[1] This refers to the resistance of Paris to the restoration of the monarchy in 1830. It would be lovely to have some remarks of Warren's on the commune of 1871, but these aren't them.
josiah warren project home
Notebook D
Introduction
It is evident that Warren
kept a journal throughout his life. Entries rarely reveal details of his family
or intimate life, but rather meticulously document his social experiments. He
drew upon these notebooks in many of his published works, especially Practical
Details and Practical Applications. Apparently he had a pretty odd system, retaining
notebooks over decades. The one surviving document of this type that we have is
labeled "D" and contains entries from 1840, 1860, and 1873. It is in
the collection of the Working Men's Institute in New Harmony, and was redacted
by Ann Caldwell Butler for an MA thesis at Ball State in 1968. Martin says
(though how he knows this is a bit of a mystery) that there were notebooks
lettered "A" through 'J.' Much of the material is redundant with
other work, but I reproduce substantial selections below, using Butler's work
as a base, but removing, for example, dozens of exclamation marks. Warren
evidently employed his thematic indexing system first in his own notebooks;
that feature is not reproduced below. The selections below show underneath the
apparently stern inculcation of liberty and responsibility, a remarkable
tenderness.
The first chunk is from 1840: it recounts and comments
upon Warren's attempts to educate his son George and another boy (both about 13
years old) by equitable principles.
The second selection is from 1860, and largely
concerned with free love. It is in
the form of a dialogue or "conversational development." I reproduce a
piece of it that gives something of a pragmatist view about truth.
The 1873 material gives a crisp summary of
Warren on money, and shows that his idealism was undiminished at the time of
his passing.
Text
January 29, 1840
With a view to illustrate the
foregoing principles and to prove their correctness and to show the fundamental
mistakes which society has made in the management of children and the
organization of schools, I began, on the 21st of January 1840 a seminary at
what we will call No. 1 in New Harmony, where I intend to establish a little
world organized and governed according to what I conceive to be the only way in
which society can be organized so as to secure individual rights, justice,
security, peace, and the means of abundance and enjoyment to all, and to solve
the problem of natural liberty co-existent with social order. I shall take
notes of interesting illustrations as they occur but shall confine myself
entirely to the facts as they take place.
January 21, 1840
This day, commenced labor for
labor at No. 1 with only two boys with the view of increasing the number as
fast as they can sustain themselves with such aid as I can furnish. These boys
were told that they were now to act entirely at their own responsibility, each
to have the whole proceeds of his labor, to do with it just as he chose, and
that no power of parents or anyone else was to interfere to compel them either
to work or study or anything else, but if that if they did not they would
suffer the natural consequences, which a very few words served to explain.
G.W.W. are the initials of one [Warren's son George] and E.H. of the other.
In order to preserve individual interests
and individual responsibilities it would have been necessary for each to have
had distinct premises of his own, but they preferred being in one room
together. As it was impracticable
to have separate rooms at the present time, they were both in the same room,
but they were told that they would probably have some disagreeable consequences
from having even so much connected interests. But as these are the arrangements
for experimental education, I had no objection to their trying it, and
ascertaining by their own experiences some of the consequences.
As they were to act entirely for
themselves in all respects they were to pay rent for the room. We now come to
the first application of the cost principle. I told them that if they chose
they might appoint some third party to ascertain the real cost in wear and tear
of the building, and that should be the rent they were to pay me. The proposal
to appoint a third party was to convince them that I received no more than an
equivalent for the use of the building - in other words that I did not get
their property for nothing.
But they left it to me, and they
engaged each to pay one dollar per month for the room, which is about eighteen
by twenty feet. I now told them as I had before that if they wanted my
assistance in any way, whether by advice or instruction I would render it on
the principle of labor for labor and if I wanted any of their assistance or
labor that I would pay for it in the same manner and that it would be necessary
for each of us to set the price per hour which he would expect to receive, and
that it was necessary to fix this price before any debt was incurred, so that
one could not get power over another's property by setting the price after the
receiver had incurred the debt. And as a matter of great convenience too it was
recommended not to change the fixed price of time for light and trivial causes,
that some pursuits being more disagreeable (or costly) than others it would be
reasonable to ask more for the same length of time. And as no one can judge for
another how disagreeable any pursuit may be, each must decide the price of his own
labor in different pursuits, and that competition would be likely to keep us
all within reasonable bounds.
