Socialist Utopian Communities in the U.S. and Reasons for Their Failures
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Providence College DigitalCommons@Providence Annual Celebration of Student Scholarship and Creativity Spring 2013 Socialist Utopian Communities in the U.S. and Reasons for their Failures Elizabeth Nako Providence College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.providence.edu/student_scholarship Part of the United States History Commons Nako, Elizabeth, "Socialist Utopian Communities in the U.S. and Reasons for their Failures" (2013). Annual Celebration of Student Scholarship and Creativity. 14. https://digitalcommons.providence.edu/student_scholarship/14 It is permitted to copy, distribute, display, and perform this work under the following conditions: (1) the original author(s) must be given proper attribution; (2) this work may not be used for commercial purposes; (3) users must make these conditions clearly known for any reuse or distribution of this work. Socialist Utopian Communities in the U.S. and Reasons for their Failures Elizabeth Nako 12/7/2012 Nako 1 Near mid-nineteenth century, dozens of groups of men and women in both North America and Europe at this time saw “forming communities as the best opportunity for social progress” (Clark 1). The nineteenth century experienced an industrial revolution which brought the world together into one vast international market from the invention of the steamboat, telegraph, and railroad. Also, the industrial revolution brought a mass amount of wealth with machines now powered by both electricity and steam that increased productivity. Of course while all of these new inventions and ideas were great, they also created a great amount of social problems and unrest. While a small number of men enjoyed the luxuries and riches with the benefits of the Industrial Revolution, the majority of people comprised of the working class found themselves in suffering and misery from this new system. Also, among “captains of industry” and their production and competition among other companies, there were alternate seasons of intense work and activity, and then seasons of idleness and reoccurring periods of an “industrial depression” (Hilliquit 37). The unhappiness amongst civilization at this time period led to social philosophers and reformers to find new systems to cope with these social problems of the working class. One of these reform ideas and probably the most radical of all theories proposed that which “discerns the root of all evils in competitive industry and wage labor, and advocates the reconstruction of our entire economic system on the basis of cooperative production” (Quint 10). This theory is referred to by the name of Socialism. This scheme of theory of newly social organization was supposed to be liberated from the abuses of modern society and invited humanity to adopt this happy country, a Utopia (Greek for “nowhere”) (Clark 24). Utopian socialists believed that they could gradually convert the entire world to their system “by a practical demonstration of its feasibility and benefits in a miniature society” (Hilliquit 78). During the nineteenth century, historians estimate that about several hundred Nako 2 socialist utopia communities existed in various parts of the United States, and that the number of people whom participated in these experiments were hundreds of thousands (Hilliquit 38). Thus although these socialist utopian communities seemed ideal for a group of people living together for the betterment of a whole, unfortunately these ideas were lost in a capitalist American society. These socialistic utopias could not survive in a country with a competitive industry, and eventually social and economic problems within the communities would contribute to the demise of these utopias. Early socialism thought focused more on humanitarian ideas rather than acting as a “political movement” (Hilliquit 18). Early socialists did not analyze the new system of production as researchers do today, but attempted to form a scheme “free from the abuses of modern civilization” and the current “malicious contrivances of the dominant powers in society” (Hilliquit 18). Groups of people came together to form communities whether either religious or secular “consecrated to harmony, solidarity, and happiness” (Hilliquit vi) in a world that has unfortunately culminated into a “hopelessly deliquescent where nothing could be taken for granted anymore” (Hilliquit vi). But did these “utopian socialistic” communities actually survive? According to Morris Hillquit, he claims that these socialistic communities were in trouble from the start because these ideal socialistic communities “could not create a society all- sufficient in itself; they were forced into constant dealings with the outside world” (Hilliquit vii). The main reason of the failure of two Massachusetts ideal based communities, Brook Farm and the Northampton Association, is because they both lacked the financial means to stay alive in a capitalist society with “communal” and “cooperative” values of socialist thought. These social