Chapter LXXXIV: Act 8: Parliament 1. repeated in Act 99. Parliament 7 (10)

The "Christian Socialism" which arose in England about 1850,
under the influence of Frederick D. Maurice, Charles Kingsley,
Thomas Hughes, identified itself practically with the
co-operative movement.

_R. T. Ely,
French and German Socialism,
pages 249-251._

ALSO IN:
_G. J. Holyoake,
History of Co-operation in England._

_G. J. Holyoake,
History of the Rochdale Pioneers._

_B. Jones,
Co-operative Production._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1817-1825.
Saint Simon and Saint Simonism.

"Comte Henri de Saint-Simon, the founder of French socialism,
was born at Paris in 1760. He belonged to a younger branch of
the family of the celebrated duke of that name. His education,
he tells us, was directed by D'Alembert. At the age of
nineteen he went as volunteer to assist the American colonies
in their revolt against Britain. … It was not till 1817 that
he began, in a treatise entitled 'L'Industrie,' to propound
his socialistic views, which he further developed in
'L'Organisateur' (1819), 'Du Système industriel' (1821),
'Catechisme des Industriels' (1823). The last and most
important expression of his views is the 'Nouveau
Christianisme' (1825). For many years before his death in 1825
Saint-Simon had been reduced to the greatest straits. He was
obliged to accept a laborious post for a salary of £40 a year,
to live on the generosity of a former valet, and finally to
solicit a small pension from his family. In 1823 he attempted
suicide in despair. It was not till very late in his career
that he attached to himself a few ardent disciples. As a
thinker Saint-Simon was entirely deficient in system,
clearness, and consecutive strength. His writings are largely
made up of a few ideas continually repeated. But his
speculations are always ingenious and original; and he has
unquestionably exercised great influence on modern thought,
both as the historic founder of French socialism and as
suggesting much of what was afterwards elaborated into
Comtism. … His opinions were conditioned by the French
Revolution and by the feudal and military system still
prevalent in France. In opposition to the destructive
liberalism of the Revolution he insisted on the necessity of a
new and positive re-organisation of society. So far was he
from advocating social revolt that he appealed to Louis XVIII.
to inaugurate the new order of things. In opposition, however,
to the feudal and military system, the former aspect of which
had been strengthened by the Restoration, he advocated an
arrangement by which the industrial chiefs should control
society. In place of the Mediæval Church, the spiritual
direction of society should fall to the men of science. What
Saint-Simon desired, therefore, was an industrialist State
directed by modern science. The men who are best fitted to
organise society for productive labour are entitled to bear
rule in it. The social aim is to produce things useful to
life; the final end of social activity is 'the exploitation of
the globe by association.' The contrast between labour and
capital, so much emphasised by later socialism, is not present
to Saint-Simon, but it is assumed that the industrial chiefs,
to whom the control of production is to be committed, shall
rule in the interest of society. Later on, the cause of the
poor receives greater attention, till in his greatest work,
'The New Christianity,' it becomes the central point of his
teaching, and takes the form of a religion. It was this
religious development of his teaching that occasioned his
final quarrel with Comte. Previous to the publication of the
'Nouveau Christianisme' Saint-Simon had not concerned himself
with theology. Here he starts from a belief in God, and his
object in the treatise is to reduce Christianity to its simple
and essential elements. … During his lifetime the views of
Saint-Simon had little influence, and he left only a very few
devoted disciples, who continued to advocate the doctrines of
their master, whom they revered as a prophet. … The school of
Saint-Simon insists strongly on the claims of merit; they
advocate a social hierarchy in which each man shall be placed
according to his capacity and rewarded according to his works.
This is, indeed, a most special and pronounced feature of the
Saint-Simon Socialism, whose theory of government is a kind of
spiritual or scientific autocracy. … With regard to the family
and the relation of the sexes the school of Saint-Simon
advocated the complete emancipation of woman and her entire
equality with man."

_T. Kirkup,
A History of Socialism,
chapter 2._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1832-1847.
Fourier and Fourierism.

"Almost contemporaneously with St. Simon [see SOCIAL
MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1817-1825] another Frenchman, Charles
Fourier, was elaborating a different and, in the opinion of
Mill, a more workable scheme of social renovation on
Socialistic lines. The work, indeed, in which Fourier's main
ideas are embodied, called the 'Théorie des quatre
Mouvements,' was published in 1808, long before St. Simon had
given his views to the world, but it received no attention
until after the discredit of the St. Simonian scheme,
beginning in 1832. Association is the central word of
Fourier's as of St. Simon's industrial system. Associated
groups of from 1,600 to 2,000 persons are to cultivate a
square league of ground called the Phalange, or phalanx; and
are likewise to carry on all other kinds of industry which may
be necessary. The individuals are to live together in one pile
of buildings, called the Phalanstery, in order to economize in
buildings, in domestic arrangements, cooking, etc., and to
reduce distributors' profits; they may eat at a common table
or not, as seems good to them: that is, they have life in
common, and a good deal in each other's sight; they do not
work in common more than is necessary under the existing
system; and there is not a community of property. Neither
private property, nor inheritance, is abolished. In the
division of the produce of industry, after a minimum
sufficient for bare subsistence has been assigned to each one,
the surplus, deducting the capital necessary for future
operations, is to be divided amongst the three great interests
of Labour, Capital, and Talent, in the respective proportions
of five-twelfths, four-twelfths, and three-twelfths.
Individuals, according to their several tastes or aptitudes,
may attach themselves to more than one of the numerous groups
of labourers within each association. Everyone must work;
useless things will not be produced; parasitic or unnecessary
work, such as the work of agents, distributors, middlemen
generally, will not exist in the phalanstery; from all which
the Fourierist argues that no one need work excessively. Nor
need the work be disagreeable. On the contrary, Fourier has
discovered the secret of making labour attractive.
{2940}
Few kinds of labour are intrinsically disagreeable; and if any
is unpleasant, it is mostly because it is monotonous or too
long continued. On Fourier's plan the monotony will vanish,
and none need work to excess. Even work regarded as
intrinsically repugnant ceases to be so when it is not
regarded as dishonourable, or when it absolutely must be done.
But should it be thought otherwise, there is one way of
compensating such work in the phalanstery—let those who
perform it be paid higher than other workers, and let them
vary it with work more agreeable, as they will have
opportunity of doing in the new community."