Each then proceeded to fix a price per
hour upon his time, which it is understood is to remain until he chooses to
change it, of which he is expected to give notice before any debt is incurred.
The boys then proceeded to fix up their
benches and tools. They required some advice which I gave at their request.
They told me I must charge for my time, but I replied that it was so small an
amount that it was best to take no account of it, but that I had already fixed
my price high enough to cover any little items like that. E.H. wanted some
boards to fix up his bench. I had some to sell. What is the price? he asked.
One dollar per hundred feet original cost
at the saw mill. 20 cents per hundred for hauling, 12 cents for stacking up,
about two cents for rent of drying room; and 30 cents per hour for the time
spent in getting them from the mill; which, altogether, will make them cost
$1.50 per hundred, without any interest on money. This their present cost. If I
spend time in selecting and measuring them to you this will be added at the
rate I have fixed for my time.
After having received the boards the next thing
was for him to credit me with them. Here was the first natural introduction to
book keeping, which occasion I made us of to prompt both of the boys to learn
as they could not proceed without it. They perceived it at once and that night,
one of them went voluntarily with my advice to apply to the best bookkeeper
within our knowledge to see if he would give them some lessons!
January 29th [1840]
We were conversing on the subject of toasts or
sentiments for a public celebration when G.W.W., aged 13, said if it would be
in place or proper for such little ones as he to give a toast, it would be
propose that all children should be situated as he was! I do not know how this
may strike others but to me coming from a little boy speaking in reference to
his school and mode of government under which he was placed, it spoke more than
I can find words to express.. It was a boy placed in school, voluntarily
acknowledging that he was happy!
January 30 [1840]
G.W.W. said to me, "Father, I wish
for you first to measure this board to see how much I must credit you for. Yes,
certainly, said I, but you know if you could measure it yourself you would save
what you will have to pay me for my time. "I must study arithmetic,"
said he with great emphasis, lifting up his little hand and bringing it down in
a most decisive and resolute manner. And at night without a word being spoken
on the subject took a light from the table and was gone so long that, as it was
very cold, I was curious to know what he was doing, when after about 15 minutes
he came in. He had been hunting up his arithmetic, and it being a stormy night
he said he would not go over work tonight but would study arithmetic, And he
did, all evening.
In the morning, although it was very cold
I called him and asked him if he did not want to get up and study arithmetic.
He got up without another call, which is unusual for him, and studied the
tables most intensely while breakfast was getting ready. He asked me to take
the book and exercise him in the multiplication table and this was all done
with a smile upon his countenance, and he would take the book over to his room,
and he and E. would exercise when it was too cold for work.
The two boys had agreed on a place for the
key of their room, but G. remarked to me that E. had gone away with the key in
his pocket promising to be back a certain time but had not, and he had lost an
hour at least in consequence of his failure to fulfill his promise; now, says
he, E. ought to pay me that hour, shouldn't he? Truly in strict justice I think
he should though he may have very good reason to delay, said I, but the best
way is not to lay the foundation of such things in having connected interests.
You will remember that I told you in the commencement that you would probably
discover some objections to having one room in common.
February 3 [1840]
G.W.W. ate no breakfast and was evidently unwell
- went to work and remarked that he had done nothing of any consequence all the
forenoon. I do not feel as if I could work, said he. Then don't attempt it said
I, I would not go to work unless you feel more able.
Comment: Now how could a parent - how
could I, with any propriety, risk advising the child not to work when he did
not feel like it, if he had not motive for working? If he had been working in
my interest, as all children usually do for their parents, I should not have
dared to advise him not to work when he did not feel well for fear that he
might make that a plea when it was not true. How cruel to feel obliged to be suspicious that his complaint
might be a false plea to escape from work - to doubt his account of his own
feelings. Perhaps such doubts might prove fatal: fatal at least to his
character for truth; for if the child can not inspire belief when he tells the
truth, he will not long persevere in the practice.