and economic factors are evident in both the failings of these socialist utopian communities. When talking about both of these communities, their high points, and what led to their demises in Nako 3 capitalist America, it is important to discuss how these communities came to be. They came into existence from the notions of “Fourierism”. Charles Fourier was born on February 7, 1772 in Besancon, France. His father was a wealthy merchant so it was imminent that he would follow the same path although he tried the business in his younger years and he was too much of an “honest man” for this business that involves both “the noble art of lying and the skill to sell” (Hilliquit 70). At the age of eighteen, he traveled through France, Holland, Belgium, and Germany where he took the opportunity to study the politics of these countries, the architecture of the important cities of these countries, and finally, he took the advantage to study the social conditions and the “mode of life” of the citizens of these countries (Hilliquit 70). It was after his travels that he became interested in social problems and he soon decided to forget about becoming a mercantile like his father and devoted himself to investigating these social dilemmas. Hilloquit states that “Fourier is the apostle of social harmony”, and how Fourier’s “system was a compromise, a scheme of harmony between capital and labor” (Hilliquit 78). Different from other utopias, his criticism in how things were at the time is not from the sufferings of the poor or the non- distribution of social wealth between the higher and lower classes, but from “the rebarbative conditions of labor and the uneconomical of modern production” (Hilliquit 79). Fourier wanted to solve these issues by establishing a social unit called the Phalanx which would “provide a field broad enough to allow everyone to exercise usefully his varied inclinations by means of Groups and Series, a large number of individuals…must associate together” (Hilliquit 74). The enormous economies and the great wealth of the Phalanxes would benefit all members working together and all the work done for this one cooperative, hence the socialist utopian community. It is important to note that by no means did Fourier identify himself as a communist because he did not want there to be any Nako 4 community property in the Phalanx. He believed that “A diversity of wealth and enjoyments is essential to universal harmony” (Hilliquit 78). Charles Fourier wanted to establish a “trial phalanx” to try out his ideas, but he passed away before the establishment of both Brook Farm and the Northampton Association. The Fourierist Movement was brought to the United States in the mid-nineteenth century when the American intellectual, Albert Brisbane, who was attracted to the humanitarian systems of the socialist utopias at this times, published in 1840 his “Social Destiny of Man” that had a great success in the U.S. and was read by all different socioeconomic classes of people who were interested in social conditions (Hilliquit 81). Other contributions to the spread of Fourierism in the U.S. were: the publications of the magazines the Phalanx and the Harbinger, frequent public lectures given by pioneers of the movement, and when the previously established utopian community in the U.S., Brook Farm, adopted the Fourierist values. The lectures was one way that led to big growth in the U.S. because the U.S. at this point in time was going through some of its own periodic crises such as the near cease of production and the sky-rocket in unemployment that led to an alarming amount of vagrants (Hilliquit 85). Fourierism in the United States promised to bring “permanent order and harmony into industry and mutual independence into the social relations of men” (Hilliquit 86). Although after both the phalanxes Brook Farm and the Northampton Association were established is when problems would be seen that would lead to their demises. The Fourierist communities had many similar problems in general that led to their demise in capitalist America. One general problem was their size. Fourier had foreseen during his lifetime that a Phalanx would not be successful unless the phalanx had between one thousand five hundred to two thousand members, and that the phalanx contained a capital of about one Nako 5 million francs (Hilliquit 87). Fourierists always idealized a large and wealthy association and warned against “hasty experiments” with insufficient members and funds (i.e. capital). Unfortunately though, Fourierism had swept across the masses of the population and people were eager to form communities without knowing whether they had enough capital and/or people to form a beneficent community. In the Northampton Association, heavy debts and shortage of capital played a major role in the failure of this specific association (Clark 3). These were two of the major social and economic problems with socialist utopian communities. Another general failure of Fourier’s plan of social organization was the imperfections of Fourier’s plan once the socialist communities were in existence (Hilliquit 88).