This document summarizes Charles Fourier's economic thought and its influence on later socialists like Marx and Engels. Some key points: 1) Fourier criticized economic liberalism and the increasing impoverishment of workers under industrial capitalism. He saw commerce and industry as corrupting forces. 2) While Marx and Engels were influenced by Fourier's critique of capitalism, they rejected his utopian vision of gradual reform. They believed in a scientific, class-based revolution. 3) Marx also rejected Fourier's idea of "attractive labor", seeing some labor as always being "unfree" and imposed by necessity. However, both Marx and Fourier saw socialism as improving workers' lives.

1. 1
Garrett D. Glassburn
Dr. Charles Steele
ECO 355-02: HET I
24 November 2015
The Economic Thought of Charles Fourier and Its Socialist Legacy
François Marie Charles Fourier was born in 1772 to a merchant father in Besançon,
France. He would live through the French Revolution and die eleven years before 1848’s
révolution de Février. His principal published work, Théorie des quatre mouvements et des
destinées générales, appeared in 1808, while his other manuscripts were published posthumously
by his disciples in a periodical, La Phalange, or in four volumes from 1851 to 1858 (Beecher et
al., 1971). Embittered by his time working in commerce, Fourier’s writings criticize economic
liberalism and, among other things, present an outline for utopia (the specific details of which
will be limited in this paper, as the practical workings of the phalanstère are not as important as
the thought that inspired it). Fourierism is characterized by its anti-communism, and its anti-
authoritarianism (Taylor, 1982).
This paper represents an attempt to trace the influence of the economic thought of
Charles Fourier, its responses to earlier schools of thought (both economically liberal, and
socialist), and its impact on later socialist ideology. The latter task will involve both an
explanation of Fourier’s appeal for Marx and Engels, and the ways in which their scientific
socialism diverged from Fourier’s utopian vision—particular attention will be paid to differing
views on the importance of industrialization and the principle of attractive labor. Comparisons of
their economic thought will be highlighted in the more general areas of Fourier’s critique of

2. 2
commerce, and more specifically in his anticipation of the Marxist principle of increasing
impoverishment of workers under industrial capitalism (Taylor, 1982).
Before further exploring Fourier’s economic thought, and its influence on later socialists,
it is first necessary to justify any discussion of Fourier at all. A prima facie dismissal of Fourier
is understandable given some of the Frenchman’s bizarre theories, which were only compounded
by his bewildering writing style. George Lichtheim addresses these eccentricities in his Origins
of Socialism, writing, “With the best will, the reader of his works cannot altogether discard the
impression that the dreamer in him on occasion ventured beyond the merely fantastic. At the
same time he is clearly among the most original of the early socialists, and even some of his
most bizarre ideas have turned out to possess a kernel of sense” (Lichtheim, 1969). Lichtheim
continues, describing a few choice examples of Fourier’s “idiosyncratic strain,” including his
cosmological theory, marked by a belief that the stars are animated beings, and that “the moon
was once a lady called Phoebe, and that her death caused the Flood reported in the Old
Testament.” The reflexive response upon reading this is to dismiss Fourier as nothing more than
a quack, and many have.
In fact, Lichtheim also addresses how these “fancies” have compromised not only the
reputation of Fourier, but also that of Marx and Engels. Of those fancies, he states, “They have
certainly been dissected at length by his detractors, including some modern historians in whose
eyes the socialist tradition appears compromised by the eccentricity of a writer whom Marx (and
more especially Engels) valued for his brilliant pamphleteering and his sardonic view of the
commercial frauds…of his age” (1969). Should Fourier’s undeniable oddness force him to forfeit
a significant place among early French socialists, and damn both his theories and those of the
men he influenced? If this were the case, this paper would end here, and we would cast Fourier

3. 3
into the abyss of his own bizarrely imagined cosmos. Fortunately, this is not the case. For,
though there is seemingly much in Fourier’s work to dismiss or detest, the more fantastical
elements are easily explained by a penchant for poetry, and the need for an expressive outlet
(Lichtheim, 1969). Even Marx and Engels were keenly aware of this aspect of Fourier. Engels
seems to realize the balance between satire and economic thought in Fourier’s work. He writes,
“We find in Fourier a criticism of the existing conditions of society, genuinely French and witty,
but not upon that account any the less thorough.” Engels concludes, “Fourier is not only a critic;
his imperturbably serene nature makes him a satirist, and assuredly one of the greatest satirists of
all time” (Engels in Beecher, 1986). Thus, it would seem foolish to point at Fourier’s wilder
views as damning of his credibility, or that of his successors, when the inheritors and admirers of
his work recognized that it had a certain flair from the dramatic. Engels notes a type of satirical
panache that renders Fourier’s work more compelling than the comparatively drier works of
Etienne Cabet or the Saint-Simonian school.
To argue that one should not dismiss his work on the grounds of his eccentricity is not to
argue that Fourier’s economic thought is correct or without flaw. We will first focus on Fourier’s
attack on economic liberalism. Broadly speaking, Fourier’s economic thought aligns with that of
other early French socialists. Lichtheim remarks that Fourier, along with Saint-Simon, viewed
laissez-faire economics as “the poisoned fruit of the Revolution” (Lichtheim, 1969). Lichtheim
continues, explaining that among these socialist theorizers emerged “a growing perception that
the bourgeoisie had been the principal beneficiary of the great upheaval and that its social
hegemony was concealed by the newly fashionable verbiage of the liberal economists” (1969).
Fourier saw economic liberalism as an essentially chaotic means of production, consumption,

