XVI. Social Architects

181 CHAPTER XVI. SOC I A L ARC HIT E C T S. THUS far we have been disposing of the preludes of F ourierism. Before commencing the memoirs of the regular PHALANXES (which is the proper name of the Fourier Associations), we will devote a chapter or two to general views of F ourierism, as compared with other forms of Socialism, and as it was practically developed in this country. Parke God win was one of the .earliest and ablest of the American expositors of Fourierism; second only, perhaps, to Albert Brisbane. In his "Popular View of the Doctrines of Charles Fourier" (an octavo pamphlet of 120 pages published in 1844), he has a chapter on " Social Architects," in which he proposes the following classification: "These daring and original spirits arrange themselves in three classes; the merely Theoretical; the simply Practical; and the Theoretico-Practical combined. In other words, the Social Architects whon1 we propose to consider, may be described as those who ideally plan the new structure of society; those who set immediately to work to make a new. structure, without any very large 182 AMERICAN SOCIALISMS.

and comprehensive plan; and those who have both de vised a plan and attempted its actual execution. H I. The Theoretical class is one which is most numer ous, but whose claims are the least worthy of attention. [Under this head, Mr. Godwin mentions Plato, Sir Thomas More and Harrington, and discusses their imaginative projects-the Republic, Utopia and Oceana.] ~'II. The Practical Architects of Society, or the Com munities instituted to exemplify a more perfect state of social life. [The Essenes, Moravians, Shakers and Rappites are mentioned under this head.] H III. The Theoretico-Practical Architects of Society, or those who have combined the enunciation of general principles of social organization with actual experi ments, of whom the best representatives are St. Simon, Robert Owen and Charles Fourier. This class will extend the basis of our inquiries, and demand a more elaborate consideration'!' This classification, if it had not gone beyond the popu lar pamphlet in which it was started, might have been left without criticism. But it is substantially reproduced in the New American Cyclopcedia under the head of " Socialism," and thus has become a standard doctrine.

We will therefore point out what -we conceive to be its errors, and indicate a truer classification. In the first place, from the account of St. Simon and Fourier which Mr. Godwin himself gives immedi ately after the last of his three headings, it is clear that they did 1tot belong to the theoretico-practical class. St. Simon undertook to perfect himself in all knowl edge, and for this purpose experimented in many things, good and bad; but it does not appear that he ever tried SOCIAL ARCH I TECTS. his hand at Communisn1 or Association of any kind. He published a book called "New Christianity," of which Godwin says: " It was an attempt to show, what had been often be fore attempted, that the spirit and practice of religion were not at one; that there was a wide chasm separ ating the revelation from the commentary, the text from the gloss, the Master from the Disciples. Nothing could have been more forcible than its attacks on the existing church, in which the Pope and Luther received an equal share of the blows. He convicted both parties of errors without number, and heresies the most mon strous. But he did not carry the same vigor into the development of the positive portions of his thought.

He ceased to be logical, that he might be sentimental. Yet the truth which he insisted on was a great one perhaps the greatest, viz., that the fundamental principle in the constitution of society, should be Love. Christ teaches all men, he says, that they are brothers; that humanity is one; that the true life of the individual is in the bosom of his race; and that the highest law of his being is the law of progress." On the basis of this sentimentalism, St. Simon appealed most eloquently to all classes to unite-to march as one man-to inscribe on their banners, "Para dise on earth is before us!" but Godwin says: "Alas! the magnanimous spirit which could utter these thrilling words was not destined to see their realization. The long process of starvation finally brought 51. Simon to his end; but in the sufferings of death, as in the agony of life, his mind. retained its calmness and sympathy, and he perished with these words of sublime confidence and hope on his lips: 'The future is ours!' AMERICAN SOCIALISMS.

