💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › josiah-warren-the-motives-for-communism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 11:38:46. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: The Motives for Communism Author: Josiah Warren Date: 1872–73 Language: en Topics: communism, utopian socialism, individualism, individualist Source: Retrieved on 13 June 2019 from https://www.libertarian-labyrinth.org/equitable-commerce/josiah-warren-the-motives-for-communism-and-what-it-led-to/ Notes: Published in eleven parts in Woodhull and Claflin’s Weekly from February 17, 1972 to April 26, 1873. In Article VI (mistakenly subtitled as “IV” again in the original), there appears to be a marked footnote after “the middle of May”, but no actual footnote, so it has been ignored. A footnote appears for Article XI, though no mark for it is present in the text, so I have inserted it where it seemed appropriate. Article X is simply signed “J. Warren”, without the second line of “Princeton, Mass.”
Mesdames Editors: How often have I said to myself, “Oh, for a paper of
world-wide circulation, through which we could pour into the public lap
the most important results of our lives’ experience! That others who
come after us may avoid the thorny paths that have lacerated our
feet—may profit by our errors and successes. I hope and believe that
your is, or will be, such a paper: and in it I propose to furnish a
series of articles, showing the practical workings of Communism and
other reform experiments running through the forty-six years devoted to
peaceful social revolution; and it will be seen that some facts are more
strange than fiction, more philosophical than philosophy, more romantic
than romance and more conservative than conservatism.
When Robert Owen came to this country in 1825 I listened to some of his
sublime discourses and read some of his publications, from which it
appeared that, unless some peaceful revolution could be devised, the
working classes, driven to starvation by machinery and destructive
competition between themselves, would be compelled to choose between
death by destitution and an effort to save themselves by violent
revolution.
He showed us that in Communism, instead of working against each other as
in competition, we should all work for each other while working for
ourselves. A problem that had been profoundly considered by the wisest
of our race, but which had always baffled the highest stretch of genius.
It appeared that mutual help would beget mutual sympathy, or social
harmony. That labor would be reduced to two or three hours a day,
leaving abundance of leisure for new enterprises and general
improvement. That the jealousies and antagonisms between the poor and
the rich would be at an end, and a fellow feeling would grow up from
equality of condition. No more horrible crimes, or punishments still
more horrible. No more children crying for bread. No more suicides for
fear of starvation. No more drunkenness from despair. No more
prostitution to escape starvation. No more wars about the profits in
trade nor for the privileges of governing, for the government was to
consist of all above a certain age. The business of nations would not be
the destruction of each other, but a mutual interchange of services
beneficial to each.
Sick at heart with the habitual contemplation of the frauds and
cruelties of men toward each other, and the miseries in different forms
that had surrounded me from childhood, all growing out of the crudity of
our civilization, and seeing no hope of change, I had, at the age of 23,
become willing to shut my eyes forever; but here was a new sun arisen!
and my young and ardent spirit grasped at it as at the breath of life.
Mr. Owen had become a new god to me, and I said to myself, now I have an
object worth living for!
I was not alone in these views and feelings; several excellent people of
rare intelligence and thoughtful habits joined in a project to start a
community in the neighborhood of Cincinnati.
The next article will show how it worked.
I would gladly avoid the imputation of egotism, but for the sake of
giving definite responsibility, and as simple truth works better than
anything short of it, and to put myself in communication with readers, I
give my name and place of residence.
J. Warren
Princeton, Mass.
Some facts are more strange than fiction, more philosophical than
philosophy, more romantic than romance and more conservative than
conservatism.
In my previous article I spoke of some of the motives for communism;
and, certainly, no higher or more holy motive can possibly actuate human
beings. We now come to the way it worked.
We had assembled with a view of organizing a community, as I said, in
the vicinity of Cincinnati. We were in the best of humor with each
other, and expectations ran high. After a little preliminary
conversation, the idea of organizing a meeting came up; but who should
call us to “order?” No one felt “authorized” to do it, and each one
seemed to feel a modest objection to assume authority. At last, one
seemed to think that, if anything was done, somebody must do it, and he
modestly laid aside his modesty and “called the meeting to order,” and
proposed the appointment of a chairman. Of course, no one objected, and
chairman was appointed, not without some embarrassment in selecting one
for “the honor of presiding” where all were admitted to be equally
entitled to it.
