XVII. Fundamentals of Socialism

193 CHAPTER XVII. FUNDAMENTALS OF SOCIALISM. I'HE nlain idea on which Owen and Fourier worked was the same. Both proposed to reconstruct society· by gathering large numbers into unitary dwellings. Owen had as clear sense of the compound economies of Asso ciation as Fourier had, and discoursed as eloquently, if not as scientifically, on the beauties and blessings of combined industry. Both elaborated plans for vast buildings, which they proposed to substitute for ordinary fatuily dwellings. Owen's communal edifice was to be a great hollow square, somewhat like a city block. Fourier's phalanstery, on the other hand, was to be a central palace with two wings. In like manner their plans of reconstructing society differed in details, but the main idea of combination in large households was the same. What they undertook to do nlay be illustrated by the history of bee-keeping. The usual way in this business is to provide hives that will hold only a few quarts of bees each, and so compel nevv generations to swarm and find new homes. But it has always been a problem among ingenious apiarians, how to construct compound hives, that will prevent the necessity of swarming, and either allow a single swarm to increase indefinitely, or 194 AMERICAN SOCIALISMS.

induce many swarms to live together in contiguous apartments. We remember there was an invention of this kind that had quite a run about the time of the Fourier excitement. It was not very successful; and yet the idea seems not altogether chimerical; for it is known that wild bees, in certain situations, as in large hollow trees and in cavities among rocks, do actually accumulate their numbers and honey from generation to generation. Owen and Fourier, like the apiarian inven tors (who are proverbially unpractical), undertook to construct, each in his own way, great compound hives for human beings; and they had the example of the Shakers (who may be considered the wild bees in the illustration) to countenance their schemes. The difference of their methods was this: Owen's plan was based on C01nmu1zism,. Fourier's plan was based on the Joint-stock principle. Both of these modes of combination exist abundantly in common society.

Every family isa little example of Communism; and every working partnership is an example of Joint stockism. Communism creates homes; Joint-stockism manages business. Perhaps national idiosyncracies had something to do with the choice of principles in these two cases. Home is an English word for an English idea. It is said there is no equivalent word in the French language. Owen, the Englishman, chose the home principle. Fourier, the Frenchman, chose the business principle. These two principles, as they exist in the world, are not antagonistic, but reciprocal. Home is the center from which men go forth to business; and business is the field from which they go home with the spoil. Home is the charm and stimulus of business; and business FUNDAMENTALS. 195 provides material for the comfort' and beauty of home. This is the present practical relation between Com munism and Joint-stockism every.:.where. And these two principles, thus working together, have had a won...

derful expansion in modern times. Every body knows what progress has been made in Joint-stockism, from the old-fashioned simple partnership, to the thousands of· corporations, small and great, that nOw do the work of the world. But Communism has had simil~r progress, from the 'little family circle, to the thousands of benevo lent institutions that are now striving to make a home of the world. Every hospital and free school and public library that is comforting and civilizing mankind, js an extension of the free, loving element, that is the charm of home. And it is becoming more and more the fashion for men to spend the best part of their lives in accumulating millions by J oint-stockism, and at last lay their treasures at the feet of Communism, by endowing great public institutions of mercy or education. As these two principles are thus expanding side by side, the question ·arises, Which on ·the whole is prevail ing and destined to prevail? and that means, which is primary in the order of truth, and which is secondary?

The two great socialistic inventors seem to have taken opposite sides on this question. Owen believed that the grand advance which the world is about to Inake, will be into Communism. Fourier as confidently believed that civilization will ripen into universal Joint-stockism. In all cases of reciprocal dualism, there is manifestly a tendency to mutual absorption. coalescence and unity. Where shall we end? in Owenism or F ourieris m? Or will a combination of both keep its place in the world hereafter, as it has done hitherto? and if so which will 196 AMERICAN SOCIAL ISMS. be primary and which secondary, and how will they be harmonized ? We do not propose to answer these questions, but only to help the study of them, as we proceed with our history. A few facts, however, may be mentioned in .passing, which lead toward some solution of them. One is, that the changes which are going on in the laws of marriage, are in the direction of Joint-stockism. The increase of woman's independence and separate property, is mani festly introducing Fourierism into the faluily circle, \vhich is the oldest sanctuary of Con1munism. But over against this is the fact, that all the successful attempts at Socialism go in the other direction, toward Con1mu nism. Providence has presented Shakerism, which is Comn1unism in the concrete, and. OweniSlu, which is Communism in theory, to the attention of this country in advance of F ourierism; and there are many signs that the third great socialistic movement, which many believe to be impending, will be a returning wave of Communism. All these facts together luight be inter preted as indicating that Joint-Stockism is devouring the institutions of the past, while Comn1unism is seizing the institutions of the future.

