History of American SocialismsNoyes, John Humphrey
History
History of American Socialisms
Noyes, John Humphrey
Communism -- United States; Socialism -- United States
These discords and failures of the past surely have not been in vain.
Perhaps Providence has carried forward its regenerative designs in two
lines thus far, for the sake of the advantage of a "division of
labor." While the Bible men have worked for the regeneration of the
soul, the infidels and liberals have been busy on the problem of the
reconstruction of society. Working apart and in enmity, perhaps they
have accomplished more for final harmony than they could have done
together. Even their failures when rightly interpreted, may turn to
good account. They have both helped to plant in the heart of the
nation an unfailing hope of the "good time coming." Their lines of
labor, though we have called them parallel, must really be convergent;
and we may hope that the next phase of national history will be that
of Revivalism and Socialism harmonized, and working together for the
Kingdom of Heaven.
To complete our historical theory, we must mention in conclusion, one
point of contrast between the Socialisms and the Revivals.
_The Socialisms were imported from Europe; while the Revivals were
American productions._
Owen was an Englishman, and Fourier was a Frenchman; but Nettleton and
Finney were both Americans--both natives of Connecticut.
In the comparison we confine ourselves to the period since the war of
1812, because the history of the general socialistic excitements in
this country is limited to that period. But the Revivals have an
anterior history, extending back into the earliest times of New
England. The great American _system_ of Revivals, of which the
Nettleton and Finney excitements were the continuation, was born in
the first half of the last century, in central Massachusetts. Jonathan
Edwards, whose life extended from 1703 to 1758, was the father of it.
So that not only since the war of 1812, but before the Revolution of
1776, we find Revivalism, _as a system_, strictly an American
production.
We call the Owen and Fourier movements, _American_ Socialisms, because
they were national in their dimensions, and American life chiefly was
the subject of them. But looking at what may be called the _male_
element in the production of them, they were really European
movements, propagated in this country. Nevertheless, if we take the
view that Socialism and Revivalism are a unit in the design of
Providence, one looking to the regeneration of externals and the other
to the regeneration of internals, we may still call the entire
movement American, as having Revivalism, which is American, for its
inner life, though Socialism, the outer element, was imported from
England and France.
CHAPTER IV.
NEW HARMONY.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account