The first subject proposed for consideration was a name for the
contemplated community. One proposed “the practical Christians.” Another
objected that there were some very good Jews with us, and he hoped there
would be many; not only so, but this movement was, we hoped, to become
world-wide, including all beliefs and all non-beliefs in natural
co-operation and harmonious feeling; and it would seem contrary to this
all-embracing brotherly spirit to adopt a name that would imply anything
like sectism or tend to divide us into insiders and outsiders. He said,
it pained him to be obliged to say any thing adverse to what the brother
had proposed, for we look for perfect “unity” in this movement. The
other replied that we need not look for unity till all were willing “to
stand up for Jesus.” This is the first dash of cold water upon our
kindling enthusiasm, and it was felt keenly by several who endeavored to
allay the disturbed feeling by various remarks, all differing to some
extent with each other; and the evening was spent without coming to any
conclusion as to the name. If we came near to any one conclusion from
the proceedings, I think it was not that “unity” that we had expected to
see among us.
The next meeting was spent in a similar manner, but with the brotherly
feeling somewhat diminished though no one could hardly acknowledge the
fact to himself. At the next meeting we fortunately hit upon the
experience of naming the community by the place of its locality,
whatever that might eventually be. That being settled, the next thing
was a constitution. A committee was appointed to draft one, at the
meeting following, it was brought forward for acceptance. There were
perhaps about thirty articles in it, and we found it impossible to agree
on three of them that evening. In fact, we got into confusion. The
chairman felt embarrassed, and the rest of us, (some at least) began to
feel that this was not the “Unity” we had expected. Just in proportion
as we desired to perserve this “unity” we hesitated to express
conflicting opinions; some were consequently silent and their opinions
were unknown even in regard to a measure with was to involve the whole
life’s destiny.
At this meeting I said “Friends, we have certainly committed some
mistake somewhere: I do not know where it is: but if we were right,
there would not be so much friction in our machinery. I will go down to
New Harmony and join Mr. Owen’s Community. He knows how to do it. I will
go to school to him; and when I have got the lessons I will report to
you.”
[These friends went on and organized, and moved out about thirty miles
from Cincinnati—failed within a year and returned to Cincinnati
discouraged.]
J. Warren
Princeton, Mass.
I knew nothing then about Individuality. I had, indeed, heard that
individual ownership was one of the great roots of human evil, and that
Communism was to be the remedy. The idea of individuality being the germ
of “intellectual anarchy” had not yet reached this country, where we
were asleep like the man in the boat that was silently gliding over the
cataract of Niagara. I had heard of the monarch who, in reply to a
proposition to educate the people, said “he did not want learned
opponents; he wanted obedient subjects.” There certainly can be no
“intellectual anarchy” where there is no intellect. The monarch was
right in his conclusions from his premises: if one mind is to govern
millions, these millions must have no minds; but, like dried herrings on
a stick, their intellectual eyes must be punched out, all life must be
extinguished, and they must all be dried and fixed to one pattern. As I
have said, knowing nothing about Individuality (as the great, supreme,
divine[1] law of order, progress and repose); I had plunged my hand into
scalding water and suddenly withdrew it, and was now ready to plunge
into it over head and ears.
I began to prepare for joining Mr. Owen at New Harmony, Indiana. Among
my customers were some very good friends who endeavored to dissuade me
from the contemplated step. One said, “Now, it isn’t possible, is it,
that thee is going to break up thy nice, comfortable home and business,
and risk all in an untried experiment that may disappoint thee at last?”
“O, my dear, sir, it is because is untried that it requires to be tried.
I don’t fear that I shall ever want for business: and besides, in the
present condition of things and people in general, life has no charms
for me.”
“But, then, how can thee succeed, when thee knows that minds differ so
much from each other, they cannot agree, and how can they walk together
unless they be agreed ?”
