p The record of American Utopian communities offers a great body of information to discuss the relationship between theory and practice, ways to realize a social ideal and the role of utopia in the development of society.

p Above all, this record shows that a utopia can be implemented on a limited spatial and temporal scale even when historical conditions for a complete and stable realization of its ideals throughout the given society have not yet matured. In other words, certain ideals and values 210 arbitrarily created by the imagination and at variance with objective trends of social development can be implemented within a small enclave and can guide its functioning within a limited period.

p In the 19th century, when U.S. capitalism was advancing swiftly, exacerbating social inequality, com petition and individualism and turning man into an appendage of machines, there were islands in American society where people were trying to mold their relations according to the principles of brotherhood and cooperation, where work was no longer a curse, where there were no masters or slaves. For a short time, a social miracle occurred somewhere, alleviating despair with the hope that soon the world would become one big Utopia making everyone happy, that the social ideal upheld by Utopian socialists was attainable. In 1845 Frederick Engels published his "Description of Recently Founded Communist Colonies Still in Existence" and made the following conclusion: "Communism, social existence and activity based on community of goods, is not only possible but has actually already been realized in many communities in America and in one place in England, with the greatest success.”  [210•1  Using the sources available at the time, specifically the letters of John Finch, an Owenite and a traveler, in the New Moral World, Engels wrote that although members of these communities saw the world in a religious light, they managed to implement principles which were the aim Communists wanted to attain in society as a whole.

p What attracted and inspired the young colleague of Marx was clear from his description, based on Finch’s testimony, of the way the Shakers lived. "Each of these communities," Engels wrote, "is a fine, well laid-out town, with dwelling houses, factories, workshops, assembly buildings and barns; they have flower and vegetable gardens, fruit trees, woods, vineyards, meadows and arable land in abundance; then, livestock of all kinds.... Their granaries are always full of corn, their store-rooms full of clothing materials.”

p Material abundance is an important feature of life in communist communities, and Engels emphasized that.

p “Amongst these people no one is obliged to work against 211 his will, and no one seeks work in vain. They have no poorhouses and infirmaries, having not a single person poor and destitute, nor any abandoned widows and orphans." This referred to the practicability of ideals like free labor and social equality.

p “In their ten towns there is not a single gendarme or police officer, no judge, lawyer or soldier, no prison or penitentiary; and yet there is proper order in all their affairs. The laws of the land are not for them and as far as they are concerned could just as well be abolished and nobody would notice any difference." Here Engels stressed the absence of public authority, above all of the typically bourgeois organs of coercion.

p “They enjoy, as we said," Engels concluded, "the most absolute community of goods and have no trade and no money among themselves"  [211•1 —meaning that their relations were based on public property.

p Today it is clear that Engels’s article reflects both insufficiency of information and what a historian has termed "illusions of previous socialist thought".  [211•2  But it is interesting first and foremost as a document which highlights the contemporary view of the American communities held by a man who was among the most progressive thinkers of the time, who was critical of existing society and already saw the key to social transformations not in communitarian movements but in social revolution, but who worked to devise a theoretical and practical substantiation of communism as a principle guiding the organization of social relations.

p Engels underlined above all those features of Utopian communist communities which were clearly to their credit: their attempts to organize life on the basis of public property, thereby solving many of the contradictions inherent in the very existence of private property. Utopian communities, Engels noted, had demonstrated that life could be organized on the basis of public property—something advocates of communism were trying to prove theoretically. The record of the American communities offered practical evidence which simply could not be missed.

p Later, when Marx and Engels formulated the principles of scientific communism and when the important thing was not so much to prove that communist relations and institutions could in fact exist as to identify the historical and material conditions necessary for their implementation, the founders of Marxism pointed primarily to the negative aspects of the Utopian communitarian experience. They showed that the existence of public property as an institution in inadequate historical conditions was powerless to solve all problems even within the Utopian communities themselves, and that the latter did not pave the way for transforming society as a whole. Engels wrote in 1866: "Our views on the distinction between a future, non- capitalist society and society as it is today are exact conclusions’ from the historical facts and development processes and, unless presented in conjunction with these facts and this development, are theoretically and practically without value.”  [212•1  Hence the criticism of all sorts of "domestic colonies" and "small Icarias"—and this despite the fact that the "small Icarias" were striving to observe faithfully the organizational principle of public property.