_W. Graham,
Socialism, New and Old,
pages 98-100._

Fourier died in 1837. After his death the leadership of his
disciples, who were still few in number, devolved upon M.
Considérant, the editor of 'La Phalange,' a journal which had
been started during the previous year for the advocacy of the
doctrines of the school. "The activity of the disciples
continued unabated. Every anniversary of the birthday of the
founder they celebrated by a public dinner. In 1838 the number
of guests was only 90; in the following year they had
increased to 200; and they afterwards rose to more than 1,000.
Every anniversary of his death they visited his grave at the
cemetery of Montmartre, and decorated it with wreaths of
immortelles. Upon these solemn occasions representatives
assembled from all parts of the world, and testified by their
presence to the faith they had embraced. In January, 1839, the
Librairie Sociale, in the Rue de I' Ecole de Medicine, was
established, and the works of Fourier and his disciples, with
those of other socialist writers, obtained a large
circulation. … In 1840 'La Phalange,' began to appear, as a
regular newspaper, three times a week. … Some of its
principles began to exercise a powerful influence. Several
newspapers in Paris, and throughout the country, demanded
social revolution rather than political agitation. The cries
of 'Organisation du Travail,' 'Droit au Travail,' that were
now beginning to be heard so frequently in after-dinner
toasts, and in the mouths of the populace, were traced back to
Fourier. Cabet had already published his 'Voyage en Icarie';
Louis Blanc was writing in 'La Revue du Progrès,' and many
other shades of socialism and communism were springing into
existence, and eagerly competing for public favour. … M.
Schneider communicated the theory to his countrymen in
Germany, in 1837. The knowledge was farther extended in a
series of newspaper articles by M. Gatzkow, in 1842; and
separate works treating of the subject were subsequently
published by M. Stein and M. Loose. In Spain, it found au
active disciple in Don Joachin Abreu; and a plan for
realisation was laid before the Regent by Don Manuel de Beloy.
In England, Mr. Hugh Doherty was already advocating it in the
'Morning Star.' In 1841, his paper appeared with the new name
of 'London Phalanx'; and it was announced that thousands of
pounds, and thousands of acres, were at the disposal of the
disciples. The Communists of the school of Owen received the
new opinions favourably, and wished them every success in
their undertaking. In America, Fourier soon obtained
followers; the doctrine seems to have been introduced by M.
Jean Manesca, who was the secretary of a phalansterian
society, established in New York so early as 1838. In 1840, no
less than 50 German families started from New York, under the
leadership of MM. Gaertner and Hempel, both Fourierists, to
establish a colony in Texas. They seem to have prospered for a
time at least, for their numbers subsequently rose to 200,000.
In October of the same year, the first number of the 'Phalanx'
appeared at Buffalo, in New York State. Mr. Albert Brisbane,
who had recently returned from Paris, had just published a
work on the 'Social Destiny of Man,' which is, to a great
extent, an abridgment of M. Considérant's 'Destinée Sociale.'
He became the editor of the 'Future,' which replaced the
'Phalanx,' and was published at New York. This paper obtained
but a small circulation, and Mr. Brisbane thought it advisable
to discontinue it, and, in its stead, to purchase a column in
the 'New York Tribune.' … When Mr. Brisbane began his
propaganda, there was a 'Society of Friends of Progress' in
existence in Boston. It included among its members some of the
most eminent men in the intellectual capital of the New World.
… A paper called the 'Dial' was started, to which Emerson,
Parker, and Margaret Fuller contributed. Their object was to
advocate a community upon the principles of Fourier, but so
modified as to suit their own peculiar views. The result was
the acquisition of Brook Farm. … But the influence of Mr.
Brisbane was not limited to indirectly inspiring these
eccentric experiments. It was said that in New York alone, in
1843, there were three newspapers reflecting the opinions of
Fourier, and no less than forty throughout the rest of the
States. Besides this, many reviews were occupied in discussing
them. The first association in America to call itself a
phalanx was Sylvania. It was begun in October, 1843, and
lasted for about a year and a half. There were 150 members,
and Mr. Horace Greeley's name appears among the list of its
officers; it consisted of 2,300 acres in Pennsylvania. … There
were thirty-four undertaken during the Fourier excitement, but
of these we have complete statistics of only fourteen. … The
years 1846-7 proved fatal to most of them. Indeed, Mr.
Brisbane acknowledged in July, 1847, that only three then
survived."

