THEORY OF NATIONAL EXPERIENCE.
Now that our phenomena are fairly before us, a little speculation may
be appropriate. One wants to know what position these experiments,
which started so gaily and failed so soon, occupy in the history of
this country and of the world; what relation they have to
Christianity; what their meaning is in the great scheme of Providence.
Students of Socialism and history must have some theory about their
place and significance in the great whole of things. We have studied
them somewhat in the circumspective way, and will devote a few pages
to our theory about them. It will at least correct any impression that
we intend to treat them disrespectfully.
And first we keep in mind a clear and wide distinction between the
Associations and the movements from which they sprung. The word
_movement_ is very convenient, though very indefinite. We use it to
designate the wide-spread excitements and discussions about Socialism
which led to the experiments we have epitomized. In our last chapter
we incidentally compared the socialistic movements of the Owen and
Fourier epochs to religious revivals. We might now complete the idea,
by comparing the Associations that issued from those movements, to
churches that were organized in consequence of the revivals. A vast
spiritual and intellectual excitement is one thing; and the
_institutions_ that rise out of it are another. We must not judge the
excitement by the institutions.
We get but a very imperfect idea of the Owen and Fourier movements
from the short-lived experiments whose remains are before us in
Macdonald's collections. In the first place Macdonald, faithful as he
was, did not discover all the experiments that were made during those
movements. We remember some that are not named in his manuscripts. And
in the next place the numbers engaged in the practical attempts were
very small, in comparison with the masses that entered into the
enthusiasm of the general movements and abandoned themselves to the
idea of an impending social revolution. The eight thousand and six
hundred that we found by averaging Macdonald's list, might probably be
doubled to represent the census of the obscure unknown attempts, and
then multiplied by ten to cover the outside multitudes that were
converted to Socialism in the course of the Owen and Fourier revivals.
Owen in 1824 stirred the very life of the nation with his appeals to
Kings and Congresses, and his vast experiments at New Harmony. Think
of his family of nine hundred members on a farm of thirty thousand
acres! A magnificent beginning, that thrilled the world! The general
movement was proportionate to this beginning; and though this great
Community and all the little ones that followed it failed and
disappeared in a few years, the movement did not cease. Owen and his
followers--especially his son Robert Dale Owen and Frances
Wright--continued to agitate the country with newspapers, public
lectures, and "Fanny Wright societies," till their ideas actually got
foot-hold and influence in the great Democratic party. The special
enthusiasm for practical attempts at Association culminated in 1826,
and afterwards subsided; but the excitement about Owen's ideas, which
was really the Owen movement, reached its height after 1830; and the
embers of it are in the heart of the nation to this day.
On the other hand, Fourier (by proxy) started another national
excitement in 1842. With young Brisbane for its cosmopolitan apostle,
and a national newspaper, such as the _New York Tribune_ was, for its
organ, this movement, like Owen's, could not be otherwise than
national in its dimensions. We shall have occasion hereafter to show
how vast and deep it was, and how poorly it is represented by the
Phalanxes that figure in Macdonald's memoirs. Meanwhile let the reader
consider that several of the men who were leaders in this excitement,
were also leaders then and afterwards in the old Whig party; and he
will have reason to conclude that Socialism, in its duplex form of
Owenism and Fourierism, has touched and modified both of the
party-sections and all departments of the national life.
We must not think of the two great socialistic revivals as altogether
heterogeneous and separate. Their partizans maintained theoretical
opposition to each other; but after all the main idea of both was _the
enlargement of home--the extension of family union beyond the little
man-and-wife circle to large corporations_. In this idea the two
movements were one; and this was the charming idea that caught the
attention and stirred the enthusiasm of the American people. Owenism
prepared the way for Fourierism. The same men, or at least the same
sort of men that took part in the Owen movement, were afterward
carried away by the Fourier enthusiasm. The two movements may,
therefore, be regarded as one; and in that view, the period of the
great American socialistic revival extends from 1824, through the
final and overwhelming excitement of 1843, to the collapse of
Fourierism after 1846.
As a man who has passed through a series of passional excitements, is
never the same being afterward, so we insist that these socialistic
paroxysms have changed the heart of the nation; and that a yearning
toward social reconstruction has become a part of the continuous,
permanent, inner experience of the American people. The Communities
and Phalanxes died almost as soon as they were born, and are now
almost forgotten. But the spirit of Socialism remains in the life of
the nation. It was discouraged and cast down by the failures of 1828
and 1846, and thus it learned salutary caution and self-control. But
it lives still, as a hope watching for the morning, in thousands and
perhaps millions who never took part in any of the experiments, and
who are neither Owenites nor Fourierites, but simply Socialists
without theory--believers in the possibility of a scientific and
heavenly reconstruction of society.
Thus our theory harmonizes Owenism with Fourierism, and regards them
both as working toward the same end in American history. Now we will
go a step further and attempt the reconciling of still greater
repugnances.
Since the war of 1812-15, the line of socialistic excitements lies
parallel with the line of religious Revivals. Each had its two great
leaders, and its two epochs of enthusiasm. Nettleton and Finney were
to Revivals, what Owen and Fourier were to Socialism. Nettleton
prepared the way for Finney, though he was opposed to him, as Owen
prepared the way for Fourier. The enthusiasm in both movements had the
same progression. Nettleton's agitation, like Owen's, was moderate and
somewhat local. Finney, like Fourier, swept the nation as with a
tempest. The Revival periods were a little in advance of those of
Socialism. Nettleton commenced his labors in 1817, while Owen entered
the field in 1824. Finney was at the height of his power in 1831-3,
while Fourier was carrying all before him in 1842-3. Thus the
movements were to a certain extent alternate. Opposed as they were to
each other theologically--one being a movement of Bible men, and the
other of infidels and liberals--they could not be expected to hold
public attention simultaneously. But looking at the whole period from
the end of the war in 1815 to the end of Fourierism after 1846, and
allowing Revivals a little precedence over Socialism, we find the two
lines of excitement parallel, and their phenomena wonderfully similar.