“O, my friend, we must yield these little difference for the great
general good.”
“Well, I hope thee will not be disappointed, but I fear thee will.”
Several other friends went over just about the same ground with me, and
though I fully appreciated their kindness I thought my replies ought (in
view of the public good) to overbalance their objections. My wife, too,
a most careful and judicious woman, was as much in favor of the movement
as I was, and I began to sell off and give away some of the goods in the
store, and send other notions to be sold at auction, let my house for a
year, bought a “flat boat” and floated down the Ohio river, bag and
baggage, and reached New Harmony about the first of May, 1825.
J. Warren
Princeton, Mass.
We found New Harmony to be a clean, handsome village with substantial
buildings, wood and brick, capable of housing about eight hundred
people, most of whom had already arrived. There were very intelligent
people from Philadelphia, Washington, London, Paris and other cities,
all as enthusiastic as ourselves. Mr. Owen had purchased the whole of
the Rappite community which had just left. In the town there was a
woollen factory all in running order, a large grist mill, a little
outside of town, twenty-eight hundred acres, I believe, of the best land
well timbered. Mr. William McClure, a life-long philanthropist and “the
father of geology in this country,” with millions of money all ready to
embark in the movement, with an immense collection of apparatus for
model industrial schools, with a set of Pestalozian teachers whom he had
met and engaged in Europe, paying them salaries from the time they
started and their passage across the Atlantic. A rare library of very
scarce and valuable books, costing perhaps thirty thousand dollars. Mr.
Owen had another and particularly a musical library, containing a copy
of all the pieces that in London were thought worth having; and, what
Mr. Owen playfully termed “a whole boat load of learning,” books without
number on the sciences and professors to match. I give these particulars
so that our failure can not be attributed to the common explanation,
“want of means.”
We had a Constitution (of course) of perhaps about thirty articles, one
of which was that all the members were to give their best services for
the general interests; but we had no sooner sat down to the committee
table and got a subject before us, than we found that we differed widely
as to what would best promote the best interests of the society; and the
more we talked, the more points of difference were raised (as usual) and
we were obliged to leave the decision to Mr. Owen at last. Here was king
and council at the very outset! This looked ominous, but I supposed it
was the best that could be done in the crude state in which we found
ourselves.
Everyone felt free to express any opinion he or she might entertain on
any subject, without fear of a Bastile, or even of offence, and as there
was a great deal of active intellect assembled there, and in dead
earnest, upon subjects entirely untried, no wonder that we could
scarcely find much “unity” of opinion on any subject that came up.
I am not now writing the history of the present time among Reformers,
but of Communism in New Harmony in 1825. If one is a description of the
other, the fact may help us in the end to a solution that will well pay
for the study it may cost.
We could not get things into working order. The people, having no land
of their own, could not set themselves to work, but must wait for orders
from superintendent; and superintendents must be appointed by the
committee, and the committee were not sufficiently familiar with the
business to be done nor with the qualifications of persons for
superintendents, and besides they were busy with other matters, equally
embarrassing.
We now heard complaints of “idleness,”—a desire to “shun labor,”—but
those complaints came from those who, having had an over share of labor
their whole lives, very naturally would like to escape from it and have
a little rest; never even suspecting that the subjects of their
criticism wished above all things to be at work, not only for their own
personal comfort, but for the sake of the cause that had brought them
there. It was almost impossible to believe one’s eyes when they saw two
eminent physicians right from their practices in Philadelphia, the one
in the harvest field, in the hot July suns, week after week, and the
other, a young and light framed man, rolling logs the whole day long,
doing more than the share of one man, among those who had done such work
all their lives.
J. Warren
Princeton, Mass.
Here we are, eight hundred of us, living mainly at Mr. Owens expense, at
the rate of $9,000 a mouth.