" The few devoted friends who stood round that death bed, took up the words, and began the work of propaga tion. The doctrine r.apidly spread; it received a more precise and comprehensive development under the ex positions q.f Bazard and Enfantan; and a few years saw a new family, which was also a new church, gathered at Menilmontant. On its banner was inscribed, · To each, a:ccording to his capacity, and to each capacity according to, its work.' Its government took the form of a religious hierarchy, and its main political princ~ple was the aboli tion of inheritance. "It was evident that a society so constituted could not long be held together. Made up of enthusiasts, witholit definite principles of organization, trusting to feeling, and not to science, its members soon began to quarrel, and the latter days of its existence were stained by disgusting license. St. Simon was one of the noblest spirits, but an unfit leader of any enterprise. He saw all things, says a friendly critic, through his heart. In this was his weakness; he wanted head; he wanted precise notions;' he vainly hoped to reconstruct society by a sentiment; he laid the 'foundations of his house on sand."

What is there in all this that entitles S1. Simon to a place among the theoretico-practicals? How does it appear that he '~combined the enunciation of general principles of social organization with actual experi ments ?" His followers tried to do something; but St. . Simon himself, according to this account, did absolutely nothing but write and talk; and far from being a theoretico-practical, was not even theoretical, but only sentimental!

SOCIAL ARCHITECTS. Fourier was theoretical enough. But we look in vain through Mr. Godwin's account of him for any signs of the practical. He meditated much and wrote many books, and that is all. He was a student and a recluse to the end of his career. Instead of engaging in any practical attempt to realize his social theories, he quarreled with the only experiment that was made by his disciples during his life. Godwin says: "A joint-stock company was formed in I 832, to realize the new theory of Association; and one gentle man, M. Baudet Dulary, member of parliament for the county of Seine and Oise, bought. an estate, which cost him five hundred thousand francs (one hundred thousand dollars), .for the express purpose of putting the theory into practice. Operations were actually commenced; but for want of sufficient capital to erect buildings and stock the farm, the whole operation was paralyzed; and notwithstanding the natural cause of cessation, the simple fact of stopping short after having commenced operations, made a very unfavorable impression upon the public mind. Success is the only criterion with the indolent and indifferent, who do not take the trouble to reason on circumstances and accidental difficulties.

"Fourier was very much vexed at the precipitation of his partisans, who were too impatient to wait until sufficient means had been obtained. They argued that the. fact of having commenced operations would attract the attention of capitalists, and insure the necessary funds. He begged them to beware of precipitation; told them how he had been deceived himself in having to ,vait more than twenty years for a simple hearing, which, from the importance of his discovery, he had fully 186 AMERICAN SOCIALISMS. expected to obtain immediately. All his entreaties were in vain. They told him he had not obtained a hearing sooner because he was not accustomed to the duplicity of the world; and confiden t in their own j udgmen t, commenced without hesitation, and were taught, at the expense of their own imprudence, to appreciate luore correctly the sluggish indifference of an ignorant public. " Not only did Fourier thus wholly abstain from prac tical experiments himself and discourage th~se of others during his lifetime, but he condemned in advance all the experiments that have since been made in his name.

He set the conditions of a legitimate experiment so high, that it has been thus far impossible to make a fair trial of Fourierism, and probably always will be. How Mr. Godwin could imagine him to be one of the theoretico-practicals, we do not understand. His sys telu seems to us to have been as thoroughly separate from experiment, as it was possible for him to make it; and in that sense, as far removed from the modern standards of science, as the east is from the west. It can be defended only as a theory that came by inspira tion or intuition, and therefore needs no experiment. Considered simply as the result of human lucubrations, it belongs with the a priori theories of the ancient world, of which Youmans says: "The old philosophers, dis daining nature, retired into the ideal world of pure meditation, and holding that the nlind is the measure of the universe, they believed they could reason out all truths fronl the depths of the soul."

