💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › william-batchelder-greene-communism-versus-mutualism.gm… captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:39:13. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Communism versus Mutualism Author: William Batchelder Greene Date: 1874 Language: en Topics: communism, individualism, letter, Libertarian Labyrinth, mutualism Source: Retrieved 08/10/2022 from https://www.libertarian-labyrinth.org/mutualism/william-b-greene-communism-vs-mutualism/ Notes: Originally appeared in The Word in 1874. Published in the book Socialistic, Communistic, Mutualistic and Financial Fragments (1875).
COMMUNISM is the form which human association naturally assumes at its
origin. It implies the absolute supremacy of the chief, the utter
subordination of the associates, and has for its maxim the fraternal
rule,—each is to work according to his ability, and each is to receive
according to his needs. In human communistic societies, as in the
societies of wild horses, cattle, or sheep, all individuality is
concentrated in the chief, who is instinctively obeyed by the associates
as something extra-natural, and ruling by a mysterious, inscrutable
right. The individualities of the associates are, among communistic men,
as among sheep, numerical only. Each individual is just like all the
others, and does just what the others do. The first very marked step in
human progress results from the division of labor. It is the
characteristic of the division of labor, and of the economic
distribution of tasks, that each individual tends to do precisely what
the others don’t do. As soon as labor is divided, communism necessarily
ceases, and MUTUALISM, the negation of communism, and the reciprocal
correlation of each to every other, and of every other to each, for a
common purpose, commences. The march of social progress is out of
communism into mutualism. Communism sacrifices the individual to secure
the unity of the whole. Mutualism has unlimited individualism as the
essential and necessary prior condition of its own existence, and
co-ordinates individuals without any sacrifice of individuality, into
one collective whole, by spontaneous confederation, or solidarity.
Communism is the ideal of the past; mutualism, of the future. The garden
of Eden is before us, as something, to be achieved and attained; not
behind US, as something that was lost when labor was divided, tasks were
distributed, individualities were encouraged, and communism, or the mere
animal and instinctive social order, had the sentence pronounced against
it, “Dying, thou shalt surely die.”
Mutual insurance has shown, by practical exemplification, a little of
what the nature, bearings, and workings of the mutualistic principle
are. When the currency shall have become mutualized by mutual banks, and
the rate of interest on money loaned shall have been brought down to
zero per cent per annum, it will become possible to generalize mutual
insurance, applying it to all the contingencies of life, so that men,
instead of being, as now, antagonistic to each other, shall be so
federated with each other, that an accidental loss falling on any one
individual shall be a loss to be compensated by all other individuals,
while a gain accidentally accruing to any one individual shall fall to
the community, and be shared by all. Under the mutual system, each
individual will receive the just and exact pay for his work; services
equivalent in cost being exchangeable for services equivalent in cost,
without profit or discount; and so much as the individual laborer will
then get over and above what he has earned will come to him as his share
in the general prosperity of the community of which he is an individual
member. The principle of mutuality in social economy is identical with
the principle of federation in politics. Make a note of this last fact.
Individual sovereignty is the John the Baptist, without whose coming the
mutualistic idea remains void. There is no mutualism without reciprocal
consent; and none but individuals can enter into voluntary mutual
relations. Mutualism is the synthesis of liberty and order.
[In order to more fully explain the doctrine of mutualism, we take the
liberty to print the following correspondence, sent to us for our
perusal. Since we have omitted all of a private or personal nature, we
trust the authors will pardon our making public their valuable
thoughts.—Editorial.]
NORTH ABINGTON, MASS., Sept. 28. 1874.
COL. WILLIAM B. GREENE. Dear Sir,—When I made up the essays on interest
into a tract, I did so at a venture, i.e., I felt it to be so strong,
that it ought to be so used, and I trusted that the means would be
provided in due time. Well, now that it is made up, and you are pleased
with it, it has occurred to me that you would be willing to share in the
cost. It would be practicable, through a few labor reformers who are in
the city, to sow a few hundred of these tracts, or, indeed, some
thousands, if they were provided; and would not something of the kind be
worth your while? The pamphlets you sent have been received. Thanks.