Economy was now the word, and the expenses of living were reduced to the
lowest living rates. We had, as I said, a ”Constitution, and this called
for ”Equality;” and one member who had not thought much upon such
subjects, demanded an opportunity of keeping the public-house his share
of the time, in order to get his share of the good things that were
promised for visitors, and so persistent was he that a public meeting of
the whole population (of legislative age) was called to give him a
hearing, although it excited only laughter in some, and sadness in
others, to see so noble an enterprise produce such results: but we had
got a ”Constitution” like all other Constitutions or rather, it had got
us, for we were bound to carry out its requirements, however absurdly
they might be interpreted; or else alter or abolish it. Very soon a
meeting was called for public business, and it was proposed to alter the
Constitution in several respects. Conflicting views consumed that
evening without result, and the meeting was adjourned to the next day,
and the next day was taken up in trying to make a “Constitution,”
instead of making food and clothing. After several days spent in this
way, a great variety of subjects being agitated, the ”Constitution was
altered (if not amended) but the meetings and conflicting opinions
consumed day after day and week after week, and led to dividing the
society into three societies or departments—the agricultural, the
mechanical, and the educational. Here was a step toward individuality;
but it was thought best as a step out of, instead of into, “confusion
and anarchy.”
Mr. Owen, believing that a uniformity of dress would have a tendency to
allay jealousies and envy, proposed that the women wear what was called
the tunic (what is now called the bloomer dress) and that the men wear
something similar while aiming in this way to produce a feeling of
equality among ourselves, he did not seem to think of the other fact
that while this might bring us nearer together in feeling, it would
drive outsiders further from us, when our object was not to build up a
sect, but by including all mankind in an effort for harmonious life, to
abolish sectism and clanship. This was the first intimation I had that
my new god might possibly prove to be human.
We now began to hear of the failures of several community experiments in
this country, and that of Orbiston in Scotland, managed by Abraham
Coombe, who, after superhuman effort and intense anxiety, died of
exhaustion and a broken heart.
Discontents among ourselves now began to appear in the succession of ten
or twelve families from us, and going by themselves out upon the
unsettled lands, believing that they, at least, who thought and felt so
nearly alike, could succeed, but in a few weeks they returned to the
main town defeated, but could not seem to explain why they failed. Then
another little company went out, and another and another-—in all, from
first to last. ten attempts of this kind were made, each very confident
that if they only meant well they would surely succeed, but they all
returned to the town disappointed. Now came the news of the failure of
the “Valley Forge” community, and the Haverstraw, and others, but no
explanation of the philosophy of these failures was heard.
Our expenditures were becoming alarming, when compared with the income.
The charge of a desire to shun work was quite loud, and of course every
remark of this kind was a very firebrand wherever it happened to fall.
Mr. Owen proposed as a stimulus to industry, that each superintendent of
a department should report his estimate of the workers under his
direction, at the end of each week, at a public meeting. The working of
this measure hardly needs illustration, perhaps, but I will give one. We
had a young man there who had come all the way from Washington, (I
believe), and who had been an apprentice to a jeweler. He was of a very
delicate make and charmed even professional ears with his performances
on the flute. He was in the agricultural department, and was ordered to
go into the harvest field, and as might have been foreseen was reported
as lowest, or almost or quite worthless. He was very sensitive and
modest, and to see himself stamped all at once with such a reputation
among us, seemed almost like a death blow to him. I felt deeply for him,
for I loved him, but no words of sympathy and respect could restore his
smile. We never heard his charming music again. We soon followed the
first victim of our communistic criticism to his last resting place.
J. Warren
Princeton, Mass.
We had organization after organization, constitution after constitution,
and rules and regulations, only to abolish them and replace them with
others only to be abolished in their turn. A large portion of our time,
day and evening, was spent in legislation in general meetings or
conversation in detail but the fruits of all this were only more
compulsion and doubt as to our final success. Our confidence gradually
gave place to anxiety, especially as some of the most intelligent began
to leave.
Mr. McClure withdrew from the connection, and the ownership of the town
was divided between him and Mr. Owen.
Here is an item of instruction. Two of the best men in the world, with
exactly the same objects in view, could not act in communism together,
but were compelled to go back to individuality for the sake of repose.
Mr. McClure then sustained the educational department with his own
means, and he spent. S40,000 of his own money in three months, without
anything to show for it (at. least it was confidently so stated at the
time).
