Next week, we’ll be discussing Fitzhugh Brundage’s book, A Socialist Utopia in the New South. I’ve posted some reading tips that may be useful to you.
By noon before class, you should also write a comment on this post that answers one of the following questions:
- Like other communes we’ve considered, the Ruskin colony was a small group that represented a "marginal" group of radicals. How would Brundage answer a reader who asks, "So what? Why should we study this group?" Does his answer hinge on their influence, or on some other reason?
- In our last class, Becca raised the question of whether communalists still betrayed parts of the "American dream." A slightly different version of that question is often raised in discussions of the history of socialism; cholars were once impressed by the fact that there seemed to be less socialism in the United States than in other countries. Does Brundage’s account of Ruskin offer some explanation for "why there is no (or little) socialism in America?"
- You might also consider a related question of why socialism has come to be seen by so many people today as un-American. Does the Ruskin colony complicate that notion? Does its experience explain why the notion retains power?
- Last week’s readings from Kanter distinguished between communes that had "weak" boundaries and communes that had "strong" ones. Which kind was Ruskin, and why? Do the attributes that Kanter attributes to communities in the weak/strong category apply to Ruskin?
- What did "socialism" mean for the Ruskinites?
While your comment should focus on one of these questions, please work to consider all of them as you read. You are responsible for being able to comment specifically and in an informed way on the entire book, not just the part you choose to write about.
I believe that W. Fitzhugh Brundage would argue that while the Ruskin colony did exist as a “marginal” group of radicals, their particular interest in creating a socialist society is notable and worth studying because the community has “implications for our understanding of the transformations then taking place within the New South.” (4) In other words, through studying the Ruskin colony, we can gain an alternate perspective on life in the post-Civil War South: a view that is not part of the stereotypical antebellum tradition. However, what Ruskin ideology retained from society at large is also worth examining, because it shows that even a utopian community could not overcome some inherent aspects of Southern life.
There were many ways that the Ruskin colony was innovative for its time and even unique to other utopian societies. It pursued a vision of cooperative operation through communal cooking, property holding and housekeeping as an alternative to what had become a highly mechanized, industrial society. The colony also offered free medical care and attempted to displace traditions by providing equal wages for both men and women, while traditional Southern society did not have gender equality in the workforce. By hoping to have a community of “sensible, intelligent, earnest and industrious people,” the Ruskin colony placed a large emphasis on education, with bylaws mandating that it be provided for all children, through teaching methods that “represented a rejection of the conventional curriculum.” (119) The religious affiliations of the colony were also varied, separating from the strong Christian tradition of the region (although Christianity, specifically Protestantism, still represented the majority of the residents). Perhaps different from any other utopian society before it, the Ruskin colony had the ability to broadcast their progress to a nationwide audience through the production of the Coming Nation newspaper. However, despite all that can be understood through the Ruskin rejection of traditional Southern society, there were aspects of how the residents lived that were not all that different; showing that some aspects of Southern culture were pervasive even through a place as radical as Ruskin.
One aspect of the Ruskin colony that was more typical of society at large was that despite believing in equal opportunities, “the all white membership of the colony reflected the conventional racial attitudes that most Ruskinites held.” (44) Slavery was still an obstacle in the way of the Ruskin communal lifestyle, and there were even entrance exams “in an effort to be more selective in admission [to the colony].” (50) In addition, operating as a “company town,” with residents involved in a joint-stock ownership, still echoes the industrial sentiment of the greater society at the time, with only the communal approach separating Ruskin from their counterparts. But, even though they were pursuing communal work, colonists were “more concerned about their ownership of the means of production and compensation than about the character of the work itself.” (109) In short, Brundage would argue that it is important to study the Ruskin colony, because it shows us not only how people rejected traditional society, but also what they could not let go, even though they made active efforts to make a change.
Presented with the questions regarding why the Ruskin Colony was the ‘model community’ to be studied rather than the numerous others populating the South, Brundage begins his argument with stating the colony’s intentions; The Ruskinites sought a way to bring communal obligations into everyday life, but not at the cost of losing its grips with American life. Ruskin was not founded on anti-modern principles; the inhabitants exercised business socialism and practical living in a colony adapted to the modernity of the rest of the country. Other communes around the nation were created as an escape from the progression of industrial capitalism.