p Indeed, the record of the American Utopian communities proves that not only the scope of public property in the capitalist system but also its economic and humanitarian effects were limited. The emancipatory potential of the institutions of public property was small since at that time, in the first half of the 19th century, the capitalist mode of production had not yet exhausted all its possibilities, nor had it created a material and technical basis adequate to the new type of social relations. Public property could not ensure the realization of humanitarian, economic and moral advantages expected from it. Subsequent history confirmed that this realization was possible only on the basis of advanced productive forces and high labor efficiency. No wonder that members of most Utopian communities had little likeness to the all-round, free people Owen, Fourier, Cabet and many other Utopians dreamed about. Where economic success was attained, spiritual and cultural levels were usually low (except for the religious 213 aspect). On the other hand, where special attention was paid to the spiritual and cultural aspects, as in New Harmony or Brook Farm, economic advances were small and the communities themselves survived for a few months only.

p The American communitarian experience proved that realization of Utopian ideals on a limited scale could not create a stable alternate Utopian world (the dream of Utopian experimenters) and that the establishment of a " living Utopia" could not transform society radically or effectively. And, although communitarian experiments continued virtually throughout the 200 years of American history, it was a pulsating world, a phoenix of a world because most Utopian communes were short-lived. Some disintegrated like New Harmony, others like Oneida or Amana, degenerated into capitalist enterprises, still others were in decline for decades and then ended up like New Harmony or Oneida.

p While all communities ceased to exist sooner or later, their life spans were different. Ephrata survived for 172 years (1733-1905); Harmonian communities, for 102 years (1803-1905); Amana, for 89 years (1843-1932); Zoar, for 81 years; Icarian communities, for 48 years (1847-1895); Aurora and Bethel, for 37 years (1844-1881); Brook Farm, for 5 years (1841-1846); and New Harmony, for 2 years (1825-1827). Data on the duration of the communities’ operation differ one to three years from author to authoras a rule, because the legal records formalizing a community’s establishment or demise did not always coincide with the actual dates. Brook Farm, as a Fourierist community into which it was transformed in 1844, existed for only 2 years.

p Religious communities proved much more durable than secular ones, especially Owenite and Fourierist. Does this mean that religion was the integrating and stabilizing factor of communal life? Or could it be that religious communities possessed some qualities extending their life span, yet nonreligious in nature?

p It is common knowledge that religion possesses considerable integrating power rooted in its organizational, ritual and doctrinal elements, especially within a sect which is viewed by the outside world with suspicion or outright hostility and which has to continuously fight for survival, doing its utmost to block any deviation of its members 214 from the credo proclaimed. Religion provides the community’s members with a common purpose and an unshakable faith in the truth of the principles adopted. Besides, religious psychology is, in all probability, even more important than religious ideology. According to Candidus Hugo, an early student of the communitary movement in the United States, "there is good reason why religious inspiration plays such a prominent part in many colonies. Firm faith in the Bible as interpreted by an inspired medium, often the head of the community, is the very raison d’etre of many communities”.  [214•1 

p But a secular doctrine can perform this function too— if it is properly organized in psychological terms and capable of arousing deep feelings and enthusiasm, at least within a comparatively small community. This means that the heart of the matter lies not only in religion but also in its concomitants which are, in themselves, devoid of a religious meaning but which, combined with religious faith, help to stabilize the community and keep its elements together.

p In most relatively stable communities there existed a rigid hierarchy and a cult of the founder and leader. The important role of the latter can be deduced from the fact that upon his death some communities either declined rapidly and continued in a sorry state (although sometimes surviving for a long time) or disintegrated completely. For example, this happened to Aurora and Bethel which ceased to exist, respectively, three and four years after the death of their founder Dr. William Keil in 1877. Oneida turned into a company of stockholders soon after John Noyes, its founder, left it. The great stabilizing role of a charismatic leader is borne out by the record of many secular communes—New Harmony, ,held together by Robert Owen, or Icaria, whose pillar was Etienne Cabet.