One little incident will show how communism destroys harmony and
friendship. In this department, one woman had been very low with a
nervous fever several weeks, and shortly after she began to recover,
some of the other women thought she was well enough to take her share in
the washing and other house work, and continued to have this intimated
to her husband; but his wife did not make her appearance in the kitchen,
and some of the women agreed among themselves to confront the husband as
he came out of the dining room, and to tell him in positive terms that
they were for equality, and unless his wife came forward and did her
part in the kitchen, they would leave it, and anybody might do the work
that had a mind to. “Well,” said the husband, “my wife will not come, at
any rate, at present, let the consequences be whatever they may.”
In two or three weeks after this, the department broke up, and having
returned to individuality, there was nothing between the parties to
dispute about.
All organizations had now failed; and we had so completely worn
ourselves and each other out by increased legislation, that we could not
talk any more on the subject that brought us together. The question then
was, what is to be done? A public meeting was called, at which an
intelligent gentleman from London (Mr. Whitwell) got up and said, “We
have done nothing for the last six weeks but to meet here and make
constitutions, laws, rules and regulations and to unmake them—It is now
the middle of May and there is not a seed in the ground; and I propose
that all of us immediately put ourselves under the direction of Mr. Owen
for one year from this date.” This was carried without a single word of
debate or one dissenting voice.
Here we are, after having gone through every possible form of
organization and government: we had arrived at anarchy, to be succeeded,
as always, by despotism—that is, individuality in the deciding power:
but it was individuality in the wrong form. It was the denial of the
right of individuality in all except the ruler: this led to its
inevitable consequences. In three weeks Mr. Owen, though still the best
of men, was as unpopular as he had before been beloved: do what he would
no body was satisfied: and one man watched the streets a large portion
of the time, declaring that his purpose was to meet Mr. Owen and fight
him.
Some young men got a coffin and a flag inscribing on it “The Social
System” with the intention of having a funeral the next day and burying
the social system after parading it through the streets: but to save the
feelings of Mr. Owen some one or more broke into the room where the
preparations were, (the night previous to the intended funeral,) and
destroyed them.
J. Warren
Princeton, Mass.
Some facts are more strange than fiction, more philosophical than
philosophy, more romantic than romance, and more conservative than
conservation.
I must not omit to describe the model schools, sustained by Mr. McClure.
They were conducted by the pestallozian teachers before mentioned. One
was conducted in one wing of the large town hall. There was a partition
separating this from the centre portion, where I was when my attention
was arrested by a few words that I overheard addressed to a class of
boys by Mr. Darusmont, a French gentleman, the conductor of this school.
The thoughts presented to the public were so new, so sublime, and the
language so charming, that I stood fascinated. I could not go about the
business I went there for; but after having listened to the whole
discourse, I resolved (though several years a married man) to beg of Mr.
Darusmont the privilege or coming and sitting with his boys and
listening to his teachings. I knocked at his door—he came—I made known
my purpose—his handsome countenance lighted up and his eyes moistened
with an evidently benevolent emotion, and taking my hand within both of
his, he drew me within the door and gave me a welcome with a charming
cordiality, in word, tone and gesture truly French. We immediately
became fast friends.
The next day I took my seat with the boys, and for the first time in my
life, I saw the true mission of education! No generalization that I can
give will convey an adequate idea of the teachings of William Phiquepal
Darusmont, so careful was he to put forth the exact truth, and to see
that it was thoroughly understood—so minutely analytical; so profoundly
philosophical in the smallest particular—such nice discriminations where
common eyes see no difference, but the want of’ which so often proves
disastrous through life! With all this minuteness his discourse was not
tiresome; and though addressed entirely to the intellect, the effect
upon the feelings was like that of a masterly musical composition;
which, by judicious changes of’ key and occasional digressions from the
main theme, and then by natural and easy returns to it, with slight
variations of expression, carries us, unconsciously wherever the author
chooses.
