« PreviousContinue »
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR.
No. 35– JULY, 1901.
ISSL'ED EVERY OTHER MONTII.
CARROLL 1. WRIGHT,
G. W. W. HANGER,
CHAS. II. VERRILL, STEPHEN D. FESSENDEN.
Cooperative communities in the United States, by Rev. Alexander Kent ... 563-616 The Negro landholder of Georgia, by W. E. Burghardt Du Bois, Ph. D., of Atlanta University
647-777 Digest of recent reports of State bureaus of labor statistics: California ...
778, 779 Colorado..
784, 785 New Hampshire....
786, 787 Seventh annual report of the Ohio State board of arbitration.
787 Digest of recent foreign statistical publications ..
788-796 Decisions of courts affecting labor
Cooperative communities in the United States may be classified according to their aims rather than their achievements. They are of three kinds: (1) Communistic; (2) socialistic; (3) partially cooperative.
The communistic are those which aim at the widest possible community of goods, and which seek to have both labor and income equally distributed among the members.
The socialistic are those which aim at collective ownership of all the means of production, and at equitable rather than equal distribution. Averse to private capital, they are not averse to private property. Opposed to exploitation, they are not opposed to honest thrift. They would encourage industry and skill, and discourage laziness and inefficiency.
The partially cooperative communities are those which favor collective ownership and action in some things and individual ownership and action in others, but wish for a larger degree of cooperation than is yet enjoyed by the community at large.
In the practical workings of these communities, however, the differences are less pronounced. Sometimes the communistic in purpose are impelled, in the matter of distribution, to become socialistic in practice, while economic considerations often lead those socialistically inclined to more and more of communistic living.
Thus the Zoarites, who at first were not even socialistic in their aims, but merely desired a more Christianized individualism, found themselves unable to make any adequate provision for the older and weaker among them, except by turning all private possessions into a common fund for the equal benefit of all. On the other hand, the Shakers, who started out as communists, in the widest sense of the word, so far