SOME COMMUNISTIC EXPERIMENTS.

BY ROBERT GLADSTONE, JUN., B.C.L., M.A. Of all the studies which are open to thoughtful persons, there are few which are superior in interest to the study of sociology, that is, the study of social systems, their origin, changes, and ultimate destination. To the general public, perhaps the most attractive department of the study of sociology is that which endeavours to ascertain what will be the future and final form of social organisation. Hence, any author who proposes to discover the ultimate form of society, or who puts forward views regarding a perfect form of society, seldom lacks an audience. Such authors are to be found in considerable numbers, and an entire volume could easily be written upon the various "Utopias "* which social reformers, from the time of Plato onwards, have designed. What is curious, and what might not have been expected, is that the number of social reformers who have attempted to put their ideas into practice appears to be as great as, or greater than, that of the mere theorists who have published social schemes, and have rested content at that point. In the following pages a short description is given of a few of the more prominent experimental societies which have been founded upon a communistic plan, for few, if any, of such experi

*The word Utopia literally means Nowhere. It is taken from Sir Thomas More's Utopia, which was first published (in Latin) in 1516. cf. William Morris's News from Nowhere, published in 1891. Kaufmann's Utopias, or Schemes of Social Improvement (London, 1879), contains interesting criticisms, and the little volume of Utopias in Morley's Universal Library may be consulted with advantage. Neither of these works, however, includes the productions of the later Utopian writers, such as Edward Bellamy.

S

ments have proceeded upon any other than a communistic basis.* This fact is very remarkable, for it would clearly seem to support the theory that the progress of human society is from communism, through individualism, back to communism again-a theory which will receive some illustration from the facts adduced below.

Now in order that it may be definitely understood what is meant by a "communistic experiment," it will be advisable to draw attention to the three points on which communism differs from individualism,- individualism being the system generally in vogue at the present time. These three points are: (1) private property; (2) marriage; and (3) the family, all of which are characteristic of individualism. The first and the last points are easily understood, for the opposite to private property is common property, and the opposite to family life is life in common, such, for instance, as exists to some extent at the older universities. The opposite to marriage is not readily described without giving offence, and without employing words which have acquired an abusive meaning. Perhaps we may say that it is voluntary association, privately contracted, and dissoluble at the will of either party. This does not mean promiscuity, much less what is called community of wives," for in a true community women would be as free agents as the men, whereas the expression "community of wives" evidently implies that the women would be the common property (more or less) of the men. Under a voluntary association it is clear that if a couple are really well suited to one another, there is nothing to prevent them being faithful to one another for life. Of course, another alternative to marriage is total

66

*Even the "Freeland" experiment of 1895 was based on the abolition of property in land, and of interest on capital. See the Fortnightly Review N.S., vol. lvii, pp. 260-6.

celibacy, and we shall see that many communities have chosen this alternative. Having made these preliminary explanations, we may proceed to notice some of the more prominent instances in which the three characteristics of individualism have been departed from, commencing with a few examples of communistic practices which seem to be survivals from primitive times.

In most cases, when communistic practices are found among uncivilised races, they are to be explained as survivals from a primitive state of communism, and not as experiments of comparatively modern date. That the primitive state of human society was communistic there can scarcely be any doubt. Virtually all the writers who have inquired into the origin of private property are agreed in this respect. Sir Henry Maine, in his Ancient Law; * * Emile de Laveleye, in his work on Primitive Property; Professor Letourneau, in his Property, its Origin and Development; and Paul Lafargue, in his Evolution of Property, || all take the same view-that in primitive times society was organised upon a communistic basis. Indeed, it is not too much to say that after a careful consideration of the facts no other view can possibly be taken. Even Grotius, in his Jus Belli ac Pacis, § adopted this hypothesis, while in classical Greek and Roman authors the same idea prevails universally. Cicero, in four words, expresses the classical opinion, Sunt privata nulla natura.¶

*Ancient Law, p. 268: "We have the strongest reason for thinking that property once belonged, not to individuals, nor even to isolated families, but to larger societies."

Tr., London, 1878.

Tr., London, 1892.

|| Tr., London, 1890.

§ Lib. II, cap. ii, § 2, 4; A primævá communione rerum primo mobilium, deinde et immobilium, discessum est.

¶ De Off., I, vii, 21.

The condition of the American continent at the time of its discovery is thus summarised by an American writer.* "When Columbus landed at San Salvador, the American continent was in the hands of communists. Every American people, from the Esquimaux of the north to the Patagonians of the south, held at least their lands in common." He goes on to say that a separate and temporary right of cultivation was permitted in exceptional instances. Where the land was not appropriated at all, the tribes, such as the Ojibwas, Dacotas, and Nez Percés, together with the Blackfeet and most of the Indians of the plains, threw their spoil or game into a common fund, and distributed it among the various wigwams. Where the tribes were residentiary, they usually lived in large common houses, capable of holding a great number of people. Their granaries and meals were in common, and hospitality to strangers was an almost invariable rule. Such were the tribes known as Iroquois, Powhatans, Creeks, Mandans, and others. In Mexico and in South America + much the same system prevailed, only that the common houses and public halls were built of stone and other durable materials, instead of boughs or rushes, or the like.

The Earl of Cumberland, who visited the Caribbees of South America in 1506, was greatly surprised to find them living and taking their meals in common in large public huts. The Earl had read of the usages of the ancient Spartans, and was struck with their resemblance to those. of the Caribbees.‡

In Africa, among the primitive races, the same practices are to be found. A highly competent observer, the * See the interesting article on Communism in the Encyclopædia Americana, and the authorities quoted there.

For a summary of the communistic principles of the ancient Mexican and Peruvian civilisations, see the Westminster Review, vol. cxliv, pp. 605–14. Purchas's Pilgrimes, vol. iv (commencement).

late Lieut.-Colonel Ellis,* says of numerous tribes on the West Coast: "In the case of all the tribes . there is no individual property in land, though the notion that land can be the property of the individual, instead of the community, has begun to appear among the Yorubas. Probably, in early times, movable as well as immovable property was once common. It still is, to a large extent, common to the family, and, at an earlier stage, when the group was homogeneous, it was no doubt common to the group or community."

Turning to India, it may be remarked that the system of communal houses seems to be specially noticeable in Assam. In the Journal of the Anthropological Institute for 1893 there is a particularly interesting paper by S. E. Peall on the communal houses, or "morongs," of Assam. The author gives a list of many different countries where similar institutions occur, and he endeavours to prove that these communal houses are derived from the primitive practice of communism. With regard to Europe, it may suffice for present purposes to name the system of the "mir" in Russia, and the much-debated method of land tenure in use among our Teutonic ancestors, which was to a very large extent communistic. These instances will perhaps be enough to show how widely prevalent communistic practices are among primitive peoples, and how they survive even at the present day. An abundance of similar evidence will be found in the works referred to above.‡

Now the original establishment of communistic institutions among primitive races is, without doubt, due to that

*Yoruba-speaking Peoples, p. 303.

Journ. Anthr. Inst., XXII, iii, 244-61: "On the Morong, as possibly a relic of pre-marriage communism."

Some interesting information is given in Herbert Spencer's Principles of Sociology, vol. iii, pp. 428-39 and 565-70.