Moreover--and this is another important consideration--I am satisfied that _during its accumulation_ the Communists enjoyed a greater amount of comfort, and vastly greater security against want and demoralization, than were attained by their neighbors or the surrounding population, with better schools and opportunities of training for their children, and far less exposure for the women, and the aged and infirm. In origin the Icarians are French; the Shakers and Perfectionists Americans; the others are Germans; and these outnumber all the American communists. In fact, the Germans make better communists than any other people--unless the Chinese should some day turn their attention to communistic attempts. What I have seen of these people in California and the Sandwich Islands leads me to believe that they are well calculated for communistic experiments. All the communes under consideration have as their bond of union some form of religious belief. It is asserted by some writers who theorize about communism that a commune can not exist long without some fanatical religious thought as its cementing force; while others assert with equal positive ness that it is possible to maintain a commune in which the members shall have diverse and diverging beliefs in religious matters. It seems to me that both these theories are wrong; but that it is true that a commune to exist harmoniously, must be composed of persons who are of one mind upon some question which to them shall appear so important as to take the place of a religion, if it is not essentially religions; though it need not be fanatically held. Thus the Icarians reject Christianity; but they have adopted the communistic idea as their religion. This any one will see who speaks with them. But devotion to this idea has supported them under the most deplorable poverty and long-continued hardships for twenty years. Again, the Bethel and Aurora Communes, whose members make singularly little of outward religious observances, are held together by their belief that the essence of all religion, and of Christianity, is unselfishness, and that this requires community of goods. I do not think that any of these people can be justly called fanatics. On the other hand, the Shakers, Rappists, Baumelers, Eben-Ezers, and Perfectionists have each a very positive and deeply rooted religious faith; but none of them can properly be called fanatics, except by a person who holds every body to be a fanatic, who believes differently from himself. For none of these people believe that they are alone good or alone right; all admit freely that there is room in the world for various and varying religious beliefs; and that neither wisdom nor righteousness ends with them.