Labour for labour exchange in practice – co-operative experiments in United States and Great Britain between 1827 and 1860
Labour for labour exchange in practice – co-operative experiments in United States and Great Britain between 1827 and 1860. 1
Various US and British communities tried to put in practice the premise that every labour has the similar value and that the only determinant of this value should be time dedicated to its performance. The earliest test, using the labour notes, took place in 1827 in Cincinnati and later many other co-operatives were more or less active on both sides of Atlantic till the 1860s. Civil war in United States marked the end of such projects, while gradual radicalization of workers’ moment toward various form of communism, socialism or syndicalism made a moderate demand, such as labour for labour exchange, less appealing to the working class. The main aim of this paper is to decipher how such socio-economic experiments were functioning; to identify the intellectual motivations and inspirations behind them, and lastly to investigate the motivations of its participants.
MOTIVATIONS AND REASONS FOR LABOR FOR LABOUR EXCHANGE
Labour for labour exchange in the early nineteenth century can be perceived as a peculiar idea, and also, to some extent, backward: bringing society back to the stage of simple exchange among hunters. So, the question that is worth to investigate is how this kind of exchange become a common answer for to shortcomings of early rapid industrialization and changes of the banking system, with its earliest attempts to establish monetary policy.
When one examines the social, economic and intellectual environment in the early nineteenth century it is visible that there were few preconditions enabling labour for labour exchange experiments. One of the most important one was the panic of 1819 and the economic depression that followed. It resulted in the deep distrust in paper money and the whole banking system. This economic situation combined with the Second Awakening created and intellectual turmoil than enabled unprecedented eruption of radical ideas. While the panic of 1819 and after war depression where common elements stimulating American and British experiments, the development of mid-western territories was unique for American experience.
Role of the Panic of 1819.
It is hard to overestimate the role that the Panic of 1819 and the aftermath depression had in reshaping social, economic but mainly the intellectual landscape of America in the 1820s. The Panic and aftermath depression were more shocking for inhabitants for yet another reason – the collapse happened after the period of great prosperity and economic development. Years after the war of 1812, mainly the period from 1815 till 1819 was, what Thomas Bard Jones described as, “major economic upswing”. The main factors for such an upswing was huge demand for American agricultural commodities after the Napoleonic War and the migration to western territories. Together with the western expansion and improvement of trades appeared the higher demand for bank credits. The existing banks increased their operation, opening new institutions and expanding the branches rapidly.2
The Panic was devastating for New England and the depression in the mid-west changed people’s way of thinking dramatically. What enhanced the shock was the fact the time prior to panic was period of unprecedented prosperity and growth in this part of the country. As George Warren, son of Josiah Warren, reported in 1881: “Cincinnati, in the year 1817, was a bright, beautiful, and flourishing city. It extended from the river to Sixth street, and from Broadway to Walnut street, and not much beyond those limits. The courthouse, which stood upon the same ground as the present one, was considered to be in the country, and its location an outrage on the citizens. (The houses were beautifully interspersed with vacant lots, not yet sold, which were covered with grass. The city contained about nine thousand inhabitants. (...) the people were enterprising and industrious”3. This picture changed dramatically: “But a day of reckoning was at hand. In 1819 the United States bank began to call in its accounts; others were obliged to do the same; and those speculators, to avoid the sheriff, began to scatter like rats from a submerged flour barrel. Sheriff Heckewelder complained that his friends had taken a sudden notion to travel, at the very time he most wanted them. Some fled east, some west, some to Kentucky, and some the Lord knows where, (it soon became impossible to get money anywhere). Building was entirely stopped. The spring of 1820 was gloomy time. All business was brought to a sudden stand. No more brick wagons, stone wagons, or new cellars were to be' seen in the streets. The mechanics lately so blithe and cheerful had gone in different directions in search of work, at any price, to keep themselves and families from starving.”4
With the collapse of banking institution, lack of credit and lack of reliable currency, people tried to find their own solution, and created parallel system: “Finally it was found that money of some kind must be had. This induced some individuals to issue tickets, or little due-bills, on their own credit. They were sometimes as low as six and one-fourth cents. Of these bankers John H. Piatt and Mr. Leathers, of Covington, were the chief. This currency had different values, according to people's estimate of the solvency of the individuals. The corporation had issued tickets before this. In making contracts it had to be agreed what kind of money was to be received; so much in ‘corporation,’ or so much in ‘Piatt,’5 or so much in ‘Leathers.’ Sometimes contracts would call for ‘bankable money.’ By this was meant the notes of those few banks that had not already broken. If any specie was seen it was generally ‘cut money,’ or half-dollars cut into five triangular pieces, each passing for twelve and one-half cents”6
The local midwest newspapers did not only provide the vivid description of daily misery but also blamed the government and the state institutions for the helpless situtaion of farmers and merchants:
“To the Farmers of Moss County. Brother Farmers, I take the liberty of saying a few things to you about hard times. Now a-days when we meet one another we have nothing to say but to repeat the old complaint of hard times. When we have got through the fatiguing labors of the day, and sit down with our wives and children about us in the evening, instead of calculating our gains and cheering our boys and girls by promising Bill and Bob a hat, and Molly and Katey a new dress after harvest and sale of our crops, we have only to amuse ourselves and them with the story of hard times. If we go to town, although we are invited to try a little corn as usual, and meet with the same feeling enquiries from our friends, the store keepers, as formerly, about our ‘concerns at home;’ before we leave their store we are sure to be winked aside and called on for ‘a small balance of some time standing which ought to be paid.’ Well, it is true the times are hard enough. Two or three years ago we could get a dollar a bushel for our wheat, and for our pork and beef four or five dollars per hundred. Then our farms were worth something, and we could always, by some means or other, raise a little money to meet ‘a balance of some time standing which ought to be paid.’ Now we can get little or nothing for our wheat, our pork and our cattle. And as for our farms, we could hardly give them away. In fact, it is so difficult to get money that all ‘balances,’ whether for or against us, bid fair to remain ‘outstanding’ for a long time to come (…) But one of the greatest evils that has befallen us Farmers, is, the money of a host of swindling institutions throughout the state, that has been shoved on to us by the merchants, Contractors for the General Government, and almost all the officers and agents who have money to pay out for the Government”7
It is visible in the language used in journals and newspapers, full of adjectives such as: distress, despair, evil, unprecedented hard times. The perfect example of such narrative was an article entitled “Alarming times”. The Author reported that:
“[n]ever within the recollection of our oldest citiziens, has the aspect of times, as it respects property and money, been so alarming. Already has property been sacrificed in considerable quantities in this & neighbouring counties for less than half its value. We have but little money in circulation and that little is daily diminishing by the universal call of the Banks. Neither land, negroes, or any other article can be sold for half their value in cash, while executions to the amount of many hundred thousand dollars are hanging over the heads of our citizens. What can be done? In a few months, no debt can be paid, no money will be in circulation to answer the ordinary purposes of human life. Warrants, writs and executions will be more abundant than bank notes and the country will present a scene of scuffing for the poor and remnants of individual fortunes which the world has not witnessed.” 8
HOSTILITY TOWARD PAPER MONEY
The economy of Early republic was based to the great extent on barter exchange. Wittke in his classical “History of Ohio” concluded that “barter system was universal on the frontier, and hence the proprietor of a general store was perforce an exporter as well as an importer”9. When James Kilbourne composed the advertisement of the Worthington that promoted the opening of a new trail, he wrote that “Almost every kind of country produce will be received in payment, and even CASH ITSELF, rather than lose a good trade, or disoblige a friend and customer”.10 But it is not only indication of Wittke called “twinkle in [Killingsworth’s] eyes”11 but proof that the natural goods were at the first decade of 19th century the natural form of payment. The editor of the Supporter of Chillicothe was desperate when he offered to take “Flour, Wheat, Corn, Corn-meal, Buckwheat, Pork, Beef, Tallow, Hogs-lard, Butter, Cheese, Poultry, and Sugar” in payment of subscriptions. He added, rather testily, that ‘those who cannot supply us with at least some of the above articles, ought not to take a newspaper’.”12
The hostility toward paper money substantially increased after the Panic of 1819. Starting from 1790 states and private banks were issuing their own currency to supply capital in a young nation without any national currency. These bank currencies were backed by the hard money the banks had on deposit, and were only used locally where the bank and its operators were trusted in the community. However, banks often oversupplied notes, and this overextension caused often bankruptcies among private and state banks when financial panic struck in 1819, 1837 and 1854.13
5 Dollar Farmers and Mechanics Bank Note, 181614
One of the greatest result of the panic of 1819 was not only increasing hostility toward paper money, but also well-organized movement of on anit-bullionist who advocated not only the reform of the banking system, but some of them even demanded its total abandonment. Those that advocated to labour for labour exchange were rather following this path and advocated for the replacement of paper money with labour notes. They believed that this new form would be more reliable, resistant to devaluation, but also providing more freedom and independence to the individuals. In the labour for labour exchange arrangements any individual could issue currency, without interfering with the regulations of the federal power.