_A. J. Booth,
Fourier,
(Fortnightly Review, December, 1872)._

"Horace Greeley, under date of July 1847, wrote to the
'People's Journal' the following. 'As to the Associationists
(by their adversaries termed "Fourierites"), with whom I am
proud to be numbered, their beginnings are yet too recent to
justify me in asking for their history any considerable space
in your columns. Briefly, however, the first that was heard in
this country of Fourier and his views (beyond a little circle
of perhaps a hundred persons in two or three of our large
cities, who had picked up some notion of them in France or
from French writings), was in 1840, when Albert Brisbane
published his first synopsis of Fourier's theory of industrial
and household Association. Since then the subject has been
considerably discussed, and several attempts of some sort have
been made to actualize Fourier's ideas, generally by men
destitute alike of capacity, public confidence, energy and
means. In only one instance that I have heard of was the land
paid for on which the enterprise commenced; not one of these
vaunted "Fourier Associations" ever had the means of erecting
a proper dwelling for so many as three hundred people, even if
the land had been given them. Of course the time for paying
the first installment on the mortgage covering their land has
generally witnessed the dissipation of their sanguine dreams.
{2941}
Yet there are at least three of these embryo Associations
still in existence; and, as each of these is in its third or
fourth year, they may be supposed to give some promise of
vitality. They are the North American Phalanx, near
Leedsville, New Jersey; the Trumbull Phalanx, near Braceville,
Ohio; and the Wisconsin Phalanx, Ceresco, Wisconsin. Each of
these has a considerable domain nearly or wholly paid for, is
improving the soil, increasing its annual products, and
establishing some branches of manufactures. Each, though far
enough from being a perfect Association, is animated with the
hope of becoming one, as rapidly as experience, time and means
will allow.' Of the three Phalanxes thus mentioned as the
rear-guard of Fourierism, one—the Trumbull—disappeared about
four months afterward (very nearly at the time of the
dispersion of Brook Farm), and another—the Wisconsin—lasted
only a year longer, leaving the North American alone for the
last four years of its existence."

_J. H. Noyes,
History of American Socialisms,
chapter 40._

ALSO IN:
_R. Brisbane:
Albert Brisbane; a Mental Biography._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1839-1894.
Proudhon and his doctrines of Anarchism.
The Individualistic and Communistic Anarchists
of the present generation.

"Of the Socialistic thinkers who serve as a kind of link
between the Utopists and the school of the Socialism of
historical evolution, or scientific Socialists, by far the
most noteworthy figure is Proudhon, who was born at Besançon
in 1809. By birth he belonged to the working class, his father
being a brewer's cooper, and he himself as a youth followed
the occupation of cowherding. In 1838, however, he published
an essay on general grammar, and in 1839 he gained a
scholarship to be held for three years, a gift of one Madame
Suard to his native town. The result of this advantage was his
most important though far from his most voluminous work,
published the same year as the essay which Madame Suard's
scholars were bound to write: it bore the title of 'What is
Property?' (Qu' est-ce que la propriété?) his answer being
Property is Robbery (La propriété est Ie vol). As may be
imagined, this remarkable essay caused much stir and
indignation, and Proudhon was censured by the Besançon Academy
for its production, narrowly escaping a prosecution. In 1841
he was tried at Besançon for a letter he wrote to Victor
Considérant, the Fourierist, but was acquitted. In 1846 he
wrote his 'Philosophie de la Misère' (Philosophy of Poverty),
which received an elaborate reply and refutation from Karl
Marx. In 1847 he went to Paris. In the Revolution of 1848 he
showed himself a vigorous controversialist, and was elected
Deputy for the Seine. … After the failure of the revolution of
'48, Proudhon was imprisoned for three years, during which
time he married a young woman of the working class. In 1858 he
fully developed his system of 'Mutualism' in his last work,
entitled 'Justice in the Revolution and the Church.' In
consequence of the publication of this book he had to retire
to Brussels, but was amnestied in 1860, came back to France
and died at Passy in 1865."