p A well-devised organizational structure and a smoothly functioning system of social management were typical of stable communities. Note that this does not refer to a “rigid” or “loose” management structure, that is, not to its flexibility or democratic nature but precisely to their smooth, orderly way of functioning. Where the 215 administrative system was haphazard, the death of the leader who held all power in his own hands and whose personal prestige checked centrifugal tendencies often spelled doom for the community.

p Another typical feature of stable communities was the social homogeneity of their members. As a rule, they were peasants and handicraftsmen whose requirements, especially intellectual ones, were rather modest. It is important to add that many such communities were founded by foreigners (mostly Germans, but also Swedes, French, Russians and others) to whom survival of the community was often almost literally a matter of life and death.

p Finally, most stable communities were closed societies. They were cautious and restrained in admitting new members, setting a trial period for them and strictly observing the principle of no deviations from a single faith. This was in sharp contrast to the admission to Fourierist and especially Owenite communities whose doors were open to all who wished to enter, and where social, ethnic or any other homogeneity was out of the question (with very few exceptions).

p The features which destabilized the communities and contributed to their disintegration included, first and foremost, their social heterogeneity which led to gaps in the levels of requirements,education, culture, value orientations, etc. The higher the overall cultural level and the greater the gap in the levels of culture and requirements, the faster these communes fell apart.

p Contributing to the disintegration was also the hostility of the social milieu around a community. In turn, the degree of this hostility depended on the degree of the community’s radicalism, its social activity and its own hostility to the milieu. When a community’s lifestyle appeared too dangerous—and everyday consciousness saw the danger not so much in the institution of public property as in “ godlessness”, "crimes against morality", "destruction of the family" and the like, that is, primarily associating it with religious and moral issues, and when its activities were too energetic and destructive, “society” took an active part in undermining and discrediting the community. This was what happened to Oneida which shocked American society by its practice of "composite marriage”.

p The succession of generations was a factor in the 216 disintegration of those communities where marriage was allowed. This, incidentally, explains why celibacy was introduced in several communities and why the founders regarded it as a powerful integrating factor. The reason was not that it upheld the moral spirit, as it was often alleged, but that it prevented the birth of a new generation. If that was not the case, the children and grandchildren of the original colonists became community members not by choice or inner conviction, like their fathers and grandfathers, but by birth. And, although their socialization proceeded according to norms and principles which should have instilled in the younger generations devotion to communal life and to the interests which had guided the pioneers, the effort was often a failure, especially if the community maintained more or less close contacts with the outside world. The social organization principles and concerns of this world frequently proved more attractive, prompting the younger generation to abandon the commune and eroding the faith in the ideals which had inspired the original settlers.

p Obviously, all these factors merely accelerated the collapse of Utopian communities; the chief cause was the fundamental incompatibility of the communities’ basic norms, institutions and relations with the norms, institutions and relations dominant in the outside world and rooted in objective sociohistorical trends.

p Here one should note that most secular and even some religious communities were plagued by disputes (and consequent reorganizations) over loyalty to the doctrine or principles its members were to uphold. These disputes did more to erode than to consolidate the members’ unity. They were not caused merely by the quarrelsome irascibility of some Utopians but by basic differences of opinion which never failed to surface with the passage of time and which were connected with the search for the best ways for the community to function. These differences concerned property (specifically, the degree to which personal property and the means of production were to be socialized), organization of labor, distribution of the surplus product, contacts with the outside world and similar matters. “Dogmatists” refused to accept any deviation from the originally proclaimed credo (often formalized in the “ charters” and “constitutions” of the communities), pointing 217 out— and with good reason— that the realization of this credo was why the community was founded in the first place. “Revisionists” objected, with equally good reason, that without appropriate adjustments to the credo, both the community and the credo might simply cease to exist. Nevertheless, neither those who, after their communities split apart, reaffirmed a revision of the credo, nor those who remained rigidly loyal to its unadulterated version succeeded in realizing the original objectives consistently or fully.

In assessing, in overall terms, the historical role of the American Utopian communities in the 19th and the first half of the 20th centuries and acknowledging their impracticability as economic, political and social enterprises, one cannot fail to see their role as an experimental model of social organization of great heuristic significance for social and political scientists and as an important factor in the development of socialist consciousness and culture in the United States-as emphasized in the program of the Communist Party, U.S.A.  [217•1