While midwestern newspapers described the devastating effect of paper money on farmers and small store keepers, the industrial cities like Philadelphia or New York perceived the devaluation of paper currency as the most devastating for the workers :
“Paper money has spread its blasting influence most severely upon the working people. Almost all other classes have picked some of the crumbs from the sumptuous feasts it has prepared-but in no way has the productive laborer been benefited-on the contrary, it has increased his toil, and decreased his reward. It has expanded trade, it has made improvements-it has drawn into the possession of those who issue it, immense sums of unearned gold-it has made the country appear happy and prosperous-all which apparent prosperity is, (…) merely ‘the bloom on the cheek of consumption.’ It requires but a moment’s examination, to be convinced of the withering effect of fictitious capital. The working men know it because they feel it-the merchants will not know, it, because, as yet, they have numerous resources which enable them”15
Philadelphia press provided many examples of couplet and satirical songs, condemning this medium of exchange:
“Of paper coin, how vast the power!
It makes or breaks us in an hour,
And probably a beggar’s shirt,
If finely ground, and freed of dirt,
Then re-compress’d, by hand or hopper,
And printed on with plate of copper,
Might raise ten ‘Idlers’ to renown,
And tumble fifty ‘Workers’ down.”16
There was substantial literature, circulating pamphlets and leaflets, calling for the reform of paper money or abandoning money as the medium at all 17. In this situation labour notes might have been seen as more reliable, and while Josiah Warren never questioned their trustworthiness, Owen noticed possible problems. Mainly because in Warren’s experiment the value of commodities was simply measured by time dedicated to produce goods, while Owenite system for labour for labour exchange was theoretically based on time dedicated to the production, in practice the evaluation and estimations how much time was dedicated were done by the collective bodies or trained inspectors who assigned average labour hour, needed in their opinions to produce commodities. Therefore, Owen warned that:
“Arrangements might be devised to prevent any change in the value of these notes, which might be made to represent real wealth remaining in store; for when the articles which the notes represented were taken for consumption, or deteriorated by keeping, notes to the amount of the labour or deterioration in those articles might be destroyed. Some difficulty might arise at first, in discovering the amount of labour which ought to be in every article; but this process is nothing more than ascertaining the real prime cost of articles, which truly consists in the labour required to produce them. But as one person will take more time than another to perfect the same kind of article, the time required by a workman possessing an average degree of skill and industry, should be the principle by which the calculation should be made. - This mode of conducting business will introduce principles of justice and equity in all transactions between man and man; it will actually destroy every motive to trick, deceit, and chicanery. (…)Any difficulties, however, which may arise from exchanging labour for labour among the producers through the intervention of labour notes, will be but of short duration ; for the knowledge, which will accompany this change, and which in some degree will grow out of this practice, will speedily lead to a very improved state of society; —to one, in which, through a more enlightened system of education, the rising generation will be taught the practice of a much better mode of production, distribution, and consumption, by the means of which they will be enabled to form their children into a very superior order of beings, by training them from infancy to know themselves, and to organize a society in conformity to that knowledge, which will permit and direct them to enjoy, at the point of temperance, all their physical and mental faculties, in evident accordance with the laws of their nature.”18
Smith-Owen connection
There is no doubt that Robert Owen was familiar with work of Adam Smith and found huge inspiration in Smith’s claim that “Labour, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities.”19 Analysis of Owen’s economic development reveals that the evolution of his theory of cooperatives, based on labour for labour exchange, was also inspired by the Smith’s claim that “If among a nation of hunters, for example, it usually costs twice the labor to kill a beaver which it does to kill a deer, one beaver should naturally exchange for or be worth two deer.” 20 The Owen’s understanding of Smith, however, was not only highly selective but also oversimplified. One cannot understand Owen-Smith connections without examining how distorted was Owen’s perception of Smith’s idea.
The main reasons for the unique Owen’s approach to Smith were:
- Owen concentrated on the role of labour in the production of wealth but at the same time he overlooked the role of capital and rent in this process.
- Owen ignored Smith’s consideration about productive and unproductive labour21.
- Owen also rejected the division of labour as prime element enhancing the economic growth; although it should be noticed that he rejected the division of labour due to broader, non-economic reasons.
Owen might have been inspired by Smith’s famous quote that about calculation of value of labour among hunters but ignored Smith’s remarks that such arrangements were possible only on the early stage of social and economic development, before the appropriation of the land and the accumulation of the capital. What Smith observed in undeveloped societies of hunters, Owen tried to apply to traders and artisans. Owen decided that his economic theory of exchange labour to labour would be based on the ratio 1:1 – one hour of any labour exchanged for one hour of any other labour. He also ignored the Smith’s observation that some works are more amiable than others – which should have an impact on the value of work. Surprisingly, Owen who paid huge attention to education and human development, ignored the role education might played in obtaining new skills and increasing the value of performed labour.
At the beginning, Owen was more concentrated on promoting his New Lanark experiment rather than to dedicate his time to studying and developing a theory22 but in 1821 he published his more mature work: Report to the county of Lanark, of a plan for relieving public distress: And removing discontent, by giving permanent, productive employment, to the poor and working classes, under arrangements which will essentially improve their character, and ameliorate their condition, diminish the expenses of production and consumption, and create markets co-extensive with production . In this work he stated that only “manual labour, properly directed, is the source of all wealth, and of national prosperity.”23 Though Owen was inspired by some concept of labour presented by Smith: unique role of it in generation of wealth as well as the ability to make labour a measure for value of commodities, the differences between Smith and Owen were deep and driven Owen away onto the reef of collectivism and communal ownership.
The Owenite system was so radically different from the Smith’s concept also because Owen openly rejected the division of labour. What for Smith was prime source of progress and economic development24 Owen perceived as an obstacle and element that should be eradicated from human relations. Owen declared that “lamentable compression of the human intellect is the certain and necessary consequence of the present division of labour, and of the existing general arrangements of society.”25 In his later work he openly admitted that “A long experience has induced me to come to an opposite conclusion, and convinced me that Adam Smith's principle of the division and subdivision of intellect and labour has been long since carried far beyond the beneficial limit, and that the world for many years has suffered grievously from its errors in this respect.”26 Instead of the concept of the division of labour, Owen emphasized the role of education as the foundation of his utopian system where “every individual, male and female, will be so instructed, before he shall be twelve years of age, as to have a general knowledge of the earth, and of the animal, vegetable and mineral kingdoms—of the useful sciences, and of human nature and its past history. There will, therefore, be no obstacle to prevent individuals from learning, if they should be so inclined, as much both of theory and practice in the arts and sciences, as will afford them full employment and agreeable recreation.”27
In Owen’s system, anyone could perform any work with the same willingness and easiness, therefore the division of labour would not only be unnecessary, but should be removed as an obstacle from improving the condition of human being. Moreover, as Gregory Claeys observed, Owen was one of the first who opposed the division of labour due to his hostility toward narrow specialization. According to Clayes “chief context for Owenism's discussion of the division of labour was not the eighteenth-century debate over commercial society, but that which accompanied the rise of the manufacturing system in the early nineteenth century, and the far more extensive specialization which this entailed 28. Owen opposed the division of labour on the deeper ground, because “most forms of the division of labour were seen as hostile to individual independence, to the practice of virtue, and to the exercise of human rationality”29. Division of labour, surprisingly, drastically diminished chance for human flourishing and creates interdependency on others and on governmental structure.