Brundage identifies that the commune is only as effective as the people running it and defends Ruskin’s authenticity by giving an in depth synopsis of the people living in the community. The inhabitants of Ruskin differed from other long-lived utopian communities in their wide range of religious backgrounds, social statuses, occupations, and geographical (state) backgrounds. The multitude of diverse backgrounds came together to form ideas that would fill the pages of the Coming Nation, the Ruskinites’ widely popular radical newspaper. They were constantly seeking broad support for their movement, but due to the absence of group cohesiveness, many factions developed within the colony. The diverse membership and subsequently different radical viewpoints, created a social experiment that interested many radicals and scholars studying contemporary communal living.
The Ruskin colony was unable to withstand the growing factionalism among its members. There was a high attrition rate that hindered the colony’s ability to establish a clear direction as they tried to create a socialist culture with the old and new American values. Their openness to the public and constant struggle with traditionalism and innovation makes them a key focus of social scientists and journalists, studying America’s grip on its citizens, even the most remote and unreachable
Fundamentally, Ruskinites had a shared vision of what socialism meant. Differing from other socialist perspectives, particularly the Socialist Labor Party version, Ruskinites subscribed to a nonpartisan strain of socialism. The core of their philosophy however was tied to communitarianism and the rationale behind the Ruskin project. Instead of focusing on issues such as class struggle, Ruskinites saw socialism as a movement to benefit all of mankind through community reform. However, this perspective resulted in vague political ideologies, particularly with regards to power and democracy in society. Avoiding the natural questions of how power would be exercised in American society, Ruskinites simply saw popular democracy and reform, as exemplified at a micro-scale at Ruskin, as incrementally reaching a meaningful and direct democracy.
While Ruskinites might have shared a grand vision of socialism, it ultimately had different meaning for the various members in the community. Women saw Ruskin, an ideal socialist society, as more than opportunity to reform modes of production and distribution but as a window to transform their own role in society and develop new patterns of personal relationships. The founder, Julius Wayland, viewed the Ruskin project as a way to restore and revive fading American virtue. In more specific terms, his goal was to create a community free of the individualism and competition in modern America but instead reflecting efficient and collective creation with good homes, permanent employment opportunities with high wages, and social advantages (good schools, libraries, etc.). Not all saw it as a way to restore the American Republic’s virtue however; Brundage speaks generally of the colonists who left the competition and flash of the outside world to escape to a more humane and inclusive society. It meant that they organized their community prioritizing justice and equality. This manifested itself in a society based on communally owned property and managed economy intended to eliminate class differentiation, degradation, conflict, and unhappiness. A community following this doctrine “would be free of poverty or anxiety [allowing all to] realize their full creative potential” and prosper (98).
Logistically, there were a few essential components to reach the Ruskin notion of socialism. First, an attractive and productive location was critical to have sufficient resources and create an environment that would allow for the contentment the colonists required. Second, the community had to be self-sufficient in producing food for itself, if not make a profit selling the surplus of agricultural crops. In addition to the agricultural project, the colony also valued craft industries, such as clothing, books, and household appliances. Each colonist was guaranteed work and a full workday, in a labor system that offered equality and control. For example, the workers themselves controlled the labor schedule. While workers were fully and fairly compensated for their labor, Ruskinites shied away from modern money systems, particularly that allowed saving and hoarding over the exchange of goods.
Ultimately, Ruskinites hoped that their social experiment would provide a model for the American future. Their model was intended to show a society free of fixed rules but that shapes itself to fit the needs and comfort of its masses (168).
Ruskin socialism can be defined on the levels of the theoretical and the actual, but the two often conflicted into paradox. Building a socialist society around a capitalist business model of stockholding seems to contradict itself, but to Wayland, that was necessary for his model society. His ideal of practical socialism was “inconceivable without the business methods of capitalism” (36). This idea of paradox is carried out in Wayland himself, with his declaration that “no member shall have more power or influence in the organization than any other” conflicting with his determination on this point as “a principle I shall insist on,” a high-handed tone reminiscent of authoritative businessmen (104). Perhaps his goals were different and less self-seeking than these businessmen, but his method sometimes overlapped alarmingly near the capitalists he despised.
The printing press and Coming Nation were intended to ultimately make the colony self-sufficient, according to Wayland’s estimates of $23,000 a year (107). Although Brundage credits the press as an economic necessity for Ruskin’s continued existence, the press’s failure in helping the commune achieve anything close to self-sufficiency should call into question the persistence of the commune in actively reevaluating their theoretical ideals. The fact that they did not take many next steps to come closer to economic self-sufficiency (something central to the sort of commune they had formed) suggests an inconsistency near stagnancy that dooms for failure.