In a conversation today with a friend, I related
the fact that my own boy was sitting by the fire in the morning when it seemed
best that he should employ that time in preparing wood for the day. When I said
that I should like to have him cut some wood - now here was the point - where
should his motive come from to get the wood? We know that the common reply is
in his sense of duty. But suppose that this does not move him? What next? fear
of the rod, or what?
Perhaps the most desirable motive would be
a kind feeling. But suppose he did not feel kindly just then? and besides he
might with equal reason say that kind feeling on my part might exempt him from
doing what he did not like to do.
Here is the explosion of that subtle
mistake which has laid the foundation of so many cruel disappointments in the
experiments on communities and other institutions built upon self denial. When
we once subscribe to the doctrine it works as much against us as for us; what
we gain one way we lose the other and it is nothing but a delusion. The rule of
self denial works as much against happiness as for it, and leaves everything
just where it finds it, as in the case of the boy getting the wood. If he is
required out of kindness to me to get it, by the same principle, kindness
towards him, would require me to get it myself. This is all delusory verbiage.
The question is still unanswered, where is his motivation rationally to come
from to do what I require? Does not the law of his nature which prompts him to
pursue his own happiness answer the question? Does it not say that the child
should feel that it would result in some benefit to himself? And in conforming
our requests to this law, do we not extend the greatest practicable amount of kindness
towards him?
Now in conformity to this law of nature I had
laid down all the power given me by ignorant legislators over my child, had
made him feel sovereign of himself and all the proceeds of his exertions, and
he knew that if he got the wood ready I should pay him according to the amount
of labor performed. Here was the natural and rational motive brought to bear
upon him and he went cheerfully about it.
There was no necessity of violating the
"law of love": no force, no violence, not even command was necessary.
The impulse was given by the force of natural consequences, of things instead
of persons. The child acted as sovereign of himself, taking on the natural
consequences of his actions. The action of the law of love is impracticable under
the common relative position of parent and child. The principle exhibited here
holds good in all our social relations. Our interests must all be
individualized and each must assume all the natural consequences of his acts
before we can cease to govern each other, and peace and love be realized.
The greatest extent to which we can
ever exercise kindness towards others is in assisting them in their pursuit of
happiness, in that particular course or manner that he or she may choose. This
exhibits the point where the spirit of accommodation can be exercised with
advantage until the circumstances which compel us to clash can be removed or
abolished.
The organization of society is artificial:
an invention, a continuance. The most ingenious person would be likely to
succeed best in the invention of any machine, combining a number of elements
for the accomplishments of certain objects. But to succeed well the he must
know the objects to be accomplished and the principles involved, and he must be
able to trace any defect to the proper cause, not alter a wheel when it is a
lever that is at fault, nor apply more power to force it forward when the
wheels are out of true.
Some parts may be allowed to be a
little imperfect without materially affecting the general result, but the laws
of nature will not allow some other imperfections. The wheels of a clock must
all be present, and they must not vary much from their specified size. A little
imperfection may be allowed in the cogs, but very little or the clock will not
go. The addition of ten thousand wheels will not supply the place of the
pendulum. They, like the multiplicity of laws in the social state, would only
serve to complicate, to perplex and clog the machine. We must have the
pendulum, and that pendulum must be in proportion to the other parts, or else
although the machine would go, it would not be a clock. It would not measure
time, and although a little variation in its length from the true proportion
would be to surrender "only a portion" of right, yet at the end of
the year the machine for all purposes intended, would be worse than no clock.
Society is the clock; individual liberty
is the pendulum.