In mid-nineteenth century members of the Owenite movement started to publish articles emphasizing the connection between Smith and Owen. Those articles tried to implore that Owenism was a continuation of Smith’s views on Labour or that it offered solutions to motives overlooked by Smith. One of such examples is William Coningham’s article where he analyzed Smith’s philosophy and attributed him the conviction that “the produce of labour originally constitutes the natural recompense, or wages, of labour”. Cunningham did not specify the title of Smith’s work where such an idea appeared not to mention the passage. In Owen’s works, as well as within the Owenite movement, it is quite visible that those ties were not based on deep and diligent analysis of Smith’s economic ideas but rather they referred to “imagined Smith”, simplified and reshaped to fit Owen’s vision. It was done to keep society in the stage “[b]efore the appropriation of land and the accumulation of stock, [where] the whole of the produce belonged to the labourer: there was neither landlord nor master have continued, wages would have augmented with the improvements in productive power, which were developed by the division of labour and by the discoveries of science.”30
Owen presented himself also as someone that could revise outdated Smith whose writings were created in different economic context. Owen openly admitted that:
“[w]hen Adam Smith wrote his celebrated Essays on the Wealth of Nations, men were struggling against a deficiency of the powers of production in society to supply all their reasonable wants; and the principle of division of labour, which he so ably advocated, was well calculated by its practice to lessen the difficulty. But he could not then imagine than in less than half a century the improvements effected by the combined sciences of mechanism and chemistry should set aside the necessity for the division of human labour to create the requisite wealth for happiness. It is now, however, obvious, that as long as the necessity for a minute division of labour existed, the happiness of the human race could not be attained. Since the time that Adam Smith wrote, the extension of mechanical contrivances, and the discoveries in chemistry, combined with the progress and diffusion of general knowledge, have rendered a minute division of human labour, for the creation of wealth, as unnecessary as experience has proved it to be deteriorating to the physical and mental faculties of man, and, therefore, always opposed to his happiness. (…) By these means, the powers of production have been increased in Great Britain alone, since the days of Adam Smith, more than one hundred times; or, in other words, these artificial powers have been so directed, as to produce the same effect as would arise from adding one hundred additional pair of hands to each producer, and these artificial hands have been better formed for their peculiar object of production, than the hands formed by nature. In consequence, the new powers of production created in Great Britain and Ireland since the days of Adam Smith, are now little, if any, short of the labour that could be obtained from 600 millions of active men, previous to that period; or, the working classes of Great Britain and Ireland (…) It is this power which is hourly encroaching on the value of your labour, that has thus far oppressed you by the facility it affords to over-production; while the existing organization of society has been formed solely to counteract the evils of under-production.”31
Owen then presented the solution for what was, in his opinion, Smith’s shortage to solve wage problems: “Instead of selling yourselves to the public for money, by which your labour receives the most useless and injurious direction, would it not be more rational to apply your physical and mental powers directly for your own use, in a fair exchange among yourselves, of value for value, or the amount of labour in one article, against the same amount in another? By this simple and just mode of transacting business, labour, and not money, would become the standard of value; and, without much difficulty, the value in all articles might be represented by notes of labour for an hour, a day, a month, a year, &c.”32
One of the earliest critical reflection on Owen’s project was the book Remarks on the Practicability of Mr. Robert Owen's Plan to Improve the Condition of the Lower Classes by John M. Morgan under his pen name Philanthropos. Morgan made similar observation, quoting extensively from Smith, “the whole consumption of the inferior ranks of people, or of those below the middling rank, it must be observed, is in every country much greater, not only in quantity but in value, than that of the middling and of those above the middling rank. The whole expense of the inferior is much greater than that of the superior ranks. In the first place, almost the whole capital of every country is annually distributed among the inferior ranks of people, as the wages of productive labour. Secondly, a great part of the revenue, arising from both the rent of land and the profits of stock, is annually distributed among the same ranks, in the wages and maintenance of menial servants and Other unproductive labourers” 33
John Morgan believed that “Labour is all the poor man has to give in exchange for the comforts and necessaries of life, of which he obtains less as his labour is depreciated ; and when it is altogether superseded, he is driven to want, contracts idle habits, and then we expect him to be able to resist the force of circumstances, although we daily witness the failure of more cultivated minds under similar temptations. If destitution, disease, crime, punishment, and sometimes death”34. Owen’s system was therefore perceived not in pure economic project but as the broader attempt to fight with all evils of humanity. Owen intended to create what he called “new society” or “harmonious cooperation” and eradicate competition. In this utopian vision
“[t]he standard of value being labour, and the necessary preliminary arrangements being formed, notes representing labour would be given for every article when finished, according to the amount of labour that may be contained in it (…) All bargaining, or desire to take advantage of each other, would at once cease,—insincerity would no longer characterize the proceedings of commerce,—every one’s labour would easily supply him with the necessaries and comforts of life,—poverty would soon be unknown,—the representative of wealth, while it would always be commensurate with the amount of wealth created, would actually stand for what it purported to do; the wealth in society, and the notes representing it, would be, at all times, equal in amount,—and the security of the system might be of the most certain and complete description.”35
The best summary of the Owenite philosophy was the remark that Humphrey Noyes made in 1870. What was once intended as the complement, currently sounds more as the accusing observation. Noyes wrote that “Owen had not much theory. His main idea was Communism, and that he got from the Rappites. His persistent assertion that man's character is formed for him by his circumstances, was his nearest approach to original doctrine; and this he virtually abandoned when he came to appreciate spiritual conditions. The rest of his teaching is summed up in the old injunction, ‘Be good,’ which is the burden of all preaching. But theory was not his function. Nor yet even practice. His business was to seed the world, and especially this country, with an unquenchable desire and hope for Communism; and this he did effectually.”36
First American Attempts to execute labour for labour exchange
After successfully touring Ireland in 1822-23, lecturing in almost every major city, Owen decided to go to the United States in the autumn of 1824. The main purpose of his trip was to negotiate the purchase of Rapp’s settlement in New Harmony, Indiana, and to establish his own new community there. While in the United States Owen visited several cities, including New York, Philadelphia, Cincinnati and Washington, where he gave a gave a speech in front of the members of Congress, the judges of supreme court and then President James Monroe. Before leaving Washington he presented elaborate, six-foot-tall model of the future New Harmony (design based on Phalanx that he made in 1820). After New Harmony collapsed, he returned to Europe but did not gave up his American affairs and in 1827 he made his second, and in 1828, his third-visit to the United States.37
Strongly advocating for labour for labour exchange and cooperative stores, Owen was not the first person who tested such a concept. The first labour for labour exchange had been implemented in America by the former inhabitant of New Harmony, Josiah Warren. Warren was, to some extent, inspired by Owen’s philosophy and looked for equity in human relation. As N.B. Hall quite accurately described him, he “was the father of a small but vocal school of nonviolent ultra-individualists who rejected even laissez-faire economics, which they saw as merely governmental policy designed to aid businessmen.”38 Although inspired by Owen, after participating in the New Harmony experiment, Warren reached the conclusion that main reason for the failure of Owen’s community was lack of individual choices, which were sacrificed for the communal, conformist life. Therefore, his store might looked alike Owenite one, but was based on quite distinct philosophical principles.
The store opened in Cincinnati Ohio, and was broadly advertised in Western Tiller, Mechanic’s Free Press, and New Harmony Gazette. Western Tiller was a local newspaper published in Cincinnati, Ohio, while New Harmony Gazette, was strongly connected to the Owenite movement and reached much broader circle of subscribers. Mechanic’s Free Pres published in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania was the first labour movement newspaper, circulating among 2000 subscribers39. Information of Warren’s experiment in 1827 and in 1828 reached the broad audience of potential supporters. The New Harmony Gazette even published the apologetic poem entitled “Time Store”, depicting the term of operation of this newly invented economic experiment:
“All hail to the era of knowledge divine!
When the value of Labor by Time is displayed,
When money, the bane of mankind, must decline,
Since time, peerless time, forms the medium of trade.
Oh, where? for these thousands of years, has been kept,
This science which now, for the first time, is known?
Where! where but in Error's dark kennels has slept,
This true source of wealth which a Warren has shown.
By a medium of Minutes this traffic sublime,
Displays an Elysium among us begun;
Where labor buys labor for that sum of time,
(from one to another) in which it was done.
Now the teacher of youth, or the master of arts,
The skiful physician, or votary of trade,
Asks but the same time, for the time he imparts,
By those who he serves, in return, to be paid.
A 'Bill of All Wants, ever posted to view,
As rated by time, at all times may be seen;
And those who who supply them, receive as their due,
Notes in Minutes and Hours on the Time-Magazine.
These hours and minutes, so willingly lost,
In the earnings of dollars and cents, or mere cash!
Are now so much valued they purchase at cost,
The Goods which were bought with the obsolete trash.
Then ‘Ho every one’ that's in want, or is not!—
Here's a treasure which no one beside us has seen,
Where all sorts of Goods may be readily got,
For just what they cost, at the Time-Magazine.
Then hail, thou great era of knowledge divine!
When the standard of labor by time is displayed;
When the value of money shall surely decline,
Since Labor and Time are the Medium of trade.”40
Warren later on started to use the term “co-operative magazine” or “labour experiment” instead of “Time Store” to describe his enterprise. Warren himself, luckily in prose, provided quite detailed description in both “Western tiller” and “Mechanic’s Free Press” how the system worked in practice. The main principle of entire enterprise was that: “all Labour is valued by the Time employed in it.”41 Then Warren described the transaction itself: “he who employs five or ten hours of his time, in the service of another, receives five or ten hours labour of the other in return. The estimates of the time cost, of articles having been obtained from those whose business it is to produce them, are always exposed to view, so that it may be readily ascertained, at what rate any article will be given and received. He who deposits an article, which by our estimate costs ten hours labour, receives any other articles, which, together with the labour of the keeper in receiving and delivering them, costs ten hours, or, if the person making the deposit does not wish at that time, to draw out any article, he receives a Labour Note for the amount; with this note he will draw out articles, or obtain the labour of the keeper, whenever he may wish to do so.”42. There were also possibilities that some people received commodities or services and had not to pay in some other barter deposit at that time. In cases like this “the person who receives [services or commodities], gives a labour note on the Magazine, by which the bearer can draw out any articles which the Magazine may contain, as persons of all professions will require those things which do admit of being deposited”. 43
As Warren declared in his later works in 1840s, the long term aim of the “labour experiment” was to eliminate money as the medium of exchange, but this goal would not have been achieved in none of the Warren’s experiments. “When the keeper has occasion for money, he reports upon the list of wants the rate at which he is willing to receive it in exchange for his labour. There is a place for advertisements, so that communications can be made to all interested. When any one wishes to deal in the common way, and feels no interests in the new arrangements, the keeper will deal in that way, provided the profits will amount to that which he requires in money as the reward of his labour for that day.”44
Being aware of this inability to completely abandon pecuniary affair Warren sold articles that were bought for money for the same amount which keeper of the store (Warren in that case) paid for them, and the rewarded for his labour was with an equal amount of the labour from the purchaser. The store operated in such a mixed money/labour system: “There are some articles, one part of which at present is procured with money, and the other has been deposited upon the new principle. That part for which money was paid, is paid for in money, and the other part is paid for in an equal amount of labour. We do not exchange labour for money, or money for labour, excepting in particular cases of necessity”45.
Warren wanted to secure against the situation where might be put such a burden upon him as to make up the loss of the store. It is important to notice that Warrenite prices were not fixed, but their fluctuations were minor and transparent. Therefore “loss on any article, after having been ascertained, is added to, and becomes one part of its price. An account of all the labour and money expenses is kept, and when any one receives an article, he pays as much labour and money over and above the cost. (…) the amount being liable to vary according to local and other circumstances, is fixed periodically by the keeper. An open record is kept upon which is noted in a simple and expeditious manner, each article that is delivered: and this is done by such a method that at a meeting of those who are in the habit of dealing here, it can be readily ascertained how much labour and money have been received for the purpose of discharging these expenses: and if when compared with the account of expenses it appears that too much has been received, the overplus will be distributed equally (…) . If too little has been paid, all will see the propriety and the necessity of supplying the deficiency, and therefore no obligation to that effect is required. The expenses are paid in this manner, in order to secure the Magazine against the chances of loss, and to enable strangers to receive the benefits of the establishment, without being under the necessity of returning at a future time for the purpose of discharging these little items of expense”46.