I was speechless with admiration—reverence—love! When the sitting was
over and the boys gone to their work, we had a long conversation (if
that may be called conversation in which I could only listen). In this
and subsequent interviews I learned that he had, early in life, resolved
to devote himself to what he considered education should be. That he had
been several years a friend and coadjutor of Pestal-lozzi. It seemed
that one great idea with him was to draw out into exercise the
self-sustaining faculties and thus qualify pupils to meet any
contingencies of after life; and with this view he had experimented with
himself in order to find out the extent of human capacities. He had
learned several branches of mechanism—made a piano-forte from the raw
materials, had gone all through the details of cooking food, washing and
mending clothes, as well as as cutting out and making them, and his
pupils were now doing all these kinds of work for themselves.
He had remodeled the modes of almost every branch of civilization. He
was the inventor of the instrument now used in many of the schools, viz,
a frame with ten rods in it with ten balls on each for the better
teaching of arithmatic; and he called it the “Arithmometer.” In teaching
geometry, instead of depending on words and lines, he had cubes, cones
and every geometrical idea in wood, hanging up about the schoolroom or
otherwise in plain sight. In teaching geography, each pupil had a little
globe which he held in his hand to refer to. He had spent four years in
one of the hospitals in Paris to qualify himself to speak intelligently
upon anatomy and diseases, and he discoursed to us on those subjects
using a pig for illustrations, as the animal nearest resembling the
human structure. I also understood, (not from him) that he was a most
thorough musical scholar, and an exquisite performer. He had also
digested a system of universal phonography, representing all the
elements of all languages.
In short, he seemed, like Lord Bacon, to have taken for his life-long
pursuit, the study and promulgation of all useful knowledge, by the
shortest and most thorough modes that could be devised; with the great
leading idea that “there is nothing too large or too small for the
greatest to engage in, which has a tendency to mitigate the pains, or
promote the enjoyments of the humblest.”
Since his death, I have learned that he belonged to the French nobility:
but no hint of the kind ever escaped him in our interviews. With all his
wonderful acquirements, his unaffected modesty was strikingly
conspicuous.
J. Warren
Princeton, Mass.
As I before said, our experiments had come to an end. We had fairly worn
each other out by incessant legislation about organizations,
constitutions, laws and regulations, and we would no longer talk with
each other on the subject that brought us there. We had tried every
possible kind of organization and government, from political Democracy
through every modification and mixture of all known political elements
to anarchy, and then, of course, to despotism, and then, of course, to
revolt—the old routine over again, excepting that we did not quarrel;
because Mr. Owen had made it an habitual thought with us, that all our
thoughts, feelings and actions are the effects of the causes that
produce them, and that it would be just as rational to punish the fruit
of a tree for being what it is, as to quarrel with each other for being
what we are; that our true issues are not with each other, but with
causes.
Many intelligent and far-seeing members had left, and others were
preparing to leave, and an oppressive despondency hung heavily upon all.
I shared the general feeling, and nothing saved me from despair but the
idea that our business is with causes; and the question now was, what
could be the causes of all this confusion and disappointment? What was
the matter, when all were so willing to sacrifice so much for success?
These questions led my thoughts back to our difficulties in detail. The
first constitution bound every one to give his best services for the
general good of the society; but we could not agree as to what would
best promote this general good, and the more we talked and argued, the
more we disagreed.
That phrase, “the general good,” is a harmless and useful one, providing
there is no necessity of agreeing as to its meaning. Why was it
necessary to agree as to its signification? The necessity evidently
arose out of our connected interests. If each one interpreted the word
only for himself, the great diversity of views would not only have been
harmless but might have been profitable; but in communism, some one view
must prevail over all Communism, then, was the root of the trouble here.
The constitution also required every one to be industrious, but the word
industrious is an indefinite one, and like all other indefinite words is
subject to different interpretations. The teacher of music was busy all
the school hours, week after week with the children, and in many of the
evenings, teaching the use of instruments; suffering torture (of ear)
all the time, and craved above all things to have rest in something to
do out of doors, in the sun-light and air; but he thought he must be
industrious for the good of the whole; while at the same time, the
out-door workers raised a cry that this man’s teaching was not at all
necessary, they demanded that be should go about some industrious
pursuit! So differently do we see, feel and think, according to our
circumstances and experiences, and so incapable are we of judging and
deciding for each other; and consequently are not adopted to live in
communism, where there is no freedom to differ, but all must conform to
some one idea or view of each subject as it arises.