_W. Morris and E. B. Bax,
Socialism, its Growth and Outcome,
chapter 18._

"In anarchism we have the extreme antithesis of socialism and
communism. The socialist desires so to extend the sphere of
the state that it shall embrace all the more important
concerns of life. The communist, at least of the older school,
would make the sway of authority and the routine which follows
therefrom universal. The anarchist, on the other hand, would
banish all forms of authority and have only a system of the
most perfect liberty. The anarchist is an extreme
individualist. … Anarchism, as a social theory, was first
elaborately formulated by Proudhon. In the first part of his
work, 'What is Property?' he briefly stated the doctrine and
gave it the name 'anarchy,' absence of a master or sovereign.
In that connection he said: 'In a given society the authority
of man over man is inversely proportional to the stage of
intellectual development which that society has reached. …
Property and royalty have been crumbling to pieces ever since
the world began. As man seeks justice in equality, so society
seeks order in anarchy.' About twelve years before Proudhon
published his views Josiah Warren reached similar conclusions
in America. But as the Frenchman possessed the originality
necessary to the construction of a social philosophy, we must
regard him as altogether the chief authority upon scientific
anarchism. … Proudhon's social ideal was that of perfect
individual liberty. Those who have thought him a communist or
socialist have wholly mistaken his meaning. … Proudhon
believed that if the state in all its departments were
abolished, if authority were eradicated from society, and if
the principle of laissez faire were made universal in its
operation, every form of social ill would disappear. According
to his views men are wicked and ignorant because, either
directly or indirectly, they have been forced to be so: it is
because they have been subjected to the will of another, or
are able to transfer the evil results of their acts to
another. If the individual, after reaching the age of
discretion, could be freed from repression and compulsion in
every form and know that he alone is responsible for his acts
and must bear their consequences, he would become thrifty,
prudent, energetic; in short he would always see and follow
his highest interests. He would always respect the rights of
others; that is, act justly. Such individuals could carry on
all the great industrial enterprises of to-day either
separately or by voluntary association. No compulsion,
however, could be used to force one to fulfil a contract or
remain in an association longer than his interest dictated.
Thus we should have a perfectly free play of enlightened
self-interests: equitable competition, the only natural form
of social organization. … Proudhon's theory is the sum and
substance of scientific anarchism. How closely have the
American anarchists adhered to the teachings of their master?
One group, with its centre at Boston and with branch
associations in a few other cities, is composed of faithful
disciples of Proudhon. They believe that he is the leading
thinker among those who have found the source of evil in
society and the remedy therefor. They accept his analysis of
social phenomena and follow his lead generally, though not
implicitly. They call themselves Individualistic Anarchists,
and claim to be the only class who are entitled to that name.
{2942}
They do not attempt to organize very much, but rely upon
'active individuals, working here and there all over the
country.' It is supposed that they may number in all some five
thousand adherents in the United States. … They, like
Proudhon, consider the government of the United States to be
as oppressive and worthless as any of the European monarchies.
Liberty prevails here no more than there. In some respects the
system of majority rule is more obnoxious than that of
monarchy. It is quite as tyrannical, and in a republic it is
more difficult to reach the source of the despotism and remove
it. They regard the entire machinery of elections as worthless
and a hindrance to prosperity. They are opposed to political
machines of all kinds. They never vote or perform the duties
of citizens in any way, if it can be avoided. … Concerning the
family relation, the anarchists believe that civil marriage
should be abolished and 'autonomistic' marriage substituted.
This means that the contracting parties should agree to live
together as long as it seems best to do so, and that the
partnership should be dissolved whenever either one desires
it. Still, they would give the freest possible play to love
and honor as restraining motives. … The Individualistic
Anarchists … profess to have very little in common with the
Internationalists. The latter are Communistic Anarchists. They
borrow their analysis of existing social conditions from Marx,
or more accurately from the 'communistic manifesto' issued by
Marx and Engels in 1847. In the old International Workingman's
association they constituted the left wing, which, with its
leader, Bakunine, was expelled in 1872. Later the followers of
Marx, the socialists proper, disbanded, and since 1883 the
International in this country has been controlled wholly by
the anarchists. Their views and methods are similar to those
which Bakunine wished to carry out by means of his Universal
Alliance, and which exist more or less definitely in the minds
of Russian Nihilists. Like Bakunine, they desire to organize
an international revolutionary movement of the laboring
classes, to maintain it by means of conspiracy and, as soon as
possible, to bring about a general insurrection. In this way,
with the help of explosives, poisons and murderous weapons of
all kinds, they hope to destroy all existing institutions,
ecclesiastical, civil and economic. Upon the smoking ruins
they will erect the new and perfect society. Only a few weeks
or months will be necessary to make the transition. During
that time the laborers will take possession of all lands,
buildings, instruments of production and distribution. With
these in their possession, and without the interposition of
government, they will organize into associations or groups for
the purpose of carrying on the work of society."

_H. L. Osgood,
Scientific Anarchism
(Political Science Quarterly, March, 1889)._

ALSO IN:
_F. Dubois,
The Anarchist Peril._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D.1840-1848.
Louis Blanc and his scheme of State-aided Co-operation.

"St. Simonism would destroy individual liberty, would weight
the State with endless responsibilities, and the whole details
of production, distribution, and transportation. It would
besides be a despotism if it could be carried out, and not a
beneficent despotism, considering the weakness and
imperfection of men. So objected Louis Blanc to St. Simonism,
in his 'Organisation du Travail' (1840), whilst bringing
forward a scheme of his own, which, he contends, would be at
once simple, immediately applicable, and of indefinite
extensibility; in fact a full and final solution of the Social
Problem. The large system of production, the large factory and
workshop, he saw was necessary. Large capital, too, was
necessary, but the large capitalist was not. On the contrary,
capitalism—capital in the hands of private individuals, with,
as a necessary consequence, unbounded competition, was ruinous
for the working classes, and not good for the middle classes,
including the capitalists themselves, because the larger
capitalists, if sufficiently astute or unscrupulous, can
destroy the smaller ones by under-selling, as in fact they
constantly did. His own scheme was what is now called
co·operative production, with the difference that instead of
voluntary effort, he looked to the State to give it its first
motion, by advancing the capital without interest, by drawing
up the necessary regulations, and by naming the hierarchy of
workers for one year, after which the co-operative groups were
to elect their own officers. He thought that if a number of
these co-operative associations were thus launched State-aided
in each of the greater provinces of industry, they could
compete successfully with the private capitalist, and would
beat him within no very long time. By competition he trusted
to drive him out in a moderate time, and without shock to
industry in general. But having conquered the capitalist by
competition, he wished competition to cease between the
different associations in any given industry; as he expressed
it, he would 'avail himself of the arm of competition to
destroy competition.' … The net proceeds each year would be
divided into three parts: the first to be divided equally
amongst the members of the association; the second to be
devoted partly to the support of the old, the sick, the
infirm, partly to the alleviation of crises which would weigh
on other industries; the third to furnish 'instruments of
labour' to those who might wish to join the association. …
Capitalists would be invited into the associations, and would
receive the current rate of interest at least, which interest
would be guaranteed to them out of the national budget; but
they would only participate in the net surplus in the
character of workers. … Such was the scheme of Louis Blanc,
which, in 1848, when member of the Provisional Government in
France, he had the opportunity, rarely granted to the social
system-maker, of partially trying in practice. He was allowed
to establish a number of associations of working men by the
aid of Government subsidies. The result did not realize
expectations. After a longer or shorter period of struggling,
every one of the associations failed; while, on the other
hand, a number of co-operative associations founded by the
workmen's own capital, as also some industrial partnerships
founded by capitalists, on Louis Blanc's principle of
distribution of the net proceeds, were successful. … I do not
refer to the 'ateliers nationaux,' [see FRANCE: A. D. 1848]
which were not countenanced by Louis Blanc; but to certain
associations of working men who received advances from the
Government on the principle advocated in his book. There were
not many of these at first. L. Blanc congratulated himself on
being able to start a few: after the second rising the
Government subsidized fifty-six associations, all but one of
which had failed by 1875."

