Ernie: The latest book on the Saint-Simonians has been a revelation; it is far more than a detailed discussion of music and the world of music of the time, essentially the period from 1830 until the 1870s. That subject has its own importance. Through Liszt we get tone poems, which revolutionized classical, through Felicien David we get the entire "Oriental" genre of classical even though something of that style dates back to ca 1800 by others. Through Berlioz we get massed choruses although, for sure, Berlioz borrowed the idea from Beethoven even if his contribution was using them from start to finish in his compositions. And there was a Mendelssohn connection even if Felix was not interested in Saint-Simonian doctrine; he was interested in the arts that the group created. All of this is major; I can't think of another ideology that has had comparable effect in classical music. But to explain what this all meant, the book takes the necessary time to discuss how the Saint-Simonian movement grew and then declined. The end came, as I see it, not only because of discouragement with the religious leadership, as the book says was the case, but also because of popular association with the rule of Louis Napoleon III who, of course, led France to defeat in the Franco-Prussian war. The end came in America because of the Credit Mobilier scandal. But the book makes clear just how far the movement had gotten as late as about 1835, and in new forms thereafter. A Saint-Simonian faith which was also a labor movement had become important in southern France, primarily centered on the city of Lyon, but there also was a center in southern Germany and elsewhere in that country which had Heinrich Heine as its chief exponent, and there were organized missions in Belgium and miscellaneous converts in Britain and elsewhere. Not sure about this, no-one seems to have written on the subject, but there had to have been a Saint-Simonian group in America, also, especially given how US railroads were organized in the North before the Civil War; the South remained a libertarian patchwork, viz, non-Saint Simonian, and hence contributed to the CSA loss in the conflict. Here is the relevance for today: The Saint-Simonians, while sympathetic to many of the causes of labor in those years, were decidedly non-violent, indeed they opposed violent revolutions and sought peaceful change on principle. The movement was also favorably disposed to ethical expansion of private business, not only whatever brought profits to owners but that, in the process, showed responsibility to workers and consciousness of social good generally. What it opposed -strenuously- was robber baron capitalism, sweatshops, money manipulation, and any form of unethical practice. But think of how the movement succeeded -when it did. For all of its eccentricities, of which there were several that were notable, and even though it stressed the arts far more than any other political movement, what kept it "grounded" was its constant emphasis on business innovation. In that time period this meant railroads and its plan for the Suez canal. After all, many Saint-Simonians were graduates of the Polytechnique university, and Saint-Simon himself was associated with the school. Most of the people in the leadership were engineers, in other words. This suggests that what RC needs as much as anything is some kind of connection to high tech. To some kind of humanistic character of innovation, innovation that is, in your terminology, "humane." My major problem with this idea is simply to ask "What is most important? The character of innovation or solving the moral crisis in today's society?" About which I don't see any contest at all, since the moral crisis is overwhelming and must be the #1 priority. However, what if RC was also identified with a much valued form of computer software? What if it stood for something basic and highly useful in the industry? That would ground RC in business reality the way that railroads did for the Saint-Simonians As businessmen, the Saint-Simonians were realists like few others. Hence many became quite well off, and even those who were not big successes still usually did well enough. Of course, there is the factor or networking to consider. As a movement the people in it were conscious of the value in helping each other. There was a time in the past where there was some of that in our group, but that period is largely gone. The point being that this was not a bootstraps model. The one place where "bootstraps" did apply was to Felicien David after he set out on his own in the wake of the dissolution of the organization after 1838. For several years he labored alone until, one fine day, he had a big success with an opera, called "The Desert," and suddenly all of the Saint-Simonians of his past materialized to claim some of the credit for David's ideas !!! Human nature is what it is. Even then, however, some of the help that David now found everywhere and available just for the asking proved to be quite useful. He suddenly had access to contacts of many kinds and to all the capital he needed to perform his other musical works, indeed, from then on he was underwritten by the Pereire bankers, sort of a foundation arrangement. And while the Saint-Simonians were always opposed to financial speculation, they were very appreciative of money management and David, who became very well off, had use for the services of money experts and good lawyers, and he found who he most needed among other Saint-Simonians. Alas, there isn't anything comparable at RC.org. Why would there be? This group has been "libertarian" in one dysfunctional way, reliance on a model of bootstraps as the way to get things done in the world rather than mutual helpfulness -even if there has been some of that in the past it has never been central to anything. It is pretty obvious that RC needs to be reconstituted and reconstructed. My suggestion is that there are vital lessons to learn from the Saint-Simonians. What should our motto be? It currently is: "Every man for himself." This is a libertarian principle. Seems to me it would be far better if the idea was borrowed from the Quivira Coalition, in effect, "all for one and one for all." That should be what RC is all about, not something else. Billy
-- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