Owen, Mr. Godwin's third example, was really a theoretico-practical man; i. e. he attempted to carry his SOCIAL ARCHITECTS. 187 theories into. practice---with what success we have seen. Instead of classing St. Simon and Fourier with him, we should name Ballou and Cabet as his proper compeers. Another error of Mr. Godwin is, in representing Plato as merely theoretical; meaning that the Republic, like the Utopia and Oceana, was "-sketched as an exercise of the inlagination or reason, rather than as a plan for actual experiment." It is recorded of Plato in the American Cyclopcedia, that "he made a journey to Syracuse in the vain hope of realizing, through the new crowned younger Dionysius, his ideal Republic." Thus, though he never made an actual experiment, he wished and intended to do so; which is quite as much as St. Simon and Fourier ever did. Mr. Godwin seems also to underrate the Practical Architects: i. e. those that we have called the successful Communities.. It is hardly fair to represent them as merely practical. The Shakers certainly have a theory which is printed in a book; and there is no reason to doubt that such thinkers as Rapp, and Bimeler of the Zoarites, and the German nobleman that led the Ebenezers, had socialistic ideas which they either worked by or worked out in their practical operations, and which would compare favorably at least with the sentimentalislus of the first French school. If St. Simon and Owen and Fourier are to be called the theoretico practicals, such workers as Ann Lee, Elder Meachan1, Rapp, and Bimeler ought at least to be called the practico-theoreticals.

Indeed these Practical Architects, who have actually given the world examples of successful Communism, have certainly contributed more to the great socialistic movement of modern times, than they have credit for in 188 AMERICAN SOCIAL ISMS. Godwin's classification, or in public opinion. We called attention, in the course of our sketch of the Owen movement, to the fact that Owen and his disciples studied the social economy of the Rappites, and were not only indebted to 'them for the village in which they made their great experiment, but leaned on them for practical ideas and hopes of success. These facts came to us at the first without our seeking them. But since then we have watched occasionally, in our readings of the socialistic journals and books, for indications that the Fourierist movement was affected in the same way by the silent successful examples; and we have been surprised to see how constantly the Shakers, Ebenezers &c., are referred to as illustrations of the possibilities and benefits of close Association. We will give a few examples of what we have found.

The Dial, which was the nurse of Brook Farm and of the beginnings of Fourierism in this country, has two articles devoted to the Shakers. One of them entitled" A Day with the Shakers," is an elaborate and very favorable exhibition of their doctrines and manner of life. It concludes with the following observation: "The world as yet but slightingly appreciates the domestic and humane virtues of this recluse people; and we feel that in a record of attempts for the actual ization of a better life, their designs and economies should not be omitted, especially as, during their first half century, they have had remarkable success. The other article, entitled the "Millennial Church," is a flattering review of a Shaker book. In it occurs the following paragraph: "It is interesting to observe, that while Fourier in SOCIAL ARCHITECTS. 189 France was speculating on the attainment of many advantages by union, these people have, at· home, actually attained them. Fourier has the merit of beau tiful words and theories; and their importation from a foreign land is made a subject for exultation by a large and excellent portion of our public; but the Shakers have the sl1perior merit of excellent actions and practices; unappreciated, perhaps, because they are not exotic. 'Attractive Industry and Moral Harmony,' on which Fourier dwells so promisingly, have long characterized the Shakers, whose plans have always in view the passing of each individual into' his or her right position, and of providing suitable, pleasant, and profit able employment for everyone."

Miss Peabody, in the article entitled" Christ's Idea of Society," from which we quoted in a former chapter, thus refers to the practical Communities: "The temporary success of the Hernhutters, the Moravians, the Shakers, and even the Rappites, has cleared away difficulties and solved problems of social science. It has been made plain that the material goods of life, 'the life that now is,' are not to be sacrificed (as by the anchorite) in doing fuller justice to the social principle. It has 'been proved, that with the same degree of labor, there is no way to compare with that of working in a Community, banded by some sufficient Idea to animate the will of the laborers. ..-L\ greater quantity of wealth is procured with fewer hours of toil, and without any degradation of the laborer. All these Communities have demonstrated what the practical Dr. Franklin said, that if everyone worked bodily three hours daily, there would be no necessity of anyone's working more than three hours."