_W. Graham,
Socialism, New and Old,
chapter 3, section 5, with foot-note._

{2943}

"In 1848 the Constituent Assembly voted, in July, that is,
after the revolution of June, a subsidy of three millions of
francs in order to encourage the formation of working men's
associations. Six hundred applications, half coming from Paris
alone, were made to the commission entrusted with the
distribution of the funds, of which only fifty-six were
accepted. In Paris, thirty associations, twenty-seven of which
were composed of working men, comprising in all 434
associates, received 890,500 francs. Within six months, three
of the Parisian associations failed; and of the 434
associates, seventy-four resigned, fifteen were excluded, and
there were eleven changes of managers. In July, 1851, eighteen
associations had ceased to exist. One year later, twelve
others had vanished. In 1865 four were still extant, and had
been more or less successful. In 1875 there was but a single
one left, that of the file-cutters, which, as Citizen Finance
remarked, was unrepresented at the Congress."

_E. de Laveleye,
The Socialism of To-day,
chapter 5, foot-note._

ALSO IN:
_L. Blanc,
1848: Historical Revelations,
chapters 5-9, and 19._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1840-1883.
Icaria.

In 1840, Etienne Cabet published in France an Utopian romance,
the "Voyage en Icarie," which awakened remarkable interest,
very quickly. He described in this romance an ideal community,
and eight years later, having continued the propagation of his
social theories in the meantime, he undertook to carry them
into practice. A tract of land was secured in Texas, and in
February, 1848, sixty-nine emigrants—the advance guard of what
promised to be a great army of Icarians —set sail from Havre
for New Orleans. They were followed during the year by
others—a few hundreds in all; but even before the later comers
reached New Orleans the pioneers of the movement had abandoned
their Texas lands, disappointed in all their expectations and
finding themselves utterly unprepared for the work they had to
do, the expenditures they had to make, and the hardships they
had to endure. They retreated to New Orleans and were joined
there by Cabet. It happened that the Mormons, at this time,
were deserting their town of Nauvoo, in Illinois, and were
making their hejira to Salt Lake City. Cabet struck a bargain
with the retreating disciples of Joseph Smith, which gave his
community a home ready-made. The followers who adhered to him
were conveyed to Nauvoo in the spring; but two hundred more
gave up the socialistic experiment, and either remained at New
Orleans or returned to France. For a few years the colony was
fairly prosperous at Nauvoo. Good schools were maintained.
"Careful training in manners and morals, and in Icarian
principles and precepts, is work with which the schools are
especially charged. The printing office is a place of great
activity. Newspapers are printed in English, French and
German. Icarian school-books are published. … A library of
5,000 or 6,000 volumes, chiefly standard French works, seems
to be much patronized. … Frequent theatrical entertainments,
social dances, and lectures are common means of diversion. …
These families … are far from the condition of the happy
Icarians of the 'Voyage,' but considering the difficulties
they have encountered they must be accredited with having done
remarkably well." Dissensions arose however. In 1856 Cabet
found himself opposed by a majority of the community. In
November of that year he withdrew, with about 180 adherents,
and went to St. Louis, where he died suddenly, a few days
after his arrival. Those who had accompanied him settled
themselves upon an estate called Cheltenham, six miles west of
St. Louis; but they did not prosper, and were dispossessed, by
the foreclosure of a mortgage, in 1864, and the last of the
community was dispersed. The section left at Nauvoo held no
title to lands there, after Cabet separated from them, and
were forced to remove in 1860. They established themselves on
a tract of land in Adams county, southwestern Iowa, and there
Icaria, in a slender and modest form, has been maintained,
through many vicissitudes, to the present day. A new
secession, occurring 1879-83, sent forth a young colony which
settled at Cloverdale, California, and took the name of the
Icaria-Speranza Community, borrowing the name " Speranza" from
another Utopian romance by Pierre Leroux.

_A. Shaw,
Icaria._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1841-1847.
Brook Farm.