It is but a hackneyed as well as short
sighted objection to unqualified individual liberty that "if each one sets
his own limits or no limits to his liberty" what shall prevent his
encroachments upon others? The answer is included in the first proposition that
each and every individual has this natural right: not some or a few or many but
every one. So that is A encroaches on B, how shall this be treated? This is for
B to decide because he has a right to sovereignty over his own person and all
his own interest. It is an impertinent interference for any one or any set of
men to dictate to him how he shall proceed. Different people would act
differently under the same circumstances, and they have a right to do so. But
perhaps we are troubling ourselves too much about assumed difficulties, for if
the personal liberty and the right of property were habitually respected from
infancy, we are all too much the creatures of habit, of public opinion, and of
example to encroach upon the rights of others wantonly. The fears on this point
are derived from the notion of natural depravity.
The past furnishes no fair criterion.
Justice has never yet been done in the social state to the individual. We must
begin anew, watch the progress, and build according to necessities.
March 20 [1840]
Several interruptions have occurred which
took me away from home since last taking notes, but I felt at ease leaving the
boys to their own self-government. Why?
Because they could do no harm to any but
themselves. They had no access to any one's property, nor any connection with
anyone's interests but their own, and they had the proper natural stimulus to
promote their own advancement in having all the proceeds of their exertions. In
shorter terms, each was placed in his own natural and proper sphere. On my
return I found that they had done all they had to do and were anxious for my
return to advise them further.
E. Took his first lesson in shoe making
from Mr. V. today. The lesson cost him 3/4 of one cent and his labor amounted
to 12 1/2! G. took his first lesson in shoe making this evening of the same
person. This lesson cost G. about one cent; he mended a pair of pumps for me
and earned 12 1/2 cents. He went immediately after supper voluntarily to take
his lesson and pay for it himself out of the proceeds of his own labor, and all
with as much hilarity and cheerfulness and interest as boys under common
circumstances generally rush into the street to play.
He came home after I was in bed, but was
so desirous to show me the results of his first lesson that he came into my
room and awoke me, holding up triumphantly the mended shoes.
Comments: It is often
remarked, when discussing these subjects, that the pecuniary affairs seem to
occupy too important a place, that they are too prominent. That they seem to
claim so much attention that children under the influence of such circumstances
or even adults would be likely to become mercenary in their habits and
feelings.
The reply to this if it were full and ample
would occupy volumes. For the present let it be considered that pecuniary
affairs are all we have to regulate, that this is the proper and legitimate
subject of reform, that all the institutions of society are governed by
property relations.
If it were not for property considerations
persons would neither be dangerous nor endangered. Personal crimes are not
always committed to obtain property, but all violations of personal rights will
be found upon analysis to proceed either from a desire to obtain property, or
from ignorance which might have been and would long since have been dispelled
but that it was perpetuated by interested rulers and law givers, and those who
wield the press for profit.
From the writings of Lord
Bolingbroke: "I dare not pretend to instruct mankind, and I am not humble
enough to write to the public for any other purpose."
". . . the abuse philosophers are guilty of when
they suffer the mind to rise too fast from particulars, to remote and general
axioms."
"I say, that all science, if it be read,
must rise from below and from our own level. It cannot descend from above nor from
superior systems of being or knowledge."
------------------
July 9, 1860
Truth - absolute, pure,
unadulterated truth - when brought to bear upon social life, is so
transcendently beautiful and beneficent that there is a danger of misapplying
our time and means in pursuing any and all truths, because they are truths or
because we may possibly find some new truth, although when found, not the least
use can be made of it. In this way I think reformers have missed their aim
generally. A very intelligent gentleman, one with a large stock of information
on things important and unimportant, when I declined going into the pursuit of
some unimportant theme, "Don't you think you ought to get all the
information you can, on all subjects?" Why no, I do not. If I were to
undertake that, I should never make any use of the truths I know already. I
know some now that I want to put in practice. When I come to feel the demand
for further information on some particular point I will then thankfully receive
it, but even then I should want to go to the one that I might for many reasons
prefer as a teacher.
I know of no way to preserve ourselves
from this kind of intoxication but to follow the order of our wants, to attend
first to things and pursue the supply till we some good reason to stop.
I have spoken of unimportant truths. I mean
those whose importance we do not perceive. It may, some time, be thought
important to know how many mosquitoes can be generated in a given area of water;
what exposure, what temperature etc. are most favorable; how many legs they
have and whether always a uniform number: but before I should want to employ my
time in the pursuit of such truths I should want to have settled some practical
reliable way of procuring food, clothing, shelter, fuel, and heart repose for
myself at least if not for the suffering millions of the best men and women on
earth.