The store operated three years till 1830, and according to Warren, was highly successful. Therefore, he looked for opportunity to create a similar enterprise. In 1835 he established next colony that he called “Equity village”. The experiment was based on labor exchange and “individual sovereignty”. According to Everet Webber “Labor exchange functioned so well in the static little community, in Tuscarawas County, Ohio, that one man built a brick house at a cash outlay of less than ten dollars”47. Regrettably for Warren. there was no national system of labor exchange, so inhabitants of the colony still needed some money to buy things that they did not produce. “However, this was viewed as but a temporary impediment, one which did not harm the basic system (…) Malarial epidemics soon broke up the village”.48
Warren was not discouraged and established another labour for labour exchange community called “Utopia” in Franklin Township, Clermont County in Ohio. The Utopia was situated at the same place where earlier, in 1844 had been Fourierist phalanx, called Clermont Phalanx, however the Fourierist settlers were quite quickly disillusioned and left place in 1846. The flood of Ohio river in 1847 sealed the fate of Fourierist community49. So, when Warren arrived in 1847, he found the deserted buildings ready for new inhabitants. In Utopia Warren published second series of “Peaceful Revolutionist” in which he analyzed reasons for his success and failures of others: “one in Philadelphia in 1823 and the other in Gray's Inn Roads, in London, ‘The Labor Exchange Bazaar’, in 1834 (…) I have now by me, the letters of the conductor of the establishment in Philadelphia, which say, that in spite of all he could do to the contrary, his co-adjutors would combine, would Organise, would raise funds in partnership, therefore, must attempt to manage in partnership—Even two persons cannot drive one horse—he must be driven by an Individual—I attribute the particular causes of their failure to Combination.”50 Utopia, as well as Equity village, were based on individualism and private property, and according to Warren, those were the main reason why his experiments were so successful. Based on the outcomes of his experiments, he also ascribed the common form of property and the necessity of satisfying public needs and “combined interests”, as he called them, as the reason of his success, while the opposite actions of Philadelphia enterprise and London Bazaar were the main reason of their failure. 51
Warren returned to New Harmony in early 1840 and opened second Time Store in 1842, which survived till 1844 (or 1845). The appendix in Warren’s publication Equitable Commerce from 1846 provides reports of participants into experiments appraising this labour for labour exchange.
Undoubtedly, the first Warren’s Time Store and its description published in Philadelphia newspapers in 1828 inspired similar project in Philadelphia, where the group of reformer “agree[d] to form a society for the purpose of introducing an equitable valuation of labour”. They adopted the constitution according which a member could be any person of both sexes, over the age of twelve years, after signing the constitution. After gathering twenty-five persons, the Association intended to “rent or purchase a suitable tenement to be occupied as a place of exchange; which shall be denominated the producers exchange of labour for labour store”52. On June 7th 1828 the members announced that they already collected sufficient amount of members to go into operation. The association had far more complex and developed structure than the Warren’s one. In case of Philadelphia every three months, the association choose by ballot a President, Secretary, Committee of Trade and Commerce, and Committee of Exchange. The President was responsible for presiding “at all meetings of the association, draw all orders on the store for the payment of rent of store, committee of trade and commerce, and committee of exchange. (…) The secretary (…) [kept] a record of the minutes of the meeting of the association, attest[ed] all orders drawn by the president, and record[ed] the same in a book kept especially for the purpose”53.
The most important organ was the Committee of Trade and Commerce, responsible for inspecting “the affairs of the store, and report at the expiration of every month, the number and description of articles that remain on hand over & above the quantity which they deem requisite for the subsequent month's supply; and upon receiving the direction of the association therefor, will immediately exchange with general society or otherwise, such surplus for any other articles that the association may require; and at the expiration of every three months, they will take an account of the stock remaining on hand, audit the accounts of the committee of exchange, ascertain the amount of the incidental expenses of the store, and report accordingly. (…) The committee of exchange will receive and deliver all commodities deposited by the members, or procured by the committee of trade and commerce, keep accurate accounts thereof, in a book or books, to be provided by the association-and open a debit and credit with each member in a pass book to be procured by him and retained in his possession; they will also report daily the description of articles that the association may stand in need of”54. Committee was responsible for preparing regularly a list of items that are available in store for the exchange, lists were published with different frequency in the Mechanics’ Free Press (usually bi-weekly).
The members can “make deposits in the store, of such articles as are enumerated in the report of wants, at such times as the association may agree upon. (…) [and [a]ll articles that are entirely the produce of the labour of members of the association, or, for no part of which money has been paid, shall be valued by the number of hours, or parts of an hour, required for the production, and where different persons of the same profession, disagree in their estimates, the average of the whole shall be the price. A medium adult workman shall be taken as a criterion, but if females or children, perform the work, it doesn’t in our opinion diminish its value. (…) [while a]ll articles that are manufactured out of materials which cost money, shall be received at the store at the prime money cost of such materials, and the number of hours, or parts of an hour, required for their manufacture”55.
Similarly to Warren’s Time Store, the association agreed “never to attempt a conversion of money into labour, or vice versa, as we are satisfied that no such conversion can take place, without the most palpable and flagrant injustice.”. Those members who deposited any article that was paid by money, were required “to present the bill of sale thereof to the committee of exchange, who will take a copy thereof, which, together with a list of the money cost, and labour value, of all articles received at the store, shall at all times be open to the inspection of all the members.”56:
The important element of the entire enterprise was transparency, and insight that each member might have had into the store’s finances. Article 10th of the constitution stated that “[t]here shall be kept in the store a report book, to which the members shall have free access, where those who have articles to dispose of, and those who want employment, or are desirous to procure any commodities not usually kept in the store, could severally make known their wants, and ascertain whether their articles or services were required, and where the committee of exchange will make known the wants of the store.”57
The association allowed its members to “draw out of the store, either personally or by their order, to the amount of their deposits, in any commodities it may contain, but no one shall be permitted to draw therefrom, a greater amount of either money or labour, than he or she deposits, upon any account, nor by the order of any of the officers of the association, nor otherwise than by the express consent therefor in writing, of all the members first had and obtained.”58
The committee, that performed a similar function as the Storekeeper in Warren’s experiment, was entitled to compensation for their work, they “ present[ed] once a month, at one of the regular meetings of the association, an account of the numbers of hours they have been employed in the discharge of their respective duties, which account shall be paid in articles the labour value of which has been ascertained.”. Those costs to compensate the Committee members, as well as the rent and other incidental expenses of the store were defrayed equally among members of association. At the same time the association was not answerable for any private individual debts of any of the members, contracted either prior to or during membership, as well as the debts of its officers.
The last article of the Association’s Constitution allowed the members to amend and improve the system “by the concurrence of a majority of two-thirds of all the members: Provided, that notice of such alteration, or amendment, shall be given at the regular meeting next preceding its adoption, except the sixth, seventh, eighth, twelfth, eighteenth and nineteenth articles, which shall never be altered or amended, otherwise than by the express consent in writing therefor of all the members.”59
The Association foresaw the possibility of dissolution, however in practice such option was difficult to perform, while it could be done only “by the unanimous vote by ballot, of all the members: Provided, that a resolution for that purpose, be presented to the association at one of its regular meetings, at least three months previous to a final decision being taken on it, and persons may discontinue their membership, by declaring, either verbally or in writing, their wish to do so, at one of the regular meetings of the association”60.
There is lack of information why the association collapsed but according to Louis Arky “The Association operated three co-operative barter stores, dealing in general merchandise which catered to their domestic needs. Most important of all, a central union of trade societies was formed to serve as an executive body for these societies. Known as the Mechanics’ Union of Trade Associations, it was the first federation of its kind ever established.”61
As one can see, Philadelphia association had different character, while the Warren’s experiment was more individualistically oriented and directed to farmers and artisan. The actions of Philadelphia association should be put in the long tradition of artisan organization and unionism in this city.62 But according to Arky: “The Mechanics’ Union was trying to arrest incipient capitalism and to institute instead a system of small producers in which the journey man artisan would have a respected place in the community. It was understandable that its members spoke of Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence with reverence and that Owen’s ideas had appeal for them.”63 So receptiveness to Owen’s idea should be in that case put into the broader American tradition of Jeffersonian agrarian ideal and independence from the governmental interference.
The third kind of labour for labour association was the one organized by Owenite movement. The collapse of New Harmony did not end the Owen’s dream, and various Communities reappeared, just to mentioned Blue Spring Community in Monroe County, In.; Forestville Community in Coxsackie, NY; Franklin Community Haverstraw, NY; Kendal Community in Massillon, OH; Nashoba Community in Nashoba, TN; Wanborough Community in Wanborough, IL; and Yellow Springs Community in Yellow Springs, OH65.