The demand in the constitution for equality, gave rise to the demand of
the clown for a chance at the good things in the public house. The idea
of entertaining strangers, who came to enquire into the philosophy of
our movement, was no part of his programme.
That word, Equality, is a very useful word, in some places; but in a
constitution, binding on all, anti subject to as many different meanings
as there are people to use, it can produce only the severest and
bitterest of fruits. The case of the sick woman arose from the same
source, the indefiniteness of the word Equality. On this ground they
demanded her presence in the kitchen, when she was not able to sit up
half the time. These women did not know her condition, but thought they
did. This mistake, which made a wide breech between the parties, would
have been entirely harmless, had it not been for communism, and the
constitution.
J. Warren
Princeton, Mass.
“Some facts are more strange than fiction, more philosophical than
philosophy, more romantic than romance, and more conservative than
conservatism.”
In our educational department there was a gentleman of whom I was very
fond, who took to going about the streets without any hat, and allowing
his beard to grow to such an extent that, together with the effect of
the sun on his fine skin made him look frightfully repulsive, somewhat
like an ourang outang. Fearing that his appearance would give character
to the schools (in which he was one of the teachers) and disgust
strangers, I ventured to say to him as gently as I could, what I
thought, that I was afraid that as strangers could only judge at first
of our enterprise by externals, would it not be best to forego for the
present unimportant peculiarities for the sake of getting the attention
of the public for whose benefit we were working?
“My God!” he exclaimed, have I come three thousand miles over the
Atlantic Ocean in pursuit of freedom to be dictated to how I shall
dress!” I could say not another word, our friendship was broken up and
was never renewed, for he soon left the place.
Now, what was the matter here? It was Communism that was the matter. He
and I both belonged to the same (educational) department; and I was not
willing to bear any portion of the reputation that the school was likely
to get, nor to have it suffer defeat without an effort to save it. In
our connection we could not both of us have our different ways; the
liberty he desired was impossible if I had my way, or mine was
impossible if he had his; but if each of us had conducted a school
individually there would have been freedom to differ without
disturbance.
Another case. Passing by the blacksmith’s shop, I saw him sitting on the
bench talking, as be was in the habit of doing a large portion of the
time. On my return, in about a half an hour, he still sat there,
swinging his legs and talking as usual. I had business with him, and
stepped in. Just then a young woman was passing over the green at a
little distance. “There,” said be; “now what is she there for, wasting
her time; she had much better be in the straw room at work, than gadding
about at that rate.” Neither he nor I knew who the lady was, nor where
she was going, nor what she was going for. I was shocked and disgusted
at the rough impertinence of the criticism upon the young lady, and
asked myself the question: What could possibly justify him in his own
opinion for wild brutality? and I perceived that it was communism. He
would probably say that having a joint interest in results, he had a
right to look at and criticise any member’s movements; and in communisms
this could not be disputed and for the same reason I should criticise
the position in which be had been for the last half hour, and where
would quarreling end? It could end in nothing short of individualizing
our interests—the abandonment of Communism.
My thoughts went back to many more instances similar to these, and in
every case I could come to no other conclusion than that Communism was
the matter, and that it was false and wrong in principle.
What, then, was to be done? Must we give up all hope of successful
society? Or must we attempt to construct society without Communism?—for
all societies, from a nation to the smallest partnership, are more or
less communistic.
We had carried Communism farther than usual, and hence our greater than
ordinary confusion. Common society, then, had all the time been right in
its individual ownership of property, and its individual
responsibilities and wrong in all its communistic entanglements!
J. Warren
Princeton, Mass.
Some facts are “more strange than fiction,” more philosophical than
philosophy, more romantic than romance, and more conservative than
conservatism.