As we have shown that the socialistic movement was national, so, if it
were necessary, we might here show that the Revival movement was
national. There was a time between 1831 and 1834 when the American
people came as near to a surrender of all to the Kingdom of Heaven, as
they came in 1843 to a socialistic revolution. The Millennium seemed
as near in 1831, as Fourier's Age of Harmony seemed in 1843. And the
final effect of Revivals was a hope watching for the morning, which
remains in the life of the nation, side by side, nay identical with,
the great hope of Socialism.
And these movements--Revivalism and Socialism--opposed to each other
as they may seem, and as they have been in the creeds of their
partizans, are closely related in their essential nature and objects,
and manifestly belong together in the scheme of Providence, as they do
in the history of this nation. They are to each other as inner to
outer--as soul to body--as life to its surroundings. The Revivalists
had for their great idea the regeneration of the soul. The great idea
of the Socialists was the regeneration of society, which is the soul's
environment. These ideas belong together, and are the complements of
each other. Neither can be successfully embodied by men whose minds
are not wide enough to accept them both.
In fact these two ideas, which in modern times are so wide apart, were
present together in original Christianity. When the Spirit of truth
pricked three thousand men to the heart and converted them on the day
of Pentecost, its next effect was to resolve them into one family and
introduce Communism of property. Thus the greatest of all Revivals was
also the great inauguration of Socialism.
Undoubtedly the Socialists will think we make too much of the Revival
movement; and the Revivalists will think we make too much of the
Socialistic movement; and the politicians will think we make too much
of both, in assigning them important places in American history. But
we hold that a man's deepest experiences are those of religion and
love; and these are just the experiences in respect to which he is
most apt to be ashamed, and most inclined to be silent. So the nation
says but little, and tries to think that it thinks but little, about
its Revivals and its Socialisms; but they are nevertheless the deepest
and most interesting passages of its history, and worth more study as
determinatives of character and destiny, than all its politics and
diplomacies, its money matters and its wars.
Doubtless the Revivalists and Socialists despise each other, and
perhaps both will despise us for imagining that they can be
reconciled. But we will say what we believe; and that is, that they
have both failed in their attempts to bring heaven on earth, _because_
they despised each other, and would not put their two great ideas
together. The Revivalists failed for want of regeneration of society,
and the Socialists failed for want of regeneration of the heart.
On the one hand the Revivalists needed daily meetings and continuous
criticism to save and perfect their converts; and these things they
could not have without a thorough reconstruction of domestic life.
They tried the expedient of "protracted meetings," which was really a
half-way attack on the fashion of the world; but society was too
strong for them, and their half-measures broke down, as all
half-measures must. What they needed was to convert their churches
into unitary families, and put them into unitary homes, where daily
meetings and continuous criticism are possible;--and behold, this is
Socialism!
On the other hand the Socialists, as often as they came together in
actual attempts to realize their ideals, found that they were too
selfish for close organization. The moan of Macdonald was, that after
seeing the stern reality of the experiments, he lost hope, and was
obliged to confess that he had "imagined mankind better than they
are." This was the final confession of the leaders in the Associative
experiments generally, from Owen to the last of the Fourierites; and
this confession means, that Socialism needed for its complement,
regeneration of the heart;--and behold, this is Revivalism!
These discords and failures of the past surely have not been in vain.
Perhaps Providence has carried forward its regenerative designs in two
lines thus far, for the sake of the advantage of a "division of
labor." While the Bible men have worked for the regeneration of the
soul, the infidels and liberals have been busy on the problem of the
reconstruction of society. Working apart and in enmity, perhaps they
have accomplished more for final harmony than they could have done
together. Even their failures when rightly interpreted, may turn to
good account. They have both helped to plant in the heart of the
nation an unfailing hope of the "good time coming." Their lines of
labor, though we have called them parallel, must really be convergent;
and we may hope that the next phase of national history will be that
of Revivalism and Socialism harmonized, and working together for the
Kingdom of Heaven.
To complete our historical theory, we must mention in conclusion, one
point of contrast between the Socialisms and the Revivals.
_The Socialisms were imported from Europe; while the Revivals were
American productions._
Owen was an Englishman, and Fourier was a Frenchman; but Nettleton and
Finney were both Americans--both natives of Connecticut.
In the comparison we confine ourselves to the period since the war of
1812, because the history of the general socialistic excitements in
this country is limited to that period. But the Revivals have an
anterior history, extending back into the earliest times of New
England. The great American _system_ of Revivals, of which the
Nettleton and Finney excitements were the continuation, was born in
the first half of the last century, in central Massachusetts. Jonathan
Edwards, whose life extended from 1703 to 1758, was the father of it.
So that not only since the war of 1812, but before the Revolution of
1776, we find Revivalism, _as a system_, strictly an American
production.
We call the Owen and Fourier movements, _American_ Socialisms, because
they were national in their dimensions, and American life chiefly was
the subject of them. But looking at what may be called the _male_
element in the production of them, they were really European
movements, propagated in this country. Nevertheless, if we take the
view that Socialism and Revivalism are a unit in the design of
Providence, one looking to the regeneration of externals and the other
to the regeneration of internals, we may still call the entire
movement American, as having Revivalism, which is American, for its
inner life, though Socialism, the outer element, was imported from
England and France.