The socialism Wayland envisioned championed the idea of better lives for working people, and one of the specific goals in this regard was pride and fulfillment in labor. As the Ruskin community developed, however, this goal does not seem to have been fulfilled, given their silence on labor in the commune. Given this lack of record and its implications, Brundage points out an inconsistency in the socialism of the community: “honesty [about the tedious work] might have raised troubling questions about the prospects of cooperative communities to create more humane and fulfilling workplaces” (109). If the work did not live up to original expectations, why did the colony members make little effort to ameliorate this flaw in socialist labor? If the endeavor was truly the community’s ideal, then the community should have worked together to adjust practice toward their theoretical goals.
To be fair, the Ruskin commune did adjust to accommodate flaws they found in their system, such as in the case of Wayland’s dismissal (followed by the dismissal of numerous other editors) and in their shifting labor systems (striving more for economic equality than for equality in fulfillment of employment). However, the very creation of the colony was based around the idea of fixing what was wrong with society, so ignoring flaws in their own society (flaws central to their ideals of socialism) seems blind and hypocritical, reminiscent of the Biblical quote on removing the log in your own eye before helping your neighbor take out the twig in his. The relative unwillingness and blind persistence of the communalists to see the faults in their system suggests that they, too, had fallen victim to the same hypocrisy as the society as a whole: that of not noticing or changing the errors in their ways. Ironically, the very lack of flexibility and reform that the members looked to flee followed them into the Ruskin community.
“Ruskinites envisioned their colony as a self-supporting cooperative village where they…. aimed to secure their economic independence while simultaneously providing themselves with opportunities for the full and free expression of their creativity (Brundage 101).” Within this quotation Brundage describes the essentially goal of the Ruskin colonies (or at least those in Tennessee) and the focus they had. The vision is primarily a rural agricultural one and Brundage argues throughout his novel that it was a response to the competitive individualism of the American industrial system. However the system itself had several flaws that seem to inherently contradict this goal. Wayland’s system employed to set up his proposed colony incorporated features of corporate structure where members even bought stock. The book makes it very clear that Wayland’s “proposed colony was inconceivable without the business models of capitalism (Brundage 36).” These co-existent ideas in the colony seem to imply that the Ruskinites had to base their goals upon a system they knew well yet were trying to avoid.
The colony’s move to Georgia seemed to even further decrease the ideals and hopes as colonists in Georgia “purchased most of their provisions” and upon the detoriation of cooperative-cooking standards, abandoned that idea entirely alongside cooperative laundry (Brundage 155).” Throughout the reading, the trend seems to be that when the Ruskin colonies are enjoying prosperous times and good health they more closely align with their ideals; however, whenever hardship or disease affects the colonies, the colonists abandon those ideas and revert to whatever works best. Such cases lead to an implication that following “socialism” was an issue of convenience. If it caused no hardship and didn’t intervene with other aspects of their lives the colonists were at least semi decent at following through but whenever faced with an obstacle to achieving their “socialist” dream, the colonies saw a steady decline in group participation and the slow death of the institution being threatened.
For Ruskinites, the concept of ‘’socialism’’ is rather strange. Its foundation is not the traditional interpretation but rather a layman’s response to perceived complications in the system present. Beyond the lackadaisical nature of their socialism which borrowed from the very system they protested, the colonies were hard pressed to live up their own ideals when those ideals faced hardships. Socialism for the Ruskinites was nothing more than a convenient blanket with which to cover their ideas.
In Brundage’s book, the Ruskin community is described as an ‘experiment in economic organization’ (p.116). The cornerstone of the socialism that the Ruskinites cherished so much was economic independence. However, they were unable to fully achieve this goal and thus still operated within the capitalist wider society. The community appeared to operate as a independent company – however the participants had deeper intentions in being part of this community. For those who participated, it was a reformation in how humans lived their lives, and how to improve humanity. This is not to say that each individual within the community had the same idea in what should be done to improve the human condition. For example, Brundage discusses how Allen Cowell and Charles Govan were ostracized within the colony for their belief in free love radicalism (p.66-67).
Social reform was also a part of the socialist ideology of the Ruskinites. For example, for women, the socialism of the Ruskin community theoretically meant equality – at least economic independence for women. In practice this ideology was never realized as Brundage notes: “Ruskinites never freed themselves from conventional ideas about gender” (p. 69). Within the bylaws of the Ruskin community, both genders had “a free choice of occupations” (p.82). However, in practice, labor tended to be divided along traditional gender lines. It could be argued, therefore, that the socialist mentality of the Ruskinites was one of gender equality, at least within the public sphere, however in reality the residents were unable to escape societal norms – perhaps, therefore, it was not as dear to their idea of socialism as economic reform.