-------------------
Voluntary Subordination
[About this entry, though it appears here in the notebook, Butler says that
"it is written in blue ink and seems, from the writing, punctuation, and
spelling, to have been written in the New Harmony 1840 period."]
Natural liberty or individual
sovereignty calls for freedom of choice in all cases, under all circumstances,
and at all times. By freedom of choice I mean exemption from the control of
other persons in distinction from the natural and irresistible control of
circumstances.
All social arrangements should admit of this
freedom of choice of every individual and all subordination should be
voluntary. For instance, in the performance of a piece of music at a private
party each one who takes a part subordinates himself voluntarily to the lead of
one person. The necessity of this is so obvious that it controls choice, but it
is not persons that compel this subordination. It is between the control or
force of circumstances or necessity, each person being the judge of it, and the
control or force of persons or authority that we must draw the great broad line
which is to distinguish voluntary from involuntary subordination. The one is in
perfect accordance with natural personal liberty which constitutes the chief
element of the happiness of human beings and the other violates it and is the
chief cause of the Bedlam-like confusion which pervades all ranks and
conditions of mankind.
The false step is in laying down any verbal
processes which embrace any conditions or applications not distinctly seen and
understood beforehand by the entering parties.
Thus in the attempts to organize society
men have laid down general rules and indefinite propositions in words as the
basis of the social compact which the entering party construed according to his
own views, and he is therefore said to exercise his free choice regarding the
conditions. But no sooner has he passed the entrance than he has found these
verbal rules and laws to contain conditions he knew not of and to be subject to
different applications by almost every member of the body. The vote of the
majority is the next resort which acts as a power to compel those who differ
into involuntary subordination. This is a violation of liberty which appears
inevitable under the circumstances. But the circumstances are wrong, are false.
The false step is in laying down any verbal processes which embrace conditions
or applications not distinctly seen and understood by the entering parties.
In this subtle and unseen mistake has
originated those melancholy defeats which have, so far, prevented much
improvement in the social condition. But may we not hope that when natural
individualities shall be fairly developed, and when the incapacity of language
to express these individualities shall be subject to investigation. Our object
is happiness, and there is no one element so indispensable to this as conscious
liberty, and there is no one source of tyranny in all shapes and degrees, so
prolific as that of verbal rules, laws, regulations, dogmas, creeds -
religious, political, and moral - which embrace conditions not contemplated by
the parties who subscribe to them.
When individual rights shall be clearly
appreciated, all rules of social arrangement will be definite; they will
express all their conditions and all their applications, or if unavoidably some
new application becomes necessary, the subscribing party cannot rightly be
bound to sanction or conform to it contrary to his own free choice.
The blind and brutal subordination
obtained through fear of punishment in the army of a despot whose use of it is
the extension of his power, is involuntary or coerced subordination and works
nothing but degradation to the subordinates and an insane self-importance in
those who command, and destruction, disorder, confusion wherever that army is
employed. The corrective is voluntary subordination. Every soldier should claim
and exercise his free choice in every case in which he was required to act and
should refuse to move in every cause but that of the defense of person and
property.
The people of Paris, in the "three
glorious days of July,"[1]
all impelled by one interest, by common suffering and common sympathy, rushed
into the streets to put down their oppressors. But it was immediately evident
to all that while each was left to doubt or to pursue different courses without
any particular course being marked distinctly out by some individual mind and
some particular direction, that their power could not be brought to bear to any
effect.
This was so self-evident that they all with one
voice on the first suggestion threw themselves under the direction of the
youths of the Polytechnic School, and this they did the more safely as they did
not pledge themselves to obey any order which their own views and wishes did
not sanction. For they were at liberty at any moment even to disobey any orders
of the commanders or directors which they might perceive to clash with their
objects. But what was the result? It was a straightforward attainment of their
object as if by miracle. And they exhibited such an example of rigid
self-government from all excesses, and such ready co-operation in the measures
and movements announced by their leaders, that it must stand as an everlasting
monument in refutation of the false and interested doctrine in favor of
coercive subordination.