There was a strong connection between Owenite circle in Great Britain and American labour for labour exchange experiments. Warren’s enterprises were reported in Owenite press (Crisis and British Co-Operator). British reformers visited or migrated to the USA to start new social and economic experiments. One of such persons was William Adolphus Ashton born in 1803 (died in 1870). Ashton was a member of the Manchester and Salford Social Community, which believed that Owen’s plan for a proposed Villages of Cooperation could be made to work on a much smaller scale than the population of 500 that Owen envisioned. William Ashton was heavily disturbed by the rapid industrialization in Great Britain and its consequences for human development.66 He established in Manchester “Social Co-operative Community”, soon to be renamed the “Manchester Social Community Company”67 or MSCC. Ashton wrote the The Social Co-operative Community Objects and Views, which was the constitution of the entire enterprise, and raised the money for the trip. The MSCC sold shares to raise money for their passage to America. (In this sense, their venture was similar to that of the joint-stock companies which sponsored early emigration to Colonial America.) The entire enterprise was secular. They issued the stock cards, with the rules and obligations of the MSCC to its shareholders and the obligations of shareholders to the MSCC. One of the first rules said: "No Theological Discussion shall be permitted in any of the Company's meetings”68
Ashton came with the group of six other families from Manchester, England, to establish a co-operative community. Following the example of Mayflower, while aboard they prepared the Memorial to the Membership of the Manchester Social Community Company. The last page of the document contains the signatures of both male and female members of the Company. In the text, the term “Company” was originally written, then crossed out to become “Community.” This suggests some tension in the group: were they primarily a community bound by a shared philosophy, or a company bent on profit.69
Upon arrival, the group purchased 80 acres of Congress lands in Whitewater Township in Franklin County, Indiana, in 1834. “When this community failed in 1836, Ashton turned first to the manufacture of oilcloth, then to the study and practice of medicine, and last to farming, for his livelihood.” 70 The community was not self-sufficient and relied upon the financial support from Manchester. “"Financial support from Manchester ceased early in 1836. Conditions in England were increasingly bad and they could spare no money to send to America. Moreover the Manchester Company split into two factions, one faction now being interest[ed] in the purchase of land in England rather than in America. It was apparent, therefore, that the remaining members of the small company, headed by Ashton, would have to depend upon themselves individually.”71
The William Ashton Papers provides vast information about intellectual background of Ashton’s ideas. There Papers contains pamphlets that he brought from Manchester promoting Owenite Labour for labour exchange and the collection of fife items, dedicated to reform of paper money and replacing them with the labour notes. Among them there is the only surviving copy of Josiah Warren Reformation of the currency upon the principle of labor for labor; a new principle of foreign and domestic commerce which is now being introduced in practice, and which deeply affects the immediate interests of both sexes, and all classes of society72 as well as earlier pieces that Ashton brought form England: Manchester and Salford Bank for Savings. Thirteenth annual report, 4 Mar. 1831 73 and The circulating medium, and the present mode of exchange, the cause of increasing distress amongst the productive classes; and an effectual measure for their immediate and permanent relief, pointed out ion the universal establishment of equitable exchange banks, in which all the business of life may be transacted without money published by “British Co-operator”.74 Although history of Franklin County did mention the fact that that William Ashton upon arrival to America at first lived in Cincinnati, Ohio where “he precited his profession for some time, enjoying considerable practice. In addition to his professional activities he also engaged in the manufacturing business, being an extensive manufacturer of window blinds and oil cloth. He later moved to Franklin county, where he bought a farm in Whitewater township, on which he spend the remainder of his life” 75 but this source did not mention his labour for labour experiments.
Regrettably, there is no surviving information about the Ashton’s experiment in Franklin county in none of the Indiana newspapers between 1834-183876.. There might at least two reasons for it: the fact that experiment had limited, local character, short history and did not draw attention of broader audience. The other reasons might not be related to Ashton’s experiment itself but growing hostility toward the ideas introduced by Owenites. In Richmond Palladium in 1838 appeared long articles warning Indiana inhabitants about the Robert Dale Owen ideas. Editor admitted that it is his “duty as public journalist to prove, by quotation from [R.D.O] writings, that he has not only advocate the doctrine of agrarianism, but other theories, far more revolting to the feelings of American citizens.”77
The British Labour for Labour exchange enterprise and transatlantic connection
In the late 1820s there were various labour for labour experiments in Great Britain based on barter exchange of goods but they did not issue labour notes. 78 The major difficulty in researching these experiments is that the Owenite press provides information about the discussion of various project but does not provide any evidence how those experiments functioned in practice. Undoubtedly, there were in existence:
1824 – London Co-operative Society (Barton Street)
1825 – London Co-operative Society (Red Lion Square)
1826 – Project of big community within fifty miles of London (probably never realised)
1826 – Co-operative Community Fund Association (later called 1st London Co-operative Community, a small-scale project)
1827 – Union Exchange Society (at Red Lion Square, store projected by the London Co-operative Society to raise fund for a community)
1830 – 1st London Co-operative Society (run by William Lovett)
1830 – 1st London Manufacturing Community79
All those experiments were established by people associated somehow with the Owen movement, although Robert Owen himself was abroad. Owen upon return from the USA was not initially interested in such kind of labour for labour exchange stores. As Margaret Cole, Owen’s biographer pointed out, “A man who had just offered to run the entire territory of Texas was not likely to be impressed with the coral-insect activities of small trading and producing societies of the working class”80. Harrison noticed that even in 1832 Owen was reluctant to start a labour exchange as he believed that it was too early and he wanted to wait until they had adequate capital81. Owen was forced to change his mind by the highly successful co-operation run by others like William King, who founded a cooperative store in Brighton, promoting it in his newspaper The Co-operator82.
The Proceedings of the Third Co-Operative Congress: Held in London published in 1832 revealed how the movement evolved when it was joined by the union movement and it became more oriented toward the working class demands and needs. The Proceedings reflects also some attempts to make the co-operatives organization more centralized and more formal. In the second point of the final circular directed to all co-operatives the members declared that “this Congress considers it highly desirable that a Community, on the principles of ' Mutual Co-operation, United Possessions, and Equality of Exertions, and of the Means of Enjoyment,' should be established in England, as speedily as possible, in order to show the practicability of the co-operative system j and, further, it is the opinion of this Congress, that such Community may be formed by the means recently suggested by the ' First Birmingham Co-operative Society,' contained in the following resolution of that society, and published in ' Carpenter's Political Letter.' April 30, 1831.”83
The third point expressed their belief that “speedy formation of an Incipient Cooperative Community (…)will make immediate application to one hundred and ninety-nine other Co-operative Societies, in order to obtain their concurrence to a project of electing a member of each society, and supplying him, in such a manner as they shall deem best, with the sum of 30 l84., in order that an Incipient Community of 6000 l. may immediately be formed in some part of England.” 85
The report showed the big scale of co-operatives: “Birkacre in Lancashire, and Ralahine in Ireland, seem the farthest in advance. The former is composed principally of silk and cotton printers, to the amount of 3,000 members. They have lately taken an estate of 120 acres, with the mansion of a cotton lord thereon, and are now employing 300 of their members. The latter was established by M. Vandelour, late sheriff of the county of Clare, on 600 acres of land. He has set about seventy-five families at work on the co-operative system.”86 Thompson declared that system had been not only successful in London but also in America, and because it was new therefore its general rules should be disseminated among the public. One of the London societies (Thompson did not specify which one of them), operated on following rules: “1st. That some part of the premises be appropriated for the reception of such articles or stores as any of the members or others may be willing to deposit for exchange, being first approved of by a committee of management appointed by the members for any limited period; 2nd. That the committee have power to examine, value, and receive such stores in exchange for notes, and to carry into effect such other objects, and follow such directions as may be given them from time to time, by a general meeting of the members; 3rd, That the committee shall meet twice a week, for the valuation of goods and for the issuing of the notes.”87 It shows the collective or collegiality aspect of entire enterprise,, quite different to the American Warren’s experiment where the entire co-operative store was a one person enterprise, operated on the simple interpersonal level – all the contracts were between the sellers/buyers and the store keeper. Thompson also kept in mind to provide transparency of the entire project, therefore Exchange Room or Society Room (depending how they called it) was open for the inspection by any member of co-operatives and by the public. An Exchanger, or Store-keeper was also “appointed by the members, and give security for his trust.”88
The rules of exchange were similar to the experiments in America: “every depositor shall state in writing the cost price of the material used, and time consumed in the manufacture ; and shall be bound by the decision of the committee to the value of such article (…) [and] for every article deposited in the Exchange a receipt shall be given to the Exchange-keeper, stating the nature and number of the articles deposited ; and that such articles shall be laid before the committee for their inspection and valuation, and if approved by them they shall direct that notes be given to the depositor representing their value”89. The system was based on transparency and open record to all members and everyone who wanted to participate in the system should “insert their names, residences, and business, who shall be employed in rotation, unless the persons requiring work done give a preference to any other member”.90
The system was based on the circulating labour notes in which “The bearer, No. is appointed by the society to work for you, at per hour. (…) Please to state the number of hours the beater was at work for you.—No payment is to be made but by the society. Add when the work is finished he shall deliver the same to the Exchange-keeper, who shall give him a receipt for such notes ; and if the committee is satisfied that the work has been done in a work manlike manner, they shall issue an Exchange or labour note representing its value.”91
When between 1832 and 1833 Robert Owen got personally involved in the co-operatives movement he established three Labour Exchange Bazaars. Bazaars enabled producers to exchange their articles with one another. Additional important element of Owen’s bazaars was the substitution of current money with the labour notes. Last element, which Mary Hennell observed in 1844 in her An outline of the various social systems & communities which have been founded on the principle of co-operation : with an introductory essay, was “producer’s advantage of obtaining an immediate representative of the worth of his goods. For instance, the shoemaker brought his pair of shoes to the Bazaar, with tan invoice of the cost of the material and the time employed in manufacturing them. A person. Supposed to be competent and disinterested, was appointed to sanction or correct the valuation. A labour note of so many hours was then given to the shoemaker, which he was at liberty to exchange immediately, or at any future time, for any other despot in the Bazaar – say a hat, a tea kettle, or a joint of meat. Upon each transaction a commission of 8 ⅓ per cent. was charged, payable in cash, to defray the expenses of Institution”93
Marry Hennell already in 1844 was able to observe the shortcomings of the entire enterprise, since term of operation: “were found to be very heavy, and although the plan seemed attractive, and large deposits and exchanges were made for a season, there expenses, the great difficulties of the management, and the losses attending the removal of the Bazaar from Gray’s Inn Road to Charlotte Street, Fitzroy Square, soon put the labour notes to a discount. Notwithstanding the high expectations of success entertained by the promoters of the plan, and the support which it received from numbers of working people, to a degree which had occasioned the establishment of several branch institution, it proved entirely delusive, - as all attempts to engraft a new system upon old must be without any corresponding change of principles and habits of action”.94
It might be surprising how strong were intellectual connections and exchange of ideas between the British and American cooperatives. Warren was well informed about the Owenite experiments in England, and disseminate that information further in his circle of followers. In February 5th, 1833 in his periodical Peaceful Revolutionist, he reprinted excerpts of Owen’s letter to friends in Liverpool announcing plans “to establish the first provincial branch in Birmingham. He also says I am obliged to return to London**** * I have to open a new branch establishment which has been preparing during my absence and only waits my return. This will be our first branch established in London. I have just now received a letter from Gray’s Inn exchange which gives a very favourable account of last week’s proceedings there — the increase has been 225 £ (about eleven hundred dollars) more than the preceding week”95 The communications went both ways, and many newspapers in Great Britain advertised the successful American experiment in The Crisis and British Co-operator.