4. 4
distribution, and exchange, which benefitted only a small portion of society (Taylor, 1982). A
principal focus of his attack on economic liberalism was commerce.
Fourier recognizes the inevitable importance of commerce in 1803 when he traces its rise
through history. It quickly becomes clear, however, that Fourier does not view the proliferation
of commerce as an ameliorating influence on the human condition, but a corrupting one.
Commenting on the economic growth that has furnished the advance of commerce through
history, Fourier writes:
“Various unforeseen events have produced a colossal growth in commerce. Progress in
the art of navigation, the discovery of the East and West Indies with all their resources,
the extension of farming to northern latitudes, the establishment of communications…the
rapid development of manufacturing, and the competition for trade among a multitude of
nations—all of these factors have led to a prodigious increase in the volume of
commerce.” (Fourier in Beecher et al., 1971)
It is clear that Fourier is aware of the economic development that has led to trade becoming “one
of the principal branches of the social mechanism.” He then notes that the prevalence of
commerce has led to the development of schools of thought in political economy. Here he
engages directly with the Physiocrats and François Quesnay. Fourier believed that by the time
schools of political economy had emerged, they emerged vulnerable because they possessed
“neither wealth nor an established body of doctrine” and appeared at a time when commerce
dominated. He states frankly, “At the outset…commerce was a giant and political economy was
only a dwarf.” Thus, Fourier is suspicious of political economy’s influence against the tide of
commerce, but he finds comfort in the Physiocrats, who he sees as the one prominent school to
resist and downplay the role of commerce. Fourier praises Quesnay for propagating “dogmas

5. 5
which tended to subordinate commerce to the interests of agriculture.” The Physiocrats’ beliefs
regarding the sterility of commerce align with Fourier’s critiques, but he takes exception to their
laissez-faire principles (Fourier in Beecher et al., 1971).
This contempt for and suspicion of laissez-faire economics is a cornerstone of Fourier’s
critiques of commerce in which he characterizes the principle as one which concedes to
merchants the “absolute ownership of the commodities in which they deal” (114). For Fourier,
this principle allows merchants to hold consumers hostage, by removing goods from circulation,
hiding them, or even burning them (here Fourier indicts the Dutch East India company, which he
states burned supplies of cinnamon in order to raise its price) (114). Fourier concludes, “It is
society as a whole which suffers by such waste, which you can see taking place every day under
the cover of the philosophical principle: Laissez faire les marchands” (115). Fourier then
presents a hypothetical situation to illustrate his fears of merchant freedom. The setting is
Ireland, 1709 (a famine year), and Fourier implores the reader to imagine that a “rich company of
merchants” has cornered all of the grain, and refuses to sell it until the price has increased three-
fold. An important and revealing addition to this scenario, Fourier supposes “the general scarcity
and the restrictions on exports in neighboring states have made it impossible to find grain
abroad.” He likens the company to a “band of thieves” who holds an entire country ransom with
their monopoly power, all under the guise of commercial liberty.
Given the parameters of the example, Fourier’s critique of laissez-faire economics seems
to be more an indictment of mercantilism, and state-sponsored rent seeking than of free markets.
For example, he supposes a company of merchants, and places no blame on the export
restrictions. The irony of Fourier’s critique is certainly not lost on those familiar with the famines
of the French countryside, which were caused not by economic liberalism, but by numerous

