9matiques. Il fait apercevoir, il vous oblige d\u2019observer des faits qui arrivent journellement, et qui n\u2019en sont pas mieux connus pour cela; il montre la relation de ces faits entr\u2019eux, celle qu\u2019ils ont avec leurs causes, avec leurs r\u00e9sultats; et ces faits sont les plus int\u00e9ressans pour l\u2019homme, puisque ce sont ceux qui ont rapport \u00e0 sa fortune, \u00e0 son existence, aux biens qui peuvent la rendre douce \u2026<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\nAs we are on the lookout for all those ideas and all those works which can have a favourable influence on the fate of the nation, M. Say\u2019s *Treatise on Political Economy* could not escape our attention. We have read it with the attention it deserves and we can assure the reader that we know of very few books which contain as many good ideas, as many opinions which are immediately practicable and useful. We believe that this work appears to us to have completely established (the science\/discipline) of political economy upon the foundation of systematic thinking. It makes us see things (les faits), it forces us to observe things which happen every day, things that are not well understood even though they do happen every day; it shows us the interconnectedness of (these) things, (the connection) they have to their causes and to their consequences; and these things (faits) are the most interesting things for mankind because they have a connection to our wealth, our very existence, and the goods which can make (our) lives better (douce) \u2026<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As he quotes passage after passage from Say we can see him thinking through the implications of some of Say\u2019s most important ideas, especially that all activities which create a value of some kind thereby create wealth, not just agriculture (the 18thC Physiocratic notion) but also commerce and \u201cindustry\u201d very broadly defined; that both parties to a voluntary exchange benefit from that exchange; and that so much of what the government does either destroys wealth, prevents wealth from being created, or transfers wealth from one group to another.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Comte and Dunoyer reopened in January 1817 with a new title Le Censeur europ\u00e9en<\/em> and another review by Comte of Say\u2019s Treatise<\/em>, this time of the revised 3rd edition which had appeared in the interim. Part 1 of the review appeared in volume 1 (Jan. 1817) and Part 2 in the following issue Volume 2 ( March, 1817). [See, Comte, CR \u201cTrait\u00e9 d\u2019\u00e9conomie politique, ou simple exposition de la mani\u00e8re dont se forment, se distribuent et se consomment les richesses, 3e. \u00e9dit., par M. Jean-Baptiste Say,\u201d (CE T.1, 19 December 1816, p. 159-227) in HTML (to come) and facs. PDF<\/a>; and [CC?], CR \u201cTrait\u00e9 d\u2019\u00e9conomie politique, ou simple exposition de la mani\u00e8re dont se forment, se distribuent et se consomment les richesses, 3e. \u00e9dit., par M. Jean-Baptiste Say,\u201d (CE, T.2, 27 March 1817), pp. 169-221, in HTML<\/a> and facs. PDF<\/a>.]<\/p>\n

One line of Say\u2019s thought which struck them was the idea that political economy in Say\u2019s hands had become a true science for the first time (even beating out Adam Smith) and that he had revealed \u201cles lois constantes et invariables\u201d (the constant and unchanging laws) which governed not only the economic world but the much broader social and political world. So much of the world\u2019s problems could be attributed to theorists and politicians trying to run the world according to \u201cles r\u00e8gles de conduite\u201d (rules of conduct) which they had spun out of their imaginations instead of following economic laws which could be discovered by empirical observation of how people behaved in the real world.<\/p>\n

As examples of policies pursued by governments which violated these unbreakable economic laws the reviewer singles out excessive government expenditure and the massive taxation and the issuing of paper money required to fund these policies, the policy of pursuing a \u201cfavourable\u201d balance of trade by using tariffs and subsidies to \u201cprotect\u201d domestic producers, and (in the previous review article) the idea that the possession of colonies would increase national prosperity. Added to these problems there was also the problems caused by ignorance of what activities truly created wealth as people were mislead by \u201cfalse systems\u201d of economic thought, such as the greater productivity made possible by the use of machines, the contribution to wealth generation made by manufacturing industry in general, and the important role played by \u201cla classes des entrepreneurs\u201d (the class of entrepreneurs) in bringing all these improvement about.<\/p>\n