The Second wave of labour for labour exchange in America
The development of labour for labour cooperatives in America resembles sine wave, with the amplitude coinciding in time with economic depressions. After the panic of 1837 we can observe the creation of many labour for labour exchange experiments in the early 1840s, and another wave after the panic of 1854 resulting in the revival of labour for labour ideas in the mid-1850s.
Josiah Warren was still active in late 1840s and already had established numerous labour for labour exchange experiments, he was also a key figure promoting the individualistic principles and private property as the basis for these experiments. All other co-operatives were based on the common property principle and inspired not only by the Owenite philosophy but also Fourierist and Proudhonian principles. It is hard to put these movements into the time frame. According to Shawn Wilburn, 1849-50 was the time of the Second Mutualist Moment (after the first Owenite-Mutualist Moment of 1825-1827). The second movement was more eclectic and stimulated by many intellectual inspirations. One of them was the revolutionary philosophy of the French ’48ers which was introduced and disseminated by Orestes Brownson, William Henry Channing, and Nathaniel Greene. Some other, like William Beck and Edward Kellogg, were engaged in the movement, although they rather advocated for the currency and banking reform like. “The wide-open intellectual atmosphere surrounding transcendentalism and the American Renaissance in literature and the arts, brought into contact with the projects from radical renewal of figures like Proudhon, Leroux (and some of the other Saint-Simonian heretics), Fourier, etc., were turned to meet the “social problem” in its American form, symbolized by the Panic of 1837 and the still-fresh memories of the failures of the Revolutionary currency”96 The reformers like William B. Green, Charles Dana or Albert Brisbane went to Paris after their return to United States they more vigorously promoted Fourierist and Proudhonian ideas.
Another wave of labour for labour exchange experiments was provoked by the Panic of 1854. But except of those labour for labour exchange experiment that were based on private property and followed the Warren’s principles, all other were communally oriented. One of the most eccentric example of such enterprises was New England Association of Philanthropic Commercialists established in 1855 by John Orvis and John Murray Spears. The association was inspired by the Fourierist Philosophy97 and Fourier’s article published early that year claiming that angels are coming to the earth to monitor to commerce and avoid con schemes 98 The Association published their program entitled “Equitable Commerce: A Proposal for the Abolition of Trade, by the Substitution of Equitable Exchange, with Full Plans and Details, in a Series of Papers Communicated from the Spirit-Life”99 The program was quite bizarre mixture of spiritualist ideas combined with the cooperatives concepts.
While Warren, truthful to his individualistic principles, not only cut himself off from being associated with any mutualistic or spiritualistic form of labour exchanges he also warned potential participants of such labour exchanges. Warren was sure that combination of interest merged with religion was recipe for disaster. Warren wrote special leaflet warning people:
A book has been put forth by what is announced as the “New England Association of Philanthropic Commercialists.” and they entitle their book “Equitable Commerce.” It does not contain a single new idea nor one adapted to the public wants. Were it not for its insufferable silliness, and the inflated vanity displayed throughout, it might remind us of a child recommending soap bubbles for the foundation of a railroad bridge. The responsibility, as far as it has any, is thrown upon spirits. I hope it is from them; for although their communications are often characterized by the most sublime wisdom and enchanting beauty, they are also sometimes of an opposite kind; and I prefer to be excused from attributing to any living person the insanely impudent jesuitism of pompously announcing under the head of “Equitable Commerce,” that “the state,” “Commerce,” “Home,” “Education,” “Growth and progress,” “must be the children of the church.” or that they should be subordinate to any ideas, formulas or sentimentalism, interpreted and administered by any man or set of men whatever.
As these persons or spirits have plagiarised the title of my work I warn the public that that work proposes measures precisely opposite to those which they have labelled with the same name, and that whoever invests his money, reputation or responsibility in any organization or combination with such serious objects in view, will surely be disappointed and will contribute to confirm the public distaste towards all enterprises for the amelioration of society.
If anyone is still at a loss to know what I mean by nature’s law of diversity being opposed to all artificial organizations he will see it illustrated (if he is a good observer) in the first step he takes with others in that direction.
Warren disseminated his ideas giving the public speeches in East Coast starting from late 1840s through the 1850s. He gain some enthusiasm to the idea of labour for labour exchange and in just prior to the Civil War, in 1859 in Boston, a Dual Commerce Association was established. Its members did not refer directly to Warren in their publication, but it is obvious that his philosophy of equitable exchange was an inspiration to them: They emphasized role of individualism – the key element of all Warren’s project. In the Constitution of Dual Commerce Association they wrote “[w]e use the word association for convenience, but in an exact sense. Not as an organization, but simply as a number of individuals actuated by similar motives voluntarily co-operating for the same great object, but carefully preserving the strict INDIVIDUALITY of property and responsibility as an indispensable element of order and success”100 Except of its constitution published and disseminated in Boston association advertised its activity in the reformer press. The Circular published the announcement that association proposed:
“to purchase the necessaries and the luxuries of life, and distribute them to users and consumers at the exact cost of doing the business. In Boston, a number of ‘stations’ are provided where milk, butter, four, potatoes, soap, sugar and all other articles commonly used in families are received and distributed, the store or station keepers having fixed salaries so as to do away with all notions of profit or speculation. (…) A barrel of flour, for example, is received and sold in parcels of one, five, or ten pounds, at the same rate per pound that would be charged on whole barrel if taken at once. The cost of receiving and delivering a barrel of four is but fifty cents, whereas to ordinary retail grocers the consumers pay two, or three, or four times that sum. In this way, the poor, without capital, can purchase as economically as the rich; and all make a saving of at least twenty per cent.—no small item for a mechanic or laboring man. Though the principle of Dual Commerce ha been in practical operation but a few months the results have been most gratifying. The system, if it can be made to work well in one place—and all that seems to be waited are men of heart and capital—may be extended to all places. And it can be applied to manufactures, and even to agriculture, as well as to commerce.”101
The principle of equivalents: a subject of immediate and serious interest to both sexes and all classes of all nations, that was disseminated in the United States and in Great Britain. This publication contains one of the last labor note templates.
The sample labour note from 1861102
There are evidence in the general store ledgers death labour for labour exchange survived in the rural area to the end of 19th century, and in some places in the Midwest even keel the early 20th century. But those practices were introduced by the local store keepers, and were not related to any intellectual movement.103.
Conclusions-Economic motivation of experiments’ participants?
All authors advocating labour for labour exchange experiments tried to provide deeper philosophical background to their enterprise. Undoubtedly, participants of these experiments had to be ideologically motivated, but the main question is what was the economic motivation for them. What kind of economic incentive pushed them to participate in such projects. Observation of prices of various products provided by Warren proves that they were sold below the market price. Those who participated in the exchange could obtain more goods for labour notes comparing with the amount of goods they could buy for financial reward received for any unskilled job performed in similar time frame.