It may be difficult to answer the question “What did “socialism” mean for the Ruskinites?” as it possibly meant different things for different members of the community. While the Ruskinites may be considered radicals of traditional society, there also existed radicals within the community that may not have shared the same beliefs as the majority of Ruskinites. There was certainly a push towards economic and social reform, however these were never fully realized. While in theory the community was built on certain principles, specifically those of Julius A. Wayland, in practice the realities of the wider society impeded on the ideals of the community. Do we judge a community on its ideals or its actions?
Socialism for the Ruskinites was not the complete rejection of capitalism that most Americans today tend to understand it to be. Socialism for them was blending socialist ideas into a capitalist world while living communally. Wayland’s original concept was not driven out of pure socialist ideas; instead it was created in response to what he considered dangerous parts of capitalism. Wayland didn’t necessarily think capitalism, as he was a self-made man himself, but he was afraid of the way monopolies would affect the capitalist system. The recent move to industrialism brought the loss of ideals of the worker as he was constantly being abused by the system. Ideally, Wayland wanted the economy “to have a large measure of state intervention.”(24) Wayland thus wanted the individual to come first in the government.
The organization of Ruskin, theoretically, was set up as a type of corporation that was supposed to work inside of the existing capitalistic system but allowed the individual members the freedom of socialist living. He wanted to make the colony economically sufficient and he saw that running it like a business would bring an effective and efficient leadership and system that would allow it to maximize profit and social freedom. Each member owned stock in the colony, and people were elected to the board (34). This was the way Wayland though to bring the colony the most pride in their work but still allowing the colony to hypothetically thrive.
The Ruskinites also lived communally which perpetuated a higher standard of living then was allowed for in the traditional society at the time. The communal efforts stressed the importance of every job, which increased the status of women in the colony compared to their marginalization in corporate culture. (69) The communal living also encouraged arts and the fostering of higher culture. The communal way of life was integral to making the colony as close to a business as possible without adhering to the industrialization issues of the time.
Based on Kanter’s definitions, it seems Brundage’s Ruskin Colonies would fall under the retreat commune category. Its boundaries were more definitively negative than affirmative, defining itself as what it’s not than what it is, and the commune was more inclusive, allowing easy membership. Kanter believes these are weak boundaries that result in the dissolution of communes. However, Brundage stated that “as long as communitarian colonies, whether Shaker or socialist, retained a stable overall population, their fluid membership did not necessarily pose problems” (43). Nonetheless, Kanter would argue that it is because of this “fluid membership” that the Ruskinites may not feel cohesive and part of the commune, resulting in their departure. The differences between Kanter and Brundage have brought to my attention the different focuses on communes. Brundage does not place as much emphasis on stability of individual memberships as overall membership numbers perhaps because he focuses on these utopian communities’ goal to set an example for society (city on the hill model mentioned in class), whereas, Kanter focuses more on the personal relationships and establishing strong within the community. Although Kanter talks about retreat and service communes, it is clear Kanter favors one over the other, service over retreat. Kanter believes an effective commune needs an ideal or similarity that is the core of the community. Ruskin is the opposite of a picturesque similar peoples, consisting of “Christian socialists, feminists, Bellamy nationalists, populists, spiritualists, and anarchists who had gathered around Wayland” (41). “By both design and happenstance, experiments in new forms of social organization like Ruskin had a protean appeal to many of the age’s dissidents, reformers, and eccentrics.” This statement is exactly why Kanter would categorize Ruskin as a retreat commune: it was a place for people to seek, more so for personal than an overarching greater motivation. By categorizing Ruskin as one of the other, however, makes us guilty of lumping (splitting vs. lumping) and over-generalization. Kanter introduced retreat communes as typically “small, anarchistic, and easily dissolved, predominantly rural and youth-oriented” (17), but Ruskin was consistently about 500 strong. Not only that, but studies of Shaker communities, “an unusually cohesive communitarian group” (42-43) reveal that membership turnover was high. Therefore, we can’t say high turnover or lower retention rates equates a less cohesive or successful community. We also cannot eliminate the possibility that the Shakers, Ruskinites, and other similar communities may have had an underlying ideal holding everyone together that we are overlooking. Dangers of lumping and splitting, that we keep revisiting.