Had society, then, started wrong at the beginning? Had all its
governments and other communistic institutions been formed on a wrong
model? Was disintegration, then, not an enemy but a friend and a remedy?
Was individuality to be the watchword in harmonic progress, instead of
Union? I dwelt upon these thoughts day and night, for I could not
dismiss them, and was almost bewildered with the imense scope of the
subject and the astounding conclusions that I could not avoid; but I had
become so distrustful of my own I judgment from our late
disappointments, I resolved to dismiss these thoughts and these great
problems to be solved by the wise, the “great” and the powerful; but I
could not dismiss them They haunted me day and night; they presented to
me society beginning anew; I found myself asking how it should begin. It
could not be formed or formulized, for we had just proved that we could
no more form successful society than we form the fruit upon a tree. It
must be the natural growth of the interest that each one feels in it
from the benefits derived or expected from it. The greater these
benefits, the stronger is the “bond of society;” where there is no
interest felt there is no “bond of society,” whatever its “unions,” its
organizations, its constitutions, governments or laws may be.
We had just seen that no bond could be stronger than that which bound us
together till we commenced “organizing” and making laws, rules,
regulations and governments. There was now no interest felt in the
enterprise, no “bond,” no society; but we were scattering as rapidly as
possible, never, perhaps, to see each other again.
If the enjoyments derived from society are its true bond, what do we
want of any other bond? “Oh, we want governments and laws to regulate
the movements of the members of society—to prevent their encroachments
on each other, and to manage the combined (communistic) interests for
the common benefit.”
But the movements of members have never been regulated; encroachments
have not only not been prevented by laws and governments, but they have
always proved the greatest of all encroachers and disturbers.
Encroachments are increasing every day, the common interests have never
been managed to the satisfaction of the parties interested, and there is
no agreement among us as to what would best promote the common interest
or what measures to adopt to that end. It was precisely these problems
that remained to be solved which was our purpose in our late movement.
It had been defeated by our attempts to govern each other, to regulate
each other for the common benefit, the good of society, no two having
the same view of the best way of Promoting the good of society, and no
one retaining the same view from one week to another. We had not arrived
at principles, and infinite diversity with regard to measures and modes
was inevitable in the transitionary stage. If we could fortunately
arrive at principles, they would become our regulators, perhaps.
J. Warren
Infinite diversity instead of “unity” is inevitable[2], especially in
the progressive or transitionary stage. Then why not leave every one to
regulate his own movements, within equitable limits, provided we can
find out what equity is, and leave the rest to the universal instinct of
self-preservation? But what constitutes equity is the greatest question
of all. It is the “unknown quantity” that even algebra has failed to
furnish! One thing may be depended on. If all our wants are supplied
that is all we want. Could we not supply each other’s wants without
“entangling” ourselves in Communism, and thereby involving ourselves in
interminable conflicts and fruitless legislation? Could we not have a
central point in each neighborhood where all wants might be made known,
and where those wanting employment or who might have anything to dispose
of could also make it known, and thus bring the demand and the supply
together and adopt the one to the other? But on what principle could we
exchange, so that each and every one could get as much as he gave? Here
the idea of labor for labor (first broached in Europe) presented itself;
but hour for hour, in all pursuits, did not seem to promise the
equilibrium required, because starved, ragged, insulted and suffering
labor would be shunned even more than it Is now by every one who could
avoid it; and the more respected and more agreeable pursuits would be
overcrowded, and conflict between all would continue, and the demand and
supply would be thrown out of balance; but as no one would be bound to
follow any theory any farther than it best suited him, every one could
make any exceptions to the rule that he might choose to make.
Estimating the price of everything by the labor there is in it, promised
to abolish all speculations on land on clothing, food, fuel,
knowledge—on every thing—to convert time into capital, thereby
abolishing the distinctions of rich and poor; to reduce the amount of
necessary labor to two or three hours per day, where no one would desire
to avoid his share of useful employment. The motive of some to force
others to bear their burthens would not exist, and slaveries of all
kinds would naturally become extinct.
J. Warren
Princeton, Mass.