Charles Fourier y el Falansterio

François Maria Charles Fourier (Besanzón, 7 de abril de 1772 – París, 10 de octubre de 1837) fue un socialista francés de la primera parte del siglo XIX y uno de los padres del cooperativismo. Fourier fue un mordaz crítico de la economía y el capitalismo de su época. Adversario de la industrialización, de la civilización urbana, del liberalismo y de la familia basada en el matrimonio y la monogamia. Sin embargo, el carácter jovial con que Fourier hace algunas de sus críticas hace de él uno de los grandes satíricos de todos los tiempos. Propuso la creación de unas unidades de producción y consumo, las falanges o falansterios basadas en un cooperativismo integral y autosuficiente así como en la libre persecución de lo que llamaba pasiones individuales y de su desarrollo; lo cual construiría un estado que llamaba armonía. En esta forma anticipa la línea de socialismo libertario dentro del movimiento socialista pero también líneas criticas de la moral burguesa y patriarcal basadas en la Familia nuclear y en la moralidad cristiana restrictiva del deseo y el placer y por ende en parte al psicoanálisis.^[1] Así pues, el siglo XX encontró interés en las perspectivas libertarias de cuasi-hedonismo como las de Herbert Marcuse y su freudomarxismo, o las de André Breton, líder del movimiento surrealista. Asimismo usó en 1837 la palabra féminisme;^[2] y ya en 1808 argumentaba abiertamente en favor de la igualdad de genero entre hombres y mujeres. Seguidores de sus ideas establecieron comunidades intencionales como La Reunión en Texas, EEUU y La Falange Norteamericana, en Nueva Jersey, EE.UU. a mediados del siglo XIX.

Carlos Fourier

Homenaje a Fourier, Textos

El Falansterio de Charles Fourier

The Paris Commune and the State

«…The abolition of the Church and the State should be the first and indispensable condition for the real enfranchisement of society which can and should reorganize itself, not from the top down according to an ideal plan dressed up by wise men or scholars nor by decrees promulgated by some dictatorial power or even by a national assembly elected through universal suffrage. Such a system, as I have already said, would inevitably lead to the creation of a new state and, consequently, to the formation of a ruling aristocracy, that is, an entire class of persons who have nothing in common with the masses. And, of course, this class would exploit and subject the masses, under the pretext of serving the common welfare or saving the State…»

«…The future social organization should be carried out from the bottom up, by the free association or federation of workers, starting with the associations, then going on to the communes, the regions, the nations, and, finally, culminating in a great international and universal federation. It is only then that the true, life-giving social order of liberty and general welfare will come into being, a social order which, far from restricting, will affirm and reconcile the interests of individuals and of society….»

«…The lust for power of a few individuals originally, and of several social classes later, established slavery and conquest as the dominant principle, and implanted this terrible idea of divinity in the heart of society. Thereafter no society was viewed as feasible without these two institutions, the Church and the State, at its base. These two social scourges are defended by all their doctrinaire apologists.

No sooner did these institutions appear in the world than two ruling classes – the priests and the aristocrats – promptly organized themselves and lost no time in indoctrinating the enslaved people with the idea of the utility, indispensability, and sacredness of the Church and of the State…»

The Paris Commune and the Idea of the State – Bakunin

Mikhail Bakunin – Reference Archive

The Phalanstery – Charles Fourier

The edifice occupied by the Phalanx bears no resemblance to our urban or rural buildings; and in the establishment of a full Harmony of 1600 people none of our buildings could be put to use, not even a great palace like Versailles nor a great monastery like Escorial. If an experiment is made in minimal Harmony, with two or three hundred members, or on a limited scale with four hundred members, it would be possible, although difficult, to use a monastery or palace (like Meudon) for the central edifice.

The lodgings, gardens and stables of a society run by series of groups must be vastly different from those of our villages and towns, which are perversely organised and meant for families having no societary relations. Instead of the chaos of little houses which rival each other in filth and ugliness in our towns, a Phalanx constructs for itself a building as perfect as the terrain permits. Here is a brief account of the measures to be taken on a favourable site… .

The center of the palace or Phalanstery should be a place for quiet activity; it should include the dining rooms, the exchange, meeting rooms, library, studies, etc. This central section includes the temple, the tower, the telegraph, the coops for carrier pigeons, the ceremonial chimes, the observatory, and a winter courtyard adorned with resinous plants. The parade grounds are located just behind the central section.

“The Phalanstery” by Charles Fourier (1772-1837) (otra versión del Falansterio en inglés AQUI)

Charles Fourier Archive

Utopian Socialism