The reliance on labour notes as the medium of exchange could happen only in a situation of serious financial crisis, and strong, deep distrust in traditional financial institutions. For those that lost everything after the depression of 1819 the labour notes might have been the only reliable medium of exchange, but even those that participated in such experiments soon observed possible shortcomings. As John Pickering, who participated in Warren’s experiment, noticed: “gold or silver is the almost everlasting embodiment of the labor necessary to produce it, and is positive payment, while a ’Labor Note’ is payment for nothing; it is but a promise to pay, at some future time, if the drawer happened to live long enough, never got sick, and was perfectly honest. Truly, the ingenuity and refinement of this credit system(...)But a labor note is but a promise to perform some labor at some future time, dependent on various contingencies, and, therefore, can neither do the offices, nor enter into competition with capital, no more than can common promissory notes payable in money”.104
Therefore, the exchange of labour notes was based rather on personal ties among participants and on the trust, that notes of such promissory character would be fulfilled in the future. Therefore, the labour of labour exchange from the very beginning was limited to small communities. Various thinkers proposed different size of communities (Owen believed that optimal settlement shouldn’t have more than 1200 inhabitants). Such small group would be a guarantee for social pressure and possible ostracism toward those that might decline fulfilment of their obligations. At the same time the indispensable small size of such communities was the main reason of their failure. Each of the reformers complained that despite their efforts they were not able to eliminate completely money as the circulating medium. That might be possible only in the situation when community would not have to import anything and would be totally self-sufficient. But communities with size of inhabitants limited to the level securing the strong social control would never be able to obtain the level of complete self-reliance.
As author of the Palgrave Dictionary of Political Economy observed “[i]t must be said that these notes cannot fairly be compared with ordinary bank notes ; they were not issued for profit or on a calculation of probable demands for payment, but simply to effect the exchange of two supposed equivalents both actually existing at the time of exchange. Overissue was impossible, for the goods might be said to go with the notes, as with bills of lading. In theory they were always convertible. If depreciation occurred, it was because of the spread of disbelief in the possibility of carrying out the conditions of the scheme, not from the nature of the case owing to an issue beyond the needs of the public”105
The labour for labour exchange was an extraordinary attempt to circumvent the limitation of community in the critical situation. While there might be different ways of dealing with the economic crisis and afterward depression resulting in the decrease of the prices of commodities in situation of lack of money and huge unemployment, the inhabitants of those communities decided to use labour for labour exchange instead. In this way they could use the spare capacity to produce or to lend some services and circumvent the limitation of community free time, overproduction, and lack of money. 106
The fact that similar labour for labour exchange were spontaneously created in Greece after the crisis of 2008 may be a proof that for the economy in crisis or in transition period implementation of such actions can be profitable for the community and allowing uninterrupted performance of basic services. The labour of labour exchange reappeared in contemporary time in the form of time banking system, that due to mobile technologies connects those that need services and those that are willing to perform them. The contemporary systems are based on the principle of reciprocity and mutual benefits. 107
- This is first draft, please do not quote. I want to express my gratitude to all participants of discussion that took place on January 26th 2018, at the Liberty Fund, for their helpful comments which I will try to include in this paper shortly.↩
- Thomas Bard Jones, Legacy of change: the Panic of 1819 Debtor relief legislation in the western states, dissertation, pp 1-2. The most famous is Rothbard, Murray. Th e Panic of 1819 Reactions and Policies. New York: Columbia University
- Press, 1962; see also Haulman, Clyde A. Virginia and the Panic of 1819: The First Great Depression and the Commonwealth. London: Pickering & Chatto, 2008; Dupre, Daniel S. “Th e panic of 1819 and the political economy of sectionalism.” The Economy of Early America: Historical Perspectives & New Directions. Ed. Cathy D. Matson, University Park, Pa: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2006, pp. 263-293; Kidd Sarah, To be harrassed by my Creditors is worse than Death": Cultural Implications of the Panic of 1819 „Maryland Historical Magazine, vol 95, no 2, 2000, p. 161-191;↩
- Ford, Henry A, and Kate B. Ford. History of Cincinnati, Ohio: With Illustrations and Biographical Sketches. Cleveland, O: L.A. Williams & Co, 1881, p. 71↩
- Ford, Henry A, and Kate B. Ford. History of Cincinnati, Ohio: With Illustrations and Biographical Sketches. Cleveland, O: L.A. Williams & Co, 1881, p. 71↩
- It has not been misspelled, and I would be very grateful if anyone will be willing to share a suggestion what it might be.↩
- Ford, Henry A, and Kate B. Ford. History of Cincinnati, Ohio: With Illustrations and Biographical Sketches. Cleveland, O: L.A. Williams & Co, 1881, p. 71↩
- Anonymous, “to the Farmers of Moss county” The Supporter (Chillicothe, Ohio, Wednesday, July 05, 1820; Issue 611.↩
- Frank (Ky.) Argus, “Alarming Times” The Supporter (Chillicothe, Ohio, Wednesday, April 21, 1819; Issue 548.↩
- Wittke, Carl F. The History of the State of Ohio. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, 1944., vol 2, p. 223.↩
- Wittke, Carl F. The History of the State of Ohio. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, 1944., vol 2, p. 222.↩
- Wittke, Carl F. The History of the State of Ohio. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, 1944., vol 2, p. 223.↩
- Supporter, Nov. 2, 1811.↩
- http://collections.si.edu/search/results.htm?q=record_ID%3Anmah_1109823&repo=DPLA↩
- The Farmers and Mechanics Bank of Cincinnati, Ohio, issued this note on July 20, 1816. The note was printed by William Harrison of Philadelphia, and bears an image of the bank’s building at its top-center flanked by the number 5 in medallions. The left side of the note reads “Five,” while the right side reads “Ohio.” The note reads, “The President and Directors of the Farmers and Mechanics Bank of Cincinnati promise to pay out of the Joint Funds thereof according to the Articles of Association to [Name Illegible] or bearer on demand Five Dollars.” The bank was founded in 1812 and incorporated on February 5, 1813, with a capital stock of 200,000 dollars. The bank failed in 1819. in the general depression that afflicted American business after the War of 1812. http://collections.si.edu/search/results.htm?q=record_ID%3Anmah_1109823&repo=DPLA↩
- Philadelphia National Laborer, May 14, 1836, p. 31, col. 1. The National Laborer was the successor of the Mechanics' Free Press of Philadelphia.↩
-
Radical Reformer and Working Man’s Advocate, Philadelphia, July 4, 1835, p. 63.↩
- Goldsmith’s – Kress library of Economic literature, Segment II, Printed Books 1801-1850 (items 27402 thru 27430), reel 2571.↩
- Owen, Robert, 1771-1858. Address of Mr. Owen to the Agriculturists, Mechanics, And Manufacturers, Both Masters And Operatives, of Great Britain And Ireland. [London: printed by Richard Taylor, 1827.p.5-6.↩
- If it is not stated otherwise all the citation of Adam Smith comes from The Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith, published by Liberty Fund, WN, vol. I, p. 45↩
- WN, vol. I, p. 65↩
- WN II. 3.1 - II.3.8 “Smith also introduced the famous distinction between productive and unproductive labour at this point, where the former is involved in the creation of commodities and therefore of income while the latter is involved in the provision of services. Smith does not, of course, deny that services (such as defence or justice) are useful or even necessary, he merely wished to point out that the labour which is involved in the provision of a service is always maintained by the industry of other people and that it does not directly contribute to aggregate output. Smith's argument was of course that funds intended to function as a capital would always be devoted to the employment of productive labour, while those intended to act as a revenue might maintain either productive or unproductive labour. Two points arise from this argument: first, that the productive capacity of any society would depend on the proportion in which total income was distributed between revenue and capital; and, secondly, that capitals could only be increased through parsimony, i.e. through a willingness to forego present advantages with a view to attaining some greater future benefit.” Introduction, WN, vol. 1, p. 30.↩
- R, Owen, A New View of Society: Or, Essays on the Formation of Human Character, and the Application of the Principle to Practice, London 1813.↩
- R. Owen (1821). Report to the county of Lanark, of a plan for relieving public distress: And removing discontent, by giving permanent, productive employment, to the poor and working classes, under arrangements which will essentially improve their character, and ameliorate their condition, diminish the expenses of production and consumption, and create markets co-extensive with production. Glasgow: Printed at the University Press, for Wardlaw & Cunninghame., p. 1. But in the very same work Owen noticed the role of human intellect so he still insisted “that the natural standard of value is, in principle, human labour” but also admitted that such human labour is “combined manual and mental powers of men called into action”, ibidem, p. 6.↩