The difference between Brundage and Kanter may branch from the differing definitions of socialism, or ideal forms of socialism. Brundage seems to agree with Wayland’s socialist vision that ties pragmatism and some capitalism. I admire the pragmatism proposed by Wayland- he wasn’t swept away by the romanticism of utopias and understood the need for sustainability. Wayland anticipated much of their funding coming not just from his publications, but also from colonists selling products outside the colony, therefore understanding the need for outside contact and for modernity if one wishes to affect the general population and to financially support oneself. These readings and questioning of socialism has me wondering, where is the line drawn between socialism and communism? Can there be capitalism not only being a part of socialism, but being a pillar supporting socialist structures?
I don’t believe that Brundage’s account of Ruskin offers much explanation for the lack of socialism in America today, as the Ruskin socialism, and utopian socialism in general, was much different and more eclectic than the mainstream socialism. As argued by Daniel Bell and Howard Quint, utopian socialism was “a sectarian, otherworldly, and perfectionist ideology doomed to irrelevancy in the face of advancing corporate capitalism” (10). These socialist thinkers even went so far as to condemn the utopian socialist model, as it was “a sideshow, a distraction, an obstacle to the maturation of American socialism” (19). Therefore, the Ruskin Colony’s form of socialism was rejected in 1890s for a more universal form.
Furthermore, the failure of the economic system of the Ruskin Colony was not entirely the fault of the ideals of socialism. The collectivist ideal of a steady distribution of labor was poorly put into place, giving members without experience specialized tasks that they were not equipped to complete (115). They also underused the land that they had bought, and the taxes they were forced to pay outweighed any income they were able to generate, leaving them struggling instead of thriving as they had imagined (115). Lastly, they were not able to maintain a singular socialist community when surrounded by a capitalistic world because they still participated in some extent with the outside economy (116). Only the last is directly a fault of the socialist ideals, as these two forms of economic practice are deeply at odds. The other two are more of a fault of the leadership of the colony and could have been lessened, if not eliminated, by slightly altering their own plans and practices.
As Brundage explained, one of the benefits of the Ruskin Colony for the outside world was to see “the practical viability of socialism” (8). However, when the colony failed, it exposed the issues with a utopian form of socialism. This did not preclude the possibility of any sort of socialism; it just expressed that this particular form was not suitable to put into wider use. The wider socialist community had all but condemned these socialist utopian communities as impractical. Also, many of the issues that eventually led to the downfall of the Ruskin Colony were not due to a fault in the socialist ideals, but how they were put into practice in the community. Perhaps if they had been put into place with a more deft hand, the community would have been able to operate more smoothly.
For the Ruskinites, socialism meant above all a rejection of laissez-faire capitalism. The prevailing attitude in the United States was that people only worked for their own gain; the political economy therefore had to transmogrify their selfish energy into capital. The Ruskinites, however, believed that such an attitude shortchanged the human capacity for cooperation and community. People would, if they lived in a society conducive to cooperation, work not for themselves but for the community as a whole.
Moreover, laissez-faire capitalism assumed that capital was the fundamental source of wealth, while the Ruskinites believed labor produced wealth. Consequently, they favored a society that valued labor as a pleasure rather than a burden, and dissolved the artificially imposed barrier between labor and leisure. In a cooperative society, people would receive the full benefit of their labor—rather than having their wealth funneled through a series of non-producing middlemen (i.e., capitalists)—and have time and energy to spare for recreation, innovation, and the arts.
This definition of socialism allowed for a wild diversity of opinions. There were Social Gospelers who linked socialism with a sentimental Christianity that emphasized ethics rather than dogma. They rejected the pessimistic doctrine of original sin (the theological corollary to laissez-faire capitalism’s belief in human selfishness) in favor of the possibility of human perfectibility and societal redemption. There were also feminists who hoped that socialism would undo the damage wrought by capitalism. Whereas Victorian society relegated men to the workplace and women to the home—thereby making every woman a lonely domestic atom—the cooperative utopia could socialize domestic work, bringing women together into community and ensuring they received the fruits of their heretofore unpaid labor.
Socialists who were more Marxist than Fabian derogated the Ruskinites for their loosey-goosey ideology—their open-mindedness to the point of chaos. Indeed, Brundage believes that the Ruskin colonies failed in part because their socialism was not doctrinaire enough. But the Ruskinites were more concerned with practical solutions than theory. They were naïve in regarding the commune as a frontier between the corrupt present and the redeemed future, but they still took pride in having provided a tangible, “humane alternative to competitive capitalism” (52).