6. 6
international exchange restrictions under Colbert. Moreover, Fourier’s critique, while showing
an understanding of the interplay between supply, demand, and price, conflates market price and
just price. Not surprisingly, similar scenarios are common in nearly all modern discussions of
price ceiling analysis. The economic ignorance that motivates some modern proponents of price
ceilings is the same economic ignorance that motivates Fourier (though the French socialist did
not, like these modern proponents, have the benefit of roughly two additional centuries of
economic understanding). Classical economists gave paramount status to the supply-side of the
market rather than presenting it as tantamount in importance to demand. Is it any wonder that
Fourier expresses fear of tyrannical producers, unchecked by the forces of demand, making
consumers beholden to their every whim with regard to output and price? While this is certainly
not the only lack of economic knowledge motivating him, it is important to note that the classical
school’s emphasis on the role of the producer may have prompted, or at least exacerbated, the
fear of total market power.
From his condemnation of laissez-faire economics, we will now focus on Fourier’s
critique of “civilized industry.” Insofar as it relates to later socialist thought, perhaps the most
important idea gleaned from Fourier’s criticisms of industry is one which was mentioned in the
introduction to this paper: the increasing impoverishment of the worker in an industrialized
economy. Keith Taylor notes that, according to Fourier, “The system of production in involved
the virtual enslavement of large numbers of workers…who toiled for long hours, often in
appalling conditions, for extremely low wages” (Taylor, 1982). This is indeed the bleak picture
of industrialism provided by Fourier. In an 1828 text titled, De l’anarchie industrielle et
scientifique, he attacks, among other nations, the paragon of industrialism: England. Explicitly
comparing slaves and workers, Fourier states, “Thus, thanks to the bragging perfectibilities of

7. 7
industrialism and productionalism, slavery has been reestablished in fact.” He continues, “The
English people, with their liberties and their sovereignty, are tortured by their mercantile chiefs
just as the Negroes are tortured by the savage planters of the Antilles” (Fourier in Beecher et al.,
1971). Again, he takes aim at mercantilists, insisting that “excessive competition” because of
“mercantile rivalry” will lead to an exploitation of workers. He writes, “Striving to cut wages so
as to increase his own wealth, the manufacturer obliges his competition to follow his example.
The worker, who has no other choices but starvation or the gallows, is forced to accept even the
most thankless of work.” Fourier is correct in observing the mercantilist penchant for a large and
poor working class. Yes, mercantilists viewed poverty as a sort of stimulus, but even they
recognized that the population should not be too impoverished. He is also responding to Malthus,
and his principle of the “Iron Law of Wages” which predicts long-run subsistence level wages.
In describing his utopian blueprint, Fourier hopes to correct this arduous state of labor in
industrialized society. He observes in the animal kingdom a “social mechanism which attracts to
industry, and causes happiness to be found in industry” and desires the same for man (Fourier in
Franklin, 1901). Fourier contrasts the delight which animals derive from their work with the
human condition of labor, noting: “A Russian, an Algerian, work from fear of the lash or the
bastinado; an Englishman, a Frenchman, from fear of the famine which stalks close to his poor
household…” (1901). Operating under this dismal view of labor, Fourier devises seven
principles in opposition to it, in the hopes of making labor more attractive and less, in his words,
odious and repulsive.
Among these principles is the proposition that each laborer be a partner, and, as such, be
compensated by dividends, not wages. He proposes that this compensation must be proportional
to the “capital, labor, and talent” possessed by each laborer. Fourier, doubting that enthusiasm

8. 8
for labor can be sustained longer than two hours, suggests a division of the workday into eight
“industrial sessions.” Moreover, he would like these sessions to be accomplished by amicable
groups of friends, united and motivated by “very active rivalry.” Workers will also be attracted,
Fourier suggests, by elegant and sanitary workspaces. The final two principles of his vision of
attractive labor include a strong statement that division of labor be carried “to its last degree,”
and that workers have the right to control what labor they perform, insofar as they demonstrate
the ability to perform it (1901). Though these proposals come from Fourier’s eccentric blueprint
for utopia, they likely do not strike a modern reader as particularly odd or counterintuitive. Clean
working environments, merit-based remuneration, limited workdays, and self-direction of human
capital do make labor more attractive, and today are expected (to varying degrees) by modern
workers in developed countries. In this case, it would seem that Fourier invites criticism not of
the ideas themselves, but of his method of imposing them in a utopian setting.
With Fourier’s views regarding economic liberalism, commerce, industrialism, and labor
now established, we are better equipped to examine his influence on the most prominent
socialists of the nineteenth century, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. In the interest of closing on
a cheerful note for Fourier (and with the theory of attractive labor fresh in the reader’s mind) the
comparison will commence with points of divergence. First, from the perspectives of Marx and
Engels, Fourier grossly underestimated the important role of industrialization in catalyzing a
socialist revolution. Beecher and Bienvenu address this important difference, writing, “[T]he
subsequent Marxist dream, of mechanized socialist mankind wresting a bountiful living from a
stingy and hostile environment would have seemed a horrible nightmare of rapine to Fourier…”
(Beecher et al., 1971). This difference is just one manifestation of the disparity between Marx
and Engel’s scientific socialism and what they perceived as naïve utopian socialism. Whereas