Only the teaching of a more scientific approach to political economy would disabuse people of these false economic ideas. The reviewer bemoaned the fact that the teaching of economics in France was far behind that of other countries such as Germany, Britain, Russia, and even Spain. It should be noted that J.B. Say would eventually be allowed to give lectures at the private Ath\u00e9n\u00e9e in Paris (1816-1819) and then made a professor of political economy at the prestigious Coll\u00e8ge de France in 1831 where he taught briefly before his death the following year.<\/p>\n

In the second part of the review of the 3rd edition of Say\u2019s Treatise<\/em> (March 1817) the reviewer discussed Say\u2019s ideas about the nature of consumption, especially the difference between \u201cproductive\u201d and \u201cunproductive\u201d consumption, and how this idea could be applied to government expenditure and \u201cconsumption\u201d. The radical implication of Say\u2019s ideas was that most (perhaps all) government expenditure was \u201cunproductive\u201d and thus a drain on wealth creation by the \u201cproductive and industrious class\u201d with important flow on effects on the broader society or \u201ccivilisation\u201d as he termed it. Thus, rather than facilitating the creation of wealth by others, or engaging in the production of wealth itself, the government became instead \u201cun gouvernement dissipateur\u201d (a wasteful government) [p. 196] or resembled \u201cun voleur\u201d (a thief) [p. 199].<\/p>\n

The reviewer then turned to discussing Say\u2019s ideas which added to the traditional \u201cle doux commerce\u201d (the softening effect of commerce) thesis by including far more than just commerce in his analysis of the impact of economics on culture, or as it was termed at that time \u201cla morale\u201d (morality) and \u201cla civilisation\u201d. What was important here were the ideas of the mutually beneficial nature of exchange, the cooperation brought about by the division of labour, and how these brought people closer together instead of encouraging them to think of each other as potential enemies.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

A review, this time by Dunoyer, of a third work by Say, Petit volume contenant quelques aper\u00e7us des hommes et de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9<\/em> (A Small Volume containing some Thoughts on Mankind and Society) , was published also in two parts, in volume 6 (Sept., 1817) [PDF] and volume 7 (March, 1818) [PDF]. The first \u201creview\u201d was quite short and consisted mostly of short quotes from the book. The actual review would come in the following edition of the journal as the first edition of the book had sold out and a second revised edition would be available very soon.<\/p>\n

Dunoyer was very taken with Say\u2019s book, considering it to be filled with astute insights, provocative ideas, and expressed in a manner which would encourage the reader to explore more of the discipline of political economy. He also used the review as an opportunity for him to express himself very frankly about what he thought the proper function of governments should be (very little other than protecting the life, liberty and property of its citizens), how best to go about changing the current system of corruption and exploitation (enlightening the \u201cdupes\u201d who allowed themselves to be deceived by conniving politicians and their hangers-on), and the role of a free press in \u201ctearing off the mask\u201d of those who ruled and exposing them in their complete political \u201cnakedness\u201d for all to see. I provide here three lengthy quotes from the review which illustrate the quite remarkable and explicit views expressed by Dunoyer in this piece. Perhaps he thought the censors would not read a review of a book like this and he could be more open and forthright in expressing his views.<\/p>\n

After carefully reviewing Say\u2019s books in their journal Comte and Dunoyer then applied what they had learned from him in a series of original and path-breaking articles of their own in which they developed their ideas on class conflict and the economic progression of societies in much greater detail. These essays are included in my Anthology of their writings<\/a> and they would provide the foundation for the much more extensive and detailed development of their \u201cindustrialist theory of history\u201d in the multi-volume books they would publish over the next 20 (Comte) or 30 (Dunoyer) years.<\/p>\n

These important essays were the following and are available online: ((On some of these articles see Mark Weinburg, \u201cThe Social Analysis of Three Early 19th Century French Liberals: Say, Comte, and Dunoyer,\u201d Journal of Libertarian Studies<\/em>, 1978, vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 45-63. Online<\/a>.))<\/p>\n