It must not be forgotten that, in representing Owen as the exponent of Communism, and Fourier as the exponent of Joint-stockism, we refer to their theoretical principles, and not at all to the experiments that have been made in their name. Those experiments \vere invariably compromises, and nearly all alike. We doubt whether there was ever an Owen Community that attempted unconditional Communism, even of worldly goods. Certainly O'wen himself never got beyond provisional experiments, in which he held on to his land.

FUNDAMENT ALS. 197 And on the other hand, we doubt whether there was ever a Fourier Association that came any where near carrying out Joint-stockism, into all the minutice of account-keeping which pure Fourierism requires. When we leave theories and attempt actual combinations, it is a matter of course that we should comlnunize as far as we dare; that is, as far as \ve can trust each other; and beyond that manage things as well as we can by some kind of Joint-stockism. Experiments therefore always fall into a combination of Owenism and Fourierism. If we could find out the metaphysical bases of the two principles represented respectively by Owen and Fourier, perhaps we should see that these practical combinations of them are, after all, scientifically legiti nlate. Let us search a little in this direction. Our view is, that unity of life is the basis of Com nlunism; and distinction of jJersons is the basis of Joint stockism. Properl y belongs to life, and so far as you and I have consciously one life, we must hold our goods in common; but so far as distinct personalities prevail, we must have separate properties. This statement of course raises the old question of the Trinitarian con troversy, viz., whether two or more persons can have absolutely the same life-which we will not now stop. to discuss. All we need to say is that, according to our theory, if there is no such thing as unity 'of life between a plurality of persons, then there is no basis for Com munism.

But the Comlnunism which we find in families is certainly based on the assumption, right. or wrong, that there is actual unity of life between husband and wife, and between parents and children. The common law of England and of most other countries recognizes only a AMERICAN SOCIALISMS. unit in the male and female head of every family. The Bible declares man and wife to be "one flesh." Sexual intercourse is generally supposed to be a symbol of more complete unity in the interior life; and children are supposed to be branches of the one life of their parents. This theory is evidently the basis orfamily Communism. So also the basis of Bible Communism is the theory that in Christ, believers become spiritually one; and the law, H Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," is founded on the assumption that "thy neighbor" is, or should be, a part of "thyself" In this view we can reduce Communism and ] oint stockislU to one principle. The object of both is to secure property to life. Communism looks after the rights ofthe unitary life-call. it aJllatlts if you please which organizes families and spiritual corporations.

] oint-stockism attends to the rights of individuals. Both these forms of life have rights; and as all true rights can certainly be harmonized, Communism and ] oint stockism should find a way to work together. But the question returns after all, Which is primary and which is secondary? and so we are in the old quarrel again. Our opinion, however, is, that the long quarrel between afflatus and personality will be decided in favor of afflatus, and that personality will pass into the secondary position in the ages to come. Practically, Communism is a thing of degrees. With a small amount of vital unity, Communism is possible only in the limited sphere of familism. With more unity, public institutions of harmony and benevolence make their appearance. With another degree of unity, Communism of external property becomes possible, as among the Shakers. With still higher degrees, Con1FUNDAMENTALS. 199 munism may be introduced into the sexual and propa gative relations. And in all these cases the correlative principle of ] oint-stockism necessarily takes charge of all property that Communism leaves outside.

Other differences of theory, besides this fundamental contrast of Communism and ]oint-stockism, have been insisted upon by the respective partizans of Owen and Fourier; but they are less important, and we shall leave thenl to be exhibited incidentally in our memoirs of the Phalanxes.