On the 29th day of September, 1841, articles of association
were made and executed which gave existence to an Association
bearing the name and style of "The Subscribers to the Brook
Farm Institute of Agriculture and Education." By the second of
these articles, it was declared to be the object of the
Association "to purchase such estates as may be required for
the establishment and continuance of an agricultural,
literary, and scientific school or college, to provide such
lands and houses, animals, libraries and apparatus, as may be
found expedient or advantageous to the main purpose of the
Association." By article six, "the Association guarantees to
each shareholder the interest of five per cent. annually on
the amount of stock held by him in the Association." By
article seven, "the shareholders on their part, for
themselves, their heirs and assigns, do renounce all claim on
any profits accruing to the Association for the use of their
capital invested in the stock of the Association, except five
per cent. interest on the amount of stock held by them." By
article eight it was provided that "every subscriber may
receive the tuition of one pupil for every share held by him,
instead of five per cent. interest." The subscribers to these
Articles, for shares ranging in amount from $500 to $1,500,
were George Ripley, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Minot Pratt, Charles
A. Dana, William B. Allen, Sophia W. Ripley, Maria T. Pratt,
Sarah F. Stearns, Marianne Ripley, and Charles O. Whitmore.
"The 'Brook Farm Association for Education and Agriculture'
was put in motion in the spring of 1841. There was no
difficulty in collecting a company of men and women large
enough to make a beginning. One third of the subscriptions was
actually paid in, Mr'. Ripley pledging his library for four
hundred dollars of his amount. With the sum subscribed a farm
of a little less than two hundred acres was bought for ten
thousand five hundred dollars, in West Roxbury, about nine
miles from Boston. The site was a pleasant one, not far from
Theodore Parker's meeting-house in Spring Street, and in close
vicinity to some of the most wealthy, capable, and zealous
friends of the enterprise.
{2944}
It was charmingly diversified with hill and hollow, meadow and
upland. … Later experience showed its unfitness for lucrative
tillage, but for an institute of education, a semi-æsthetic,
humane undertaking, nothing could be better. This is the place
to say, once for all, with the utmost possible emphasis, that
Brook Farm was not a 'community' in the usual sense of the
term. There was no element of 'socialism' in it. There was
about it no savor of antinomianism, no taint of pessimism, no
aroma, however faint, of nihilism. It was wholly unlike any of
the 'religious' associations which had been established in
generations before, or any of the atheistic or mechanical
arrangements which were attempted simultaneously or
afterwards. … The institution of Brook Farm, though far from
being 'religious' in the usual sense of the word, was
enthusiastically religious in spirit and purpose. … There was
no theological creed, no ecclesiastical form, no inquisition
into opinions, no avowed reliance on super-human aid. The
thoughts of all were heartily respected; and while some
listened with sympathy to Theodore Parker, others went to
church nowhere, or sought the privileges of their own
communion. … A sympathizing critic published in the 'Dial'
(January, 1842) an account of the enterprise as it then
appeared: … 'They have bought a farm in order to make
agriculture the basis of their life, it being the most direct
and simple in relation to nature. … The plan of the Community,
as an economy, is, in brief, this: for all who have property
to take stock, and receive a fixed interest thereon; then to
keep house or board in common, as they shall severally desire,
at the cost of provisions purchased at wholesale, or raised on
the farm; and for all to labor in community and be paid at a
certain rate an hour, choosing their own number of hours and
their own kind of work. With the results of this labor and
their interest they are to pay their board, and also purchase
whatever else they require, at cost, at the warehouses of the
community, which are to be filled by the community as such. To
perfect this economy, in the course of time they must have all
trades and all modes of business carried on among themselves,
from the lowest mechanical trade which contributes to the
health and comfort of life, to the finest art which adorns it
with food or drapery for the mind. All labor, whether bodily
or intellectual, is to be paid at the same rate of wages, on
the principle that, as the labor becomes merely bodily, it is
a greater sacrifice to the individual laborer to give his time
to it.' … The daily life at Brook Farm was, of course,
extremely simple, even homely. … There was at no time too much
room for the one hundred and fifty inmates. … The highest
moral refinement prevailed in all departments. In the morning,
every species of industrial activity went on. In the
afternoon, the laborers changed their garments and became
teachers, often of abstruse branches of knowledge. The
evenings were devoted to such recreations as suited the taste
of the individual. The farm was never thoroughly tilled, from
the want of sufficient hands. A good deal of hay was raised,
and milk was produced from a dozen cows. … Some worked all day
in the field, some only a few hours, some none at all, being
otherwise employed, or by some reason disqualified. The most
cultivated worked the hardest. … The serious difficulties were
financial. … As early as 1843 the wisdom of making changes in
the direction of scientific arrangement was agitated; in the
first months of 1844 the reformation was seriously begun," and
the model of the new organization was Fourier's "Phalanx."
"The most powerful instrument in the conversion of Brook Farm
was Mr. Albert Brisbane. He had studied the system [of
Fourier] in France, and made it his business to introduce it
here. … In March, 1845, the Brook Farm Phalanx was
incorporated by the Legislature of Massachusetts. The
Constitution breathes a spirit of hope which is pathetic at
this distance of time. … The publication of the Constitution
was followed in the summer by 'The Harbinger,' which became
the leading journal of Fourierism in the country. The first
number appeared on June 14th. … Its list of contributors was
about the most remarkable ever presented. Besides Ripley,
Dwight, Dana, and Rykman, of Brook Farm, there were Brisbane,
Channing, Curtis [George W., who had lived at Brook Farm for
two years], Cranch, Godwin, Greeley, Lowell, Whittier, Story,
Higginson, to say nothing of gentlemen less known. … 'The
Harbinger' lived nearly four years, a little more than two at
Brook Farm, less than two in New York. The last number was
issued on the 10th of February, 1849. … It is unnecessary to
speculate on the causes of the failure at Brook Farm. There
was every reason why it should fail; there was no earthly,
however much heavenly reason there may have been, why it
should succeed." In August, 1847, a meeting of stockholders
and creditors authorized the transfer of the property of the
Brook Farm Phalanx to a board of three trustees, "for the
purpose and with the power of disposing of it to the best
advantage of all concerned." And so the most attractive of all
social experiments came to an end.

_O. B. Frothingham,
George Ripley,
chapters 3-4._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1842-1889.
Profit-sharing experiments.