- WN vol. 1, pp. 124; 330-333; F.G. West, 'Adam Smith's Two Views of the Division of Labour', Economica, xxxi (1964), 23-32.↩
- R. Owen, Owen, R. (1821). Report to the county of Lanark, of a plan for relieving public distress: And removing discontent, by giving permanent, productive employment, to the poor and working classes, under arrangements which will essentially improve their character, and ameliorate their condition, diminish the expenses of production and consumption, and create markets co-extensive with production. Glasgow: Printed at the University Press, for Wardlaw & Cunninghame., p. 55.↩
- R. Owen, Report of the Proceedings at the Several Public Meetings, Held in Dublin, Dublin, 1823, p.81.↩
- R. Owen, Report of the Proceedings at the Several Public Meetings, Held in Dublin, Dublin, 1823, p.128.↩
- Claeys, Gregory. Citizens and Saints: Politics and Anti-Politics in Early British Socialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002, p. 52.↩
- Claeys, Gregory. Citizens and Saints: Politics and Anti-Politics in Early British Socialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002, p. 54↩
- Coningham, William. “Social reform”, Leader and Saturday Analyst, Jan.7-June 30, 1860, vol. 3, no. 93, 1852, pp. 13-14.↩
- Owen, Robert, 1771-1858. Address of Mr. Owen to the Agriculturists, Mechanics, And Manufacturers, Both Masters And Operatives, of Great Britain And Ireland. [London: printed by Richard Taylor, 1827.p. 4. – this view has been further disseminated. Owen’s address was reprinted in The London co-operative or Montly Herald, vol 2, no 10, September 1827, p. 435-444.↩
- Owen, Robert, 1771-1858. Address of Mr. Owen to the Agriculturists, Mechanics, And Manufacturers, Both Masters And Operatives, of Great Britain And Ireland. [London: printed by Richard Taylor, 1827.p.5↩
- A.Smith, Wealth of Nation, 1812 edition, vol 3, p. 353, this passage has been removed from Glasgow edition as far as I was able to check; Morgan, John M, and Philanthropos. Remarks on the Practicability of Mr. Robert Owen's Plan to Improve the Condition of the Lower Classes. London: Printed by Richard and Arthur Taylor, Shoe Lane, for Samuel Leigh, Strand, 1819, p. 6.↩
- Morgan, John M, and Philanthropos. Remarks on the Practicability of Mr. Robert Owen's Plan to Improve the Condition of the Lower Classes. London: Printed by Richard and Arthur Taylor, Shoe Lane, for Samuel Leigh, Strand, 1819, p. 7.↩
- R. Owen, Report of the Proceedings at the Several Public Meetings, Held in Dublin, Dublin, 1823, p. 127-128.↩
- J.H. Noyes, American Socialism 18oo74, p. 90-91.↩
- A.J. Macdonalds Papers, Beincke library, Yale ; R. Owen, Two Discourses on a New System of Society as Delivered in the Hall of Representatives at Washington, London: Whiting & Branson, 1825.↩
- N.B. Hall, Warren, p. 95.↩
- Streitmatter, Rodger. 2001.Voices of revolution: the dissident press in America. New York: Columbia University Press, p. 4↩
- This text was published in Philanthropos, "Time-Magazine," Saturday Evening Chronicle”
- And previously in New Harmony Gazette, Dec. 26, 1827. Vol. 3, No. 12, p. 94.↩
- Mechanics’ Free Press, Aug. 9, 1828, p. I, col. I, 2.↩
- Mechanics’ Free Press, Aug. 9, 1828, p. I, col. I, 2.↩
- Mechanics’ Free Press, Aug. 9, 1828, p. I, col. I,2.↩
- Mechanics’ Free Press, Aug. 9, 1828, p. I, col. I, 2.↩
- Mechanics’ Free Press, Aug. 9, 1828, p. I, col. I, 2.↩
- Mechanics’ Free Press, Aug. 9, 1828, p. I, col. I, 2.↩
- Webber, Everett. Escape to Utopia: The Communal Movement in America. New York: Hastings House, 1959. 168.↩
- Webber, Everett. Escape to Utopia: The Communal Movement in America. New York: Hastings House, 1959, p. 59.↩
- Everts, Louis H. (1880). History of Clermont County, Ohio, with Illustrations and Biographical Sketches of Its Prominent Men and Pioneers, Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co. 344.↩
- Peaceful Revolutionist, May 1848, p. 6.↩
- Peaceful Revolutionist, May 1848, p. 6-7.↩
- Mechanics' Free Press, May 24, 1828, p. 2, col. 2, 3.↩
- Mechanics' Free Press, May 24, 1828, p. 2, col. 2, 3.↩
- Mechanics' Free Press, May 24, 1828, p. 2, col. 2, 3.↩
- Mechanics' Free Press, May 24, 1828, p. 2, col. 2, 3.↩
- Mechanics' Free Press, May 24, 1828, p. 2, col. 2, 3.↩
- Mechanics' Free Press, May 24, 1828, p. 2, col. 2, 3.↩
- Mechanics' Free Press, May 24, 1828, p. 2, col. 2, 3.↩
- Mechanics' Free Press, May 24, 1828, p. 2, col. 2, 3.↩
- Mechanics' Free Press, May 24, 1828, p. 2, col. 2, 3.↩
- Arky, Louis H. “The Mechanics' Union of Trade Associations and the Formation of the Philadelphia Workingmen's Movement.” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, vol. 76, no. 2, 1952, pp. 142.↩
- Shelton, Cynthia. “The Role of Labor in Early Industrialization: Philadelphia, 1787-1837.” Journal of the Early Republic, vol. 4, no. 4, 1984, pp. 365–394↩
- Arky, Louis H. “The Mechanics' Union of Trade Associations and the Formation of the Philadelphia Workingmen's Movement.” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, vol. 76, no. 2, 1952, p. 169.↩
- One of seven label notes printed by Producer’s Exchange Labour for Labour association, Philadelphia in 1827. Josiah Warren Papers , Indiana Historical Society, SC 2087 ↩
- MacDonalds Papers, Yale Library↩
- Willaim Ashton manuscript collection, Lilly Library Archive, Bloomington, cf. http://www.indiana.edu/~liblilly/digital/exhibitions/exhibits/show/ashton/radicalism↩
- This odd combination od community and company reveals the dichotomy of entire project. The members and Ashton himself could not decide whether it would be idealist of commercial project.↩
- Willaim Ashton manuscript collection, Lilly Library Archive, Bloomington,↩
- Willaim Ashton manuscript collection, Lilly Library Archive, Bloomington,↩
-
http://www.indiana.edu/~liblilly/shorttitle/ashton.html ; cf. http://spec.lib.miamioh.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/William-Ashton-Collection-finding-aid.pdf ; https://indianahistory.org/wp-content/uploads/william-a-ashton-papers-1835-1861.pdf↩
- William Foley, Jr. for an American Studies Association conference, the year that this conference took place is not recorded, Willaim Ashton manuscript collection, Lilly Library Archive, Bloomington↩
- Warren, Josiah. Reformation of the currency upon the principle of labor for labor; a new principle of foreign and domestic commerce which is now being introduced in practice, and which deeply affects the immediate interests of both sexes, and all classes of society. [Cincinnati, printed by Josiah Warren, Dec., 1840]↩
- Manchester and Salford Bank for Savings. Thirteenth annual report, 4 Mar. 1831 [n.p.] printed by Henry Smith↩
- The circulating medium, and the present mode of exchange, the cause of increasing distress amongst the productive classes; and an effectual measure for their immediate and permanent relief, pointed out ion the universal establishment of equitable exchange banks, in which all the business of life may be transacted without money. By a co-operator, London, Strange, 1832.↩
- Reifel, August J. History of Franklin County, Indiana: Her People, Industries and Institutions : with Biographical Sketches of Representative Citizens and Genealogical Records of Old Families. Indianapolis, Ind: B.F. Bowen & Co, 1915, p. 608↩
- I looked in: Bloomington Post; Indiana American; Richmond Palladium (Weekly); Crawfordsville Record; Weekly Messenger; Vincennes Gazette; Rising Sun Times; The Wabash Courier; Indiana Palladium; Western Sun & General Advertiser; Leavenworth Arena; Standard; The Newspaper; Rockville Intelligencer; Western Plough Boy; The Indiana Whig; Political Beacon↩
- Richmond Palladium (Weekly), Volume 8, Number 41, 20 October 1838, p. 2.↩
- Harrison, J F. C. Robert Owen and the Owenites in Britain and America: The Quest for the New Moral World. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge Revivals, 2010, p. 169;↩
- Fay, C.R. Life and Labour in the Nineteenth Century: Being the Substance of Lectures Delivered at Cambridge University in the Year 1919 to Students of Economics, Among Whom Were Officers of the Royal Navy and Students from the Army of the United States. Cambridge: University Press, 1947, p. 66.↩
- Cole, Margaret. Robert Owen of New Lanark. New York: Oxford University Press, 1953, p. 177. ↩
- Harrison, J F. C. Robert Owen and the Owenites in Britain and America: The Quest for the New Moral World. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge Revivals, 2010, p. 159-160; ‘See also Memoranda Relative to Robert Owen’, New Moral World, 10 October 1835. These memoranda were clearly written from information supplied by Owen. Samuel Austin, secretary of the National Equitable Labour Exchange, confirms Owen’s view in an article in the Crisis, 21 September 1833. Owen was under pressure from his friends to start a labour exchange—see MS. letter from William Watkins to Owen, 23 January 1832. Robert Owen Papers, Manchester↩
- King, Wlliam, and T W. Mercer. Dr. William King and the Co-Operator, 1828-1930. Manchester: The Co-operative Union, 1922↩
- Carpenter, William. Proceedings of the Third Co-Operative Congress: Held in London. London: W. Strange, 1832, p. 85↩
- In the original document in terms of money and coinage there is “l” instead of “£”. I assume this is mistake in print. But if any one can verify accuracy of my assumption I would appreciate it.↩
- Carpenter, William. Proceedings of the Third Co-Operative Congress: Held in London. London: W. Strange, 1832, p. 85-86↩
- Carpenter, William. Proceedings of the Third Co-Operative Congress: Held in London. London: W. Strange, 1832, p.96.↩
- Carpenter, William. Proceedings of the Third Co-Operative Congress: Held in London. London: W. Strange, 1832, p. 97.↩
- Carpenter, William. Proceedings of the Third Co-Operative Congress: Held in London. London: W. Strange, 1832, p. 97.↩
- Carpenter, William. Proceedings of the Third Co-Operative Congress: Held in London. London: W. Strange, 1832, p. 98.↩
- Carpenter, William. Proceedings of the Third Co-Operative Congress: Held in London. London: W. Strange, 1832, p. 98.↩
- Carpenter, William. Proceedings of the Third Co-Operative Congress: Held in London. London: W. Strange, 1832, p. 98.↩
- