See also Over 300 PDF/Acrobat Books on Socialism, Communism and Economics
For a list of all of my disks, ebooks and digital books click here
Utopian and other Socialists have attempted many times to form communities on the Socialistic principles of common ownership and communistic rules. After trial, all of these have been failures.
Scientific Socialism now claims that Socialism cannot be made successful unless practiced the world over.
This is bad logic under the axiom, "that what is a failure in part will be a failure in total." The following is a list of the Socialist communities that have failed:
France—Commune of 1793, Baboeuf Conspiracy, Saint Simonism, French National Workshops, Paris Commune of 1871, Brest Municipality, the Glassworks of Albi, the Miners' Mine.
Great Britain—Owenism at New Lanark, Orbiston and Tytherby Communities, Labor Colony at Laindon, Labor Colony at Hollesby Bay, Labor Colony at South Oakenden.
American—Nauvoo, 1ll. (New Icaria), the Rappites, New Harmony, Oneida Community, Red Bank Social State, Mount Whitney, Communism in Paraguay, New Australia.
Imperial Failures—Murray River Settlement, Alice River Settlements.
The most notable failure was the community, New Australia, established in Paraguay in 1893, having a total of 450 colonists and being granted by the Paraguan government 450,000 acres of land, one-half heavily timbered, a great part of this timber being valuable hardwoods, which could have been sold at a good price, and rafted down the river by cheap water transportation. The balance of the land was prairie land, excellent for pastures. The colonists were relieved from taxation for a long period of time, and were allowed to make importations free of duty. Each colonist contributed $300 or more to the general fund, and they owned their own ship of 600 tons capacity, together with 2,500 cattle. They were allowed to manage their own colony according to their own laws and without any interference from the Paraguan government, and nothing but bad management and the lack of personal motives stood in the way of their success.
Among other rules they adopted the following:
"Ownership and conduct by the community of all land, tools, industries, production in exchange and distribution. Saving by community of all capital needed by the community; maintenance of children by community; protection, education and general well-being of each individual guaranteed by community. After all this has been done, the balance of the wealth co-operatively produced shall be divided equally between every adult member, without regard to sex, age, office or physical or mental capacity.
"Female suffrage and equality of the sexes in all matters.
"Religion not to be officially recognized by the community."
Inside of two years the colony was disbanded, and those colonists who remained abandoned the idea of Socialism and went back to the individual life.
In the latter part of the colony's existence the children who were under the care of the community for their food, clothing and education were fed three times a day a diet of cornmeal, sweet potatoes and mandoica, making a variety by leaving one of these off every meal.
No timber had been cut by the "comrades" because each was too lazy to do the chopping, and as the 2,500 head of cattle had been sold they were deprived of milk and butter.
Thus the greatest Socialistic settlement ever promoted came to disastrous failure.
The following from the past is a vivid summary of Socialism:
"I have consulted our philosophers, I have perused their books, I have examined their several opinions, I have found them all proud, positive and dogmatizing even in their pretended skepticism, knowing everything, proving nothing, and ridiculing one another, and this is the only point in which they concur, and in which they are right. Daring when they attack, they defend themselves without vigor. If you consider their arguments, they have none but for destruction. Where is the philosopher who, for his own glory, would not willingly deceive the whole human race? Where is he who, in the secret of his heart, proposes any other object than his own distinction? Provided he can raise himself above the commonalty, provided he can eclipse his competitors, he has reached the summit of his ambition. The great thing for him is to think differently from other people. Shun, shun, then, those who, under pretense of explaining nature, sow in the hearts of men the most dispiriting doctrines, whose skepticism is far more affirmative and dogmatical than the decided tone of their adversaries. Under pretense of being themselves the only people enlightened, they imperiously subject us to their magisterial decisions, and would fain palm upon us, for the true causes of things, the unintelligible systems they have erected in their own heads; whilst they overturn, destroy and trample under foot all that mankind reveres, snatch from the afflicted the only comfort left them in their misery, from the rich and great the only curb that can restrain their passions; tear from the heart all remorse of vice, all hopes of virtue; they still boast themselves benefactors of mankind. 'Truth,' they say, 'is never hurtful to man.' I believe that as well as they, and the same, in my opinion, is proof that what they teach is not the truth."—Rousseau, as quoted by Gandolphy in his defense of the Ancient Faith.