FUNDAMENTALS OF SOCIALISM.
The main 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 Association 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 family 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 may 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 new
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 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 inventors (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
_Communism_; Fourier's plan was based on the _Joint-stock_ principle.
Both of these modes of combination exist abundantly in common society.
Every family is a 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 provides material for the comfort and beauty of home. This
is the present practical relation between Communism and Joint-stockism
every-where. And these two principles, thus working together, have had
a wonderful 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 similar progress,
from the little family circle, to the thousands of benevolent
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, is 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
Joint-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 prevailing 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 make, 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 Fourierism? Or will a combination of
both keep its place in the world hereafter, as it has done hitherto?
and if so which will 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 manifestly
introducing Fourierism into the family circle, which is the oldest
sanctuary of Communism. But over against this is the fact, that all
the successful attempts at Socialism go in the other direction, toward
Communism. Providence has presented Shakerism, which is Communism in
the concrete, and Owenism, which is Communism in theory, to the
attention of this country at advance of Fourierism; 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 might be interpreted as indicating that Joint-Stockism is
devouring the institutions of the past, while Communism 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 were invariably
compromises, and nearly all alike. We doubt whether there was ever an
Owen Community that attempted unconditional Communism, even of worldly
goods. Certainly Owen himself never got beyond provisional
experiments, in which he held on to his land. 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 minutiae of
account-keeping which pure Fourierism requires. When we leave theories
and attempt actual combinations, it is a matter of course that we
should communize as far as we dare; that is, as far as we 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 legitimate. Let us search a little in this direction.
Our view is, that unity of _life_ is the basis of Communism; and
distinction of _persons_ is the basis of Joint-stockism. Property
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 controversy, 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 Communism.
But the Communism 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 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 of family Communism.
So also the basis of Bible Communism is the theory that in Christ,
believers become spiritually one; and the law, "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 Joint-stockism to one
principle. The object of both is to secure property to life. Communism
looks after the rights of the unitary life--call it _afflatus_ if you
please--which organizes families and spiritual corporations.
Joint-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 Joint-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, Communism may be introduced into the
sexual and propagative relations. And in all these cases the
correlative principle of Joint-stockism necessarily takes charge of
all property that Communism leaves outside.
Other differences of theory, besides this fundamental contrast of
Communism and Joint-stockism, have been insisted upon by the
respective partizans of Owen and Fourier; but they are less important,
and we shall leave them to be exhibited incidentally in our memoirs of
the Phalanxes.