Page:Manual of Political Economy.djvu/156

Rh nothing can be more impracticable than this scheme, unless there should happen to be such a marked distinction between the individual members of the community and its chiefs that the right of the chiefs to dictate and to govern could not be disputed. The Jesuit missionaries established such a community with great success in Paraguay; but between these missionaries and the community they controlled, there was the difference which distinguishes civilisation from barbarism. But no body of men would ever consent to delegate to any of their fellow-countrymen powers which would entirely subjugate their own individuality; and St. Simonism, even if it alleviated poverty, would introduce greater evils; for men and women are in a pitiable state of subjection if they are not free to choose the labour upon which they should employ their energy.

The scheme proposed by Fourier was much more skilfully designed; he intended that each separate community should consist of about 2,000 persons, who should be settled on a square league of ground; he not only permitted private property, but allowed property to be obtained by inheritance. Every member of this community would receive a certain remuneration, even if he were not able to work. Fourier also recognised the claim of capital to be rewarded; the community were combined like a trading company to produce wealth, and after a certain competence, considered necessary to support life, had been allotted to every individual, the remaining produce was divided as a reward for labour, capital, and talent. The administration of this division of the produce was arranged by the heads of the community according to the following plan:—The labourers were divided into three distinct grades, which marked different standards of skill and talent, and the remuneration received by each of these grades varied according to a fixed proportion. The particular grade to which a workman was admitted, was determined by the vote of his fellow-workmen; there was community of labour, but not community of living; it was also proposed, for the sake of economy, that each family should have its separate apartments in the same block of buildings. The first objection that will probably be made to this scheme is