Profit sharing was first practised systematically by M.
Leclaire, a Parisian house-painter and decorator. Beginning to
admit his workmen to participation in the profits of his
business in 1842, he continued the system, with modifications
and developments, until his death in 1872. His financial
success was signal. It was not due to mere good fortune.
Leclaire was a man of high business capacity. … In France, the
increase in the number of participating firms, from 1855
onwards, has been comparatively steady, the number now [1889]
standing between 55 and 60. In Switzerland, the 10 instances,
dating ten years back or more, have no followers recorded in
the sources of information open to me. This fact may be
explained in some degree by the circumstances that Dr.
Böhmert's work, the chief authority thus far on this subject,
was published in 1878, and that the principal investigations
since that time have been concerned mainly with France,
England, and the United States. This remark will apply to
Germany also; but the prevalence there of socialism has
probably been an important reason for the small and slow
increase in the number of firms making a trial of the system
of participation. …
{2945}
In England, the abandonment of their noted trials of
industrial partnership by the Messrs. Briggs and by Fox, Head
and Co. in 1874 checked the advance of the scheme to a more
general trial; but in the last five years, 7 houses have
entered upon the plan. In the United States, the experience of
the Messrs. Brewster and Co. exerted a similar influence, but
by 1882 6 concerns had introduced profit sharing; these were
followed by 11 in 1886, and in 1887 by 12 others. There are,
then, at least 29 cases of profit sharing in actual operation
at this time [1889] in this country, which began in 1887,
1886, or 1882. As compared with France, Germany, and
Switzerland, the United States show a smaller number of cases
of long standing, and a considerably larger number of
instances of adoption of the system in the last three years
[1887-1889]. … Not by mere chance, apparently, the two
republics of France and the United States show the longest
lists of profit sharing firms."

_N. P. Gilman,
Profit Sharing,
chapter 9._

See, also,
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1859-1887.
The "Social Palace" of M. Godin at Guise.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1843-1874.
Ebenezer and Amana, the communities of the
"True Inspiration Congregations."

In 1843 the first detachment of a company of immigrants,
belonging to a sect called the "True Inspiration
Congregations" which had existed in Germany for more than a
century, was brought to America and settled on a tract of land
in Western New York, near the city of Buffalo. Others
followed, until more than a thousand persons were gathered in
the community which they called "Ebenezer." They were a
thrifty, industrious, pious people, who believed that their
leader, Christian Metz, and some others, were "inspired
instruments," through whom Divine messages came to them. These
messages have all been carefully preserved and printed.
Communism appears to have been no part of their religious
doctrine, but practically forced upon them, as affording the
only condition under which they could dwell simply and piously
together. In 1854 they were "commanded by inspiration" to
remove to the West. Their land at Ebenezer was advantageously
sold, having been reached by the widening boundaries of
Buffalo, and they purchased a large tract in Iowa. The removal
was accomplished gradually during the next ten years, and in
their new settlement, comprising seven villages, with the
common name, Amana, the community is said to be remarkably
thriving. In 1874 Amana contained a population of 1,485 men,
women and children.

_C. Nordhoff,
The Communistic Societies of the United States,
pages 25-43._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1843-1883.
Karl Marx.
His theory of Capital.
His socialistic influence.

"The greatest and most influential name in the history of
socialism is unquestionably Karl Marx. … Like Ferdinand
Lassalle, he was of Jewish extraction. He was born at Treves
in 1818, his father being a lawyer in that town; and he
studied at Berlin and Bonn, but neglected the specialty of
law, which he nominally adopted, for the more congenial
subjects of philosophy and history. Marx was a zealous
student, and apparently an adherent of Hegelianism, but soon
gave up his intention of following an academic career as a
teacher of philosophy, and joined the staff of the Rhenish
Gazette, published at Cologne as an organ of the extreme
democracy. While thus engaged, however, he found that his
knowledge of economics required to be enlarged and corrected,
and accordingly in 1843, after marrying the sister of the
Prussian Minister, Von Westfalen, he removed to Paris, where
he applied himself to the study of the questions to which his
life and activity were henceforward to be devoted so entirely.
Here also he began to publish those youthful writings which
must be reckoned among the most powerful expositions of the
early form of German socialism. With Arnold Ruge he edited the
'Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher.' In 1845 he was expelled
from Paris and settled in Brussels, where he published his
'Discours sur Je Libre ÉChange,' and his criticism of
Proudhon's 'Philosophie de la Misère,' entitled, 'Misère de la
Philosophie.' In Paris he had already met Friedrich Engels,
who was destined to be his lifelong and loyal friend and
companion-in-arms, and who in 1845 published his important
work, 'The Condition of the Working Class in England.' The two
friends found that they had arrived at a complete identity of
opinion; and an opportunity soon occurred for an emphatic
expression of their common views. A society of socialists, a
kind of forerunner of the International, had established
itself in London, and had been attracted by the new theories
of Marx and the spirit of strong and uncompromising conviction
with which he advocated them. They entered into relation with
Marx and Engels; the society was re-organised under the name
of the Communist League; and a congress was held, which
resulted (1847) in the framing of the 'Manifesto of the
Communist Party,' which was published in most of the languages
of Western Europe, and is the first proclamation of that
revolutionary socialism armed with all the learning of the
nineteenth century, but expressed with the fire and energy of
the agitator, which in the International and other movements
has so startled the world. During the revolutionary troubles
in 1848 Marx returned to Germany, and along with his comrades,
Engels, Wolff, &c., he supported the most advanced democracy
in the 'New Rhenish Gazette.' In 1849 he settled in London,
where he spent his after-life in the elaboration of his
economic views and in the realisation of his revolutionary
programme. During this period he published 'Zur Kritik der
politischen Oekonomie' (1859), and the first volume of his
great work on capital, 'Das Kapital' (1867). He died in
London, March 14, 1883."