Words will not embrace the wide range of
destruction, desolation, of terror and suffering brought about by rulers by the
means of coercive subordination which they pretend is so necessary for the
preservation of order. But it is the principal source of disorder throughout
the world: from the annihilation of whole nations at once down to the petty
little jars on the domestic hearth.
It has often been asked what would become
of the great interests of society if they were not looked after by rulers or
law makers. Let the answer be derived from the real condition of all these
great interests at the present time, compared with the amount of blood and
treasure and suffering which their management has cost the world, and let us
ask whether any plan could possibly lead to more injustice, or more confusion,
uncertainty and insecurity of person, property, than we, supervising all
society. But there is nothing in voluntary subordination that violates the
natural liberty of the individual, and the fear that natural liberty would
uproot all order is as groundless and as futile as the idea that coercive
subordination has benefited mankind.
-------------
August 1873
Money
I never know when I have said enough about
money. It is the pivot upon which every thing turns, and cannot be too well
understood.
I have many times been asked why gold and silver
could not be made to answer the true propose of money if they were recognized
as the embodiment of so much labor?
There are many objections to this. In the
first place, we never can ascertain the labor cost of either of them. Not long
ago, it was announced that a man stumbled over a lump of gold that would make
three thousand dollars while others had been digging and scratching in the dirt
six months and found nothing. What, then, is the labor cost of gold?
"But why not average the labor?"
Well now, let us see how that would not work. Five thousand men abandon all
useful pursuits here, spend their money and time in going two or three thousand
miles to hunt gold.
They are to have a share in the findings
whether they find anything or not. Now here is a partnership formed between all
the gold hunters whether they hunt or lounge about. This communism would
immediately lead to quarrels that could never be settled. But if they were
settled and each got an equal share, some would get what they never earned and
all the expenses, time, and quarreling would be worse than thrown away. Because
a ten dollar piece came to be presented for a barrel of flour on the ground of
its having cost as much labor as the flour had, the speculator could say,
"it is of no consequence how much either the flour or the gold cost"
- a thing is worth what it will bring, and "flour has gone up. I must have
fifteen dollars a barrel for it." Now what use would it be to have found
out how much labor there was in the gold? No, we must be able to present to the
flour man a positive promise for a barrel of flour on demand, and this positive
promise must be based on a positive and sufficient responsibility. Paper or
parchment is the very best material for such promises, and the cost is next to
nothing.
Then again, it must be possible for the flour
producer himself to make these promises for his own products. If any others,
even governments, are allowed to do it, they can continue the enslavement of
the producers. All government issues of money are so many drafts upon labor
akin to forgeries or burglary. They get the product of labor by trick, by
stealth or else by force of arms like highway robbery: extorting by bodily
fear; such are all "legal tender" laws and all statutes forbidding
individuals from issuing their own notes. They damn up the natural flow of the
river, leaving only a narrow passage for the fish into the net set for them.
No power on earth, no device, should be
allowed to intervene between the laborer and his or her products; they should
be held sacredly at his or her sovereign control.
Gold, silver, greenbacks, and devices
heretofore and now used to intervene and make such confusion that even public
writers and veteran leaders do not understand, and even say that the philosophy
of money is past finding out.
The difficulty is the simplicity of the
solution. We cannot carry mason work, carpenter work, or farm products about
the exchange for what we want, and therefore require something that represents
these, which we can carry about us, and which, being circulated, will procure
for the holder of them what they represent. This is all that is needed in money
or a circulating medium.
_________
Any combination or organization which
distinguishes a party from the rest of mankind cuts off those sympathies which
are the natural and legitimate bond of society and which ought to have no
limits. The first step toward counteracting this error will be to constitute
every individual its own interpreter of language.
[1] This refers to the resistance of Paris to the restoration of the monarchy in 1830. It would be lovely to have some remarks of Warren's on the commune of 1871, but these aren't them.