9. 9
Fourier foresees a gradual, relatively straightforward transformation of society and the economic
system, Marx and Engels envision a scientific, systematic, class-centric, and violent revolution
(Dunn, 2008).
The principal manifestation of Fourier’s utopian vision was his principle of attractive
labor, an idea that Marx and Engels rejected. Marx criticized Fourier for treating labor with such
frivolity. Beecher and Bienvenu note that, for Marx, truly attractive labor was “chimerical” and
dealt with “a profound problem in the manner of a coquettish shopgirl” (Beecher et al., 1971).
Beecher and Bienvenu provide an excellent explanation, which begins by stating that Marx
rejected attractive labor based on his understanding of the “Kingdom of Necessity.” They explain
Marx’s view that some labor would always take place within this kingdom, writing, “Since man
would always have to work to survive, a certain portion of his labor would be unfree, imposed on
him from without” (Beecher et al., 1971). The authors are sure to mention that Marx certainly
agreed with Fourier that socialism would bring about and amelioration of working conditions
and improve the life of the laborer. However, they note that Marx’s clear division between
necessity and freedom renders Fourier’s view “somewhat fraudulent.” They conclude, “He
attempted to abolish the kingdom of necessity with a kind of psychological slight of hand”
(Beecher et al., 1971). Therefore, the result of Fourier’s attractive labor, according to Marxists,
was merely the illusion of freedom.
Despite the above differences in thought, Fourier’s influence on Marx and Engels is
evident, and will provide the promised bright note upon which to conclude. Allen Dunn writes of
Fourier’s influence on nineteenth-century socialism, noting that Engels translated Fourier, and
that both he and Marx “praised his critical insights into the miseries generated by the nascent
capitalist society” (Dunn, 2008). Though deemed fanciful and naïve by Marx and Engels, it was

10. 10
Fourier’s insight into the “necessity of psychic as well as economic liberation” and his
recognition of the potential within man’s personality that attracted Marx and Engels (Beecher et
al., 1971). Beecher and Bienvenu conclude that beneath his fantasy of utopia, Marx and Engels
discovered Fourier’s “insistence on the primacy of self-development and self-expression within
the world of work and society” (1971). This is Fourier’s contribution to his socialist posterity.
Engels himself provides high praise for Fourier. He admits that Fourier lacked the proper
Hegelian view of philosophy, and was prone to nonsense. However, he observes the poetry and
appeal of the eccentric French utopian, writing, “French nonsense is at least cheerful, whereas
German nonsense is gloomy and profound…Fourier has criticized existing social relations so
sharply, with such wit and humor that one readily forgives him for his cosmological fantasies,
which are also based on a brilliant world outlook” (Engels, 1846). Considering both the source
and the sentiment, this is perhaps the most fitting evaluation of the legacy of Fourier’s economic
thought.
It is clear that that the idiosyncratic and often marginalized work of Charles Fourier is not
without economic merit. His thought is not particularly profound, but his attacks on economic
liberalism largely reflect the emerging socialist critiques of his better-known French
contemporaries. One recognizes originality of thought in his principle of attractive labor, and in
his humanistic emphasis on the passions of man within society. But, as Engels observed, it is
Fourier’s originality of style and spirit that has allowed his earnest economic insight to endure
and inspire. To question Fourier’s relevance based on his eccentricities, is to misunderstand
Fourier, and to deny oneself access to the wonderfully bizarre and perceptive mind of an
important figure in the history of economic thought.

11. 11
Works Cited
Beecher, Jonathan. 1986. Charles Fourier: The Visionary and His World. Berkeley, California:
University of California Press.
Dunn, Allen. 2008. "PLEASURES OF THE TEXT: TRANSFORMING DESIRE: Utopia and
the Ends of Human History." Surroundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal 91, no. 1/2: 1-
20. Accessed September 13, 2013. http://0-
www.jstor.org.library.hillsdale.edu/stable/41179175.
Engels, Friedrich. 1846. "A Fragment of Fourier's On Trade." MECW 4: 613. Accessed
November 16, 2015. marxists.anu.edu.
Fourier, Charles. 1901. "Attractive Labour." In Selections from the Works of Fourier, translated
by Julia Franklin. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co.
Fourier, Charles. 1971. The Utopian Vision of Charles Fourier. Translated by Jonathan Beecher
and Richard Bienvenu. Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon Press.
Lichtheim, George. 1969. The Origins of Socialism. New York, New York: Frederick A. Praeger
Publishers.
Taylor, Keith. 1982. The Political Ideas of the Utopian Socialists. Totowa, New Jersey: Frank
Class and Company.