_T. Kirkup,
A History of Socialism,
chapter 7._

"As to the collectivist creed, Marx looks upon history as
ruled by material interests. He borrows from Hegel the idea of
development in history, and sees in the progress of
civilization merely the development of economic production,
which involves a conflict of classes. The older socialists
were idealists, and constructed a perfect social system. Marx
simply studies economic changes, and their effects on the
conflict of classes, as a basis for predicting the future.
Starting from the principle that there are no permanent
economic laws, but merely transitory phases, a principle
denied by the modern French economists, he does not criticise
but explains our modern capitalistic industrial system, and
its effects on society. Formerly, says Engels, an artisan
owned his tools and also the product of his labor. If he chose
to employ wage earners, these were merely apprentices, and
worked not so much for wages, but in order to learn the trade.
{2946}
All this is changed by the introduction of capital and the
modern industrial system. Marx explains the origin of capital
by saying that it was formerly the result of conquest, the
pillage of peasants, and of colonies, and the secularization
of church property. However, he does not hold the present
capitalists to be robbers. He does not deal with the
capitalist but with capital. His primary theory then is that
profit on capital, on which the possibility of accumulating
wealth depends, is due to the fact that the laborer does not
receive the entire product of his labor as his reward, but
that the capitalist takes the lion's share. Under the old
industrial system, the laborer's tools, his means of
production, belonged to him. Now they are owned by the
capitalist. Owing to the improvement of machinery, and the
invention of steam-power, the laborer can no longer apply his
energy in such a way as to be fully remunerated. He now must
sell his muscular energy in the market. The capitalist who
buys it offers him no just reward. He gives the laborers only
a part of the product of his labors, pocketing the remainder
as interest on capital, and returns for risks incurred. The
laborer is cheated out of the difference between his wages and
the full product of his labor, while the capitalist's share is
increased, day by day, by this stolen amount. 'Production by
all, distribution among a few.' This is the gist of Marx's
theories. Capital is not the result of intelligent savings. It
is simply an amount of wealth appropriated by the capitalist
from the laborer's share in his product."

_J. Bourdeau,
German Socialism
(New Englander and Yale Review, September, 1891,
translated from Revue des Deux Mondes)._

"The principal lever of Marx against the present form of
industry, and of the distribution of its results, is the
doctrine that value—that is, value in exchange—is created by
labor alone. Now this value, as ascertained by exchanges in
the market or measured by some standard, does not actually all
go to the laborer, in the shape of wages. Perhaps a certain
number of yards of cotton cloth, for instance, when sold,
actually pay for the wages of laborers and leave a surplus,
which the employer appropriates. Perhaps six hours of labor
per diem might enable the laborer to create products enough to
support himself and to rear up an average family; but at
present he has to work ten hours for his subsistence. Where do
the results of the four additional hours go? To the employer,
and the capitalist from whom the employer borrows money; or to
the employer who also is a capitalist and invests his capital
in his works, with a view to a future return. The laborer
works, and brings new workmen into the world, who in turn do
the same. The tendency of wages being toward an amount just
sufficient for the maintenance of the labor, there is no hope
for the future class of laborers. Nor can competition or
concurrence help the matter. A concurrence of capitalists will
tend to reduce wages to the minimum, if other conditions
remain as they were before. A concurrence of laborers may
raise wages above the living point for a while; but these fall
again, through the stimulus which high wages give to the
increase of population. A general fall of profits may lower
the price of articles used by laborers; but the effect of this
is not to add in the end to the laborer's share. He can live
at less expense, it is true, but he will need and will get
lower wages. Thus the system of labor and capital is a system
of robbery. The capitalist is an 'expropriator' who must be
expropriated, as Marx expresses it. A just system can never
exist as long as wages are determined by free contract between
laborers and employers; that is, as long as the means of
carrying on production are in private hands. The only cure for
the evils of the present industrial system is the destruction
of private property—so far, at least, as it is used in
production; and the substitution of the state, or of bodies or
districts controlled by the state, for the private owner of
the means of production. Instead of a number of classes in
society, especially instead of a bourgeoisie and a
proletariat, there must be but one class, which works directly
or indirectly for the state, and receives as wages what the
state decides to give to them. The state, it is taken for
granted, will give in return for hours of labor as much as can
be afforded, consistently with the interests of future labor
and with the expenses necessary for carrying on the state
system itself."

_T. D. Woolsey,
Communism and Socialism,
pages 162-163._

ALSO IN:
_K. Marx,
Capital._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1848.
The founding of the Oneida Community.

The Oneida and Wallingford communities of Perfectionists are
followers of doctrines taught by one John Humphrey Noyes, a
native of Vermont, who began his preaching at Putney, in that
state, about 1834. The community at Oneida, in Madison county,
New York, was formed in 1848, and had a struggling existence
for many years; but gradually several branches of industry,
such as the making of traps, travelling bags, and the like,
were successfully established, and the community became
prosperous. Everything is owned in common, and they extend the
community system" beyond property to persons." That is to say,
there is no marriage among them, and "exclusiveness in regard
to women and children" is displaced by what they claim to be a
scientific regulation of the intercourse of the sexes. In the
early years of the Oneida Community several other settlements
of the followers of Noyes were attempted; but one at
Wallingford, Connecticut, is the only survivor.

_C. Nordhoff,
The Communistic Societies of the United States,
pages 259-293._

ALSO IN:
_J. H. Noyes,
History of American Socialisms,
chapter 46._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1848-1883.
Schulze-Delitzsch and the Co-operative movement in Germany.