An Evaluation of Private Sector Socialism*
Many utopian communities have been established in America since the 18th century. Relatively small groups of people would join together, acquire some land and form a community of people anxious to work and share as a kind of private, socialist family. A number were formed by groups that had fled religious persecution in Europe. They were often based on religious views by groups looking for a better way of life that would lead to personal salvation. Their leaders hoped their religious systems would play an important role in the redemption of mankind. Other utopian communities were viewed as laboratories of social experimentation motivated by secular and social purposes.
Whether formed for sectarian or secular purposes, some of these groups were more revolutionary than the larger, working-class movements of European socialists. The communitarians were different from Europe’s working class movements in that they attempted to withdraw completely from mainstream society rather than openly revolt against it. They attempted to build ideal commonwealths so that the world might follow their example. They sometimes tried to eliminate sex or ethnic discrimination, and they sought to abolish private property; they sought to base human relationships upon fair-dealing and respect for their neighbors, as well as upon scrupulous craftsmanship in their business transactions.
But history demonstrated more failures than successes among such communities. Only a small number of them lasted longer than a hundred years. Many vanished within a few months of their founding. These communes were early considered a “communitarian” movement because the community was at the heart of their plans. Communitarianism was seen as collectivistic, not individualistic; it was resolutely opposed to revolution, and was impatient with gradualism. The experimental communities aspired to be capable of accomplishing an immediate, thoroughgoing reform, and they hoped society at large would be capable of adopting the discoveries of successful experiments.
_________________________
*This blog is a summary of a long chapter on communitarian organizations in the history of the United States. I refer here to important studies of the communitarian societies. For the references and the details of such studies, see my book, Socialism: Origins, Expansion, Decline, and the Attempted Revival in the United States, Chapter 7, “Utopian Socialism in Communitarian America.”
The book Socialism reviewed a number of the most frequently reported examples of communitarianism in a substantial chapter on the topic. The reader is invited to learn more about Ephrata; the Shakers; the German Inspirationists at Amana, Economy, and Zoar; George Rapp at Economy, at Zoar; Amana; Robert Owen in America; Mormons and the “United Order;” Brook Farm, prelude to the phalanx; Fourier; Oneida; the Bishop Hill Commune, Cabet and the Icarians; the Hutterites; Cyrus Reed Teed; Henry George; and Roosevelt’s New Deal Communities as reported in my book. The communitarian groups are of abundant diversity, so a great deal can be learned from each case about how groups have functioned historically in various situations. Obviously, one can hardly make sweeping generalizations about how the experiences of those groups might provide insights into the functioning of socialist nations.
We can observe, however, that socialism at the federal level requires the coercion that can overcome the opposition to income redistribution, to the confiscation of private property and businesses in nationalization schemes, to the elimination of various liberties associated with market economies, and so on. The communitarian schemes were important because they were seeking a way to permit individuals and groups to live communally without forcing an entire nation to adopt a sweeping form of collectivism. As already mentioned, however, the histories of the communitarian experiments seemed to demonstrate more failures than successes, for most groups failed to last more than a few months.
One must keep in mind the huge differences between local and national socialism. The desire of communitarians is to demonstrate a better way for a society to live. Socialists are convinced that they already know the better way and hope to recruit by any possible means sufficient voters or revolutionaries to impose their desired way of life upon their fellow citizens. (Historically, they have often been willing to impose their views at the point of a gun.) Members of communitarian groups can opt out, but if the socialists can achieve a successful revolution or conquer via the ballot box, they can impose their will on society as a whole, except for those who can flee the country.
For more than a couple centuries the United States was almost uniformly convinced that market freedoms and individual liberties would best serve human happiness and prosperity. If a socialist regime had come to power only to demonstrate the standard liabilities of socialism, voters would have thrown that government out of office with dispatch.
Today, given the numbers of those who seek entitlements, subsidies, and the fruits of social activism, the power to impose the will of minority groups upon the majority appears to be increasing. That growth may be enough to place in doubt the political viability of those who prefer individual liberties and an environment that provides the reward of prosperity for learning and labor. In the past, individual communities could withdraw from society to organize according to their own preferences. But under any future socialism under contemporary conditions of global economic integration it would not be possible for groups of other persuasion to withdraw from a socialist society to form a small, independent market community.
Scholars have rather arbitrarily agreed that a communitarian organization (such as a commune) can be considered a success if it lasts at least 25 years. From a sociological perspective, the survival of a commune depends on a value system shared by the members, as well as a number of other factors, especially the organizational leadership and the transmission of the society’s culture to children and converts.
In the United States, the driving motivations for communal organization have been religion, social reform, and escapism. If communes are to endure, they must retain shared values and must demonstrate economic adaptability to maintain effective, organized governance. One study observed that In Danish communes, where there is considerably less social opposition, failure of communes is much more frequently due to internal communal factors, e.g., the personal motives of individual members, their internal personal conflicts, their excessive individualism, the lack of effective communal organization and poor planning.
Another study analyzed communal success in the United States in 281 cases from 1683 to 1937 as being functionally dependent on (i) being a pietist religious sect, (ii) leadership that successfully induces commitment, (iii) allowing some private property, and (iv) with some qualification, having anarchic governance. Political anarchism involves voluntary association of cooperative groups rather than normal, centralized governmental institutions. It is generally felt among scholars that success in communal endeavors depends on the commitment of the participants. Additionally, the likelihood of success is enhanced when leaders make some concessions to egoistic concerns of participants. It was found that when continuance, cohesion, and control strategies are applied to solidify commitment, personalities are bound to social systems and their functions. When those strategies were employed, 19th century American utopian communities were generally successful, i.e., enduring.
When members of a communal organization are asked to sacrifice, i.e., to give up something as a price of membership, their motivation to remain will increase. Membership becomes more “sacred,” more valuable and meaningful if such sacrifice is made. Communion is defined as becoming an integral part of the self with the group. Homogeneity was also achieved through the general acceptance by the participants of the same communal conditions and the leadership’s demands for sacrifice over a period of time. Factors likely to produce homogeneity included, for example, common religious background; similar economic, educational status; common ethnic background; prior acquaintance of members; communistic sharing; property signed over at admission; signed-over property received while a member; the community as a whole owned land; the community as a whole owned buildings; the community as a whole owned furniture, tools, equipment; the community as a whole owned clothing, personal effects; communistic labor; no compensation for labor; no charge for community services; no skills requirement for admission. These are only part of the factors that can structure communal life in such a way as to enhance the feelings of commitment participants have for their communal situation.
With these considerations it becomes more readily apparent why achieving long-term success in such organizations is difficult and rather rare. But where communities did succeed by surviving for an extended period, observers found much therein to admire and hope to preserve for the diversity of social life.