19° AMERICAN SOCIALISMS. A writer in The Tribune (1845) at the end of a glow ing account of the }:::benezers,says: "The labor they have accomplished and the improve ments they have made are surprising; it speaks well for the superior efficiency of combined effort over isolated and individual effort. A gentleman who accompanied me, and who has seen the whole western part of this State settled, observed that they had made more im provements in two years, than were made in our most flourishing villages when first settled, in five or six." In The Harbi1tger (1845) Mr. Brisbane gives an account of his visit to the same settlement, and concludes as follows: '" It is amazing to see the work which these people have accomplished in two years; they have cleared large fields, and brought them under cultivation; they have built, I should judge, forty comfortable houses, handsomely finished and painted white; many are quite large. They have the framework for quite' an additional number prepared; they are putting up a large woolen manufactory, which is partly -finished; they have six or eight large barns filled with their crops, and others erect ing, and some minor branches of manufactures. I was amazed at the work accomplished in less than two years.

It testifies powerfully in favor of combined effort." But enough for specimens. Such references to the works of the Practical Architects are scattered every where in socialistic literature. The conclusion toward which they lead is, that the successful religious Com munities, silent and unconspicuous as they are, have been, after all, the specie-basis of the entire socialistic movement of modern times. A glimmering of this idea SOC IAL ARCHITECTS. seeins to nave been in Mr. Godwin's mind, when he wrote the following: H If, in spite of their ignorance, their mistakes, their imperfections, and their despotisms, the worst of these societies, which have adopted, with more or less favor, unitary principles, have succeeded in accumulating imtneasurable wealth, what might have been done by a Community having a right principle of organization and composed of intellectual and upright men? Accordingly the discovery of such a principle has become an object of earnest investigation on the part of some of the mos t acute and disinterested men the world ever saw. This inquiry has given rise to our third divison, called theo retico-practical architects of society."

The great facts of modern Socialism are these: From 1776-the era of our national Revolution-the Shakers have been established in this country; first at t,vo places in New York; then at four places in Massachu setts; at two in New Hanlpshire; two in Maine; one in Connecticut; and finally at two in Kentucky, and two in Ohio. In all these places prosperous religious Communism has been modestly and yet loudly preach ing to the nation and the world. NewEngland and New York and the great West have had actual Pha lanxes before their eyes for nearly a century. And in all this time what has been acted on our American stage, has had England, France and Germany for its audience. The example of the Shakers has demon strated, not merely that successful Communism is sub jectively possible, but that this nation is free enough to let it grow. Who can doubt that this demonstration was known and watched in Germany from the beginning; AMERICAN SOCIAL ISMS.

and that it helped the successive experiments and emigrations of the Rappites, the Zoarites and the Ebenezers? These experiments, we have seen, were echoes of Shakerism, growing fainter and fainter, as the time-distance increased. Then the Shaker movement with its echoes was sounding also in England, when Robert Owen undertook to convert the world to Com munism; and it is evident enough that he was really a far-off follower of the Rappites. France also had heard of Shakerism, before St. Simon or Fourier began to meditate and write Socialism. These men were nearly contemporaneous with Owen, and all three evidently obeyed a common impulse. That impulse was the sequel and certainly in part the effect of Shakerism. Thus it is no more than bare justice to say, that we are indebted to the Shakers more than to any or all other Social Architects of modern times. Their success has been the solid capital that has upheld all the paper theories, and counteracted the failures, of the French and English schools. It is very doubtful whether Owenism or Fourierism would have ever existed, or if they had, whether they would have ever moved the prac tical American nation, if the facts of Shakerism had not existed before them, and gone along with them.

But to do complete justice we must go a step further. While we say that the Rappites, the Zoarites, the Ebenezers, the Owenites, and even the Fourierites are all echoes of the Shakers, we must also acknowledge that the Shakers are the far-off echoes of the PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.