There are some striking remarks about God as being alive, in that on the
divinity of Jesus. As to banking—is not what men want, the willingness
to work together, instead of to lend to each other? Does “The Equity”
(newspaper) commend itself to you as of the right temper and strength,
so that it ought to live?
Respectfully,
JESSE H. JONES.
BOSTON, MASS., Sept. 29, 1874.
REV. JESSE H. JONES. Dear Sir,—Your letter of yesterday, to me, has been
duly received. Contents noted. Please find enclosed a check for the
money called for. You say, “As to banking, is not what men want, the
willingness to work together, instead of to lend to each other?” I
reply, that, so far as my experience goes, the willingness of John to
help Thomas and Peter in their work usually takes the form of a
willingness to lend money to them to help them along. The application to
me for help in any work, almost always, perhaps always, assumes the
shape of a request for a loan, or, perhaps, a gift, of money. So long as
services are estimated in money values, the man who lends money lends
aid and service. Money honestly acquired is the representative of
services performed, for which the community is still in debt; and the
transfer of money from Peter to John is the transfer of claim for wages
due, and not yet paid in kind. I don’t believe in the Christian
communism you advocate. I repudiate it. I believe in work and wages. The
apostles tried Christian communism, and failed. We to-day are no better,
to say the least, than the apostles were, and no more competent to
command success.
Respectfully,
WM. B. GREENE.
BOSTON, Oct. 2, 1874.
REV. JESSE H. JONES. Dear Sir,—You ask me, in your communication of
yesterday, this pregnant question, “As to methods, does it not seem as
though the first thing should be a hearty brotherly union of feeling,
and then such co-operation as can be accomplished?” I have to say, in
reply, that the hearts of all living creatures are in the hand of the
Almighty, who turns them whithersoever he will. God has put the
associative sentiment into the hearts of cattle; for, otherwise, they
would not go in herds: he has also put it into the hearts of wild and
tame geese; for, otherwise, they would not go in flocks, and so on. In
man, the associative instinct is, or ought to be, subordinated to
reason. The Master says, “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall
make you free.” Sheep that go in flocks, regulating their motions upon
those of their leader, and wolves that go in packs, instinctively
organized under special wolves that are their rulers, know many things;
but they don’t know truth, because they take no cognizance of things
supersensual. If you know any truth, state it. I have looked over the
numbers of “The Equity,” and find in it instinctive and sentimental
ejaculations, but no clear statement of any truth. Tell me whether it is
with the wolves, or with the sheep, that I ought to have “a hearty
brotherly union of feeling,” and why. The wild asses of the desert go in
herds; but the lions dwell apart. Who furnish the correct ideal for
imitation,—the wild asses, or the lions? And in what respect is either
one of these ideals preferable to the other? and why? Ought not both of
these ideals to be rejected? In every nook and corner of your question,
there lurks, as it seems to me, the virus of a heresy not at all
belonging to your theological environment. What is wanted at this time
is not instinctive association based on feeling, followed by unreasoning
co-operation, working disaster to the co-operators, but, first of all,
that special knowledge which is possessed by men “who know, their
rights, and, knowing, dare maintain,” enabling them to act on Andrew
Jackson’s maxim, and ”demand nothing that is not clearly right, and
submit to nothing that is clearly wrong.” Gen. Jackson was an individual
lion, and dwelt apart. It was his custom to say, “I take the
responsibility.” There is also wanted, at this time, secondly, a well
thought out mutualistic organism in society, whereby, not animal and
instinctive men, but twice-born, or spiritual men, may guarantee and
insure each other against the assaults of the Devil’s kingdom. The bees
and beavers have wrought out the utmost possibility of instinctive
co-operation. Sin comes before salvation, and is the condition of it: in
like manner, individualism—the utter negation of the sentimental
associative principle you celebrate, and the ground of the special
social disorder that is of human, and not animal origin—is the
indispensable prerequisite of mutualism. Mutualism, the ultimate
outbirth of civilization, the triumph of the human element in man over
the animal element, is the opposite of the communism which “The Equity”
advocates. I go for mutualism, and am against communism and socialism.
Respectfully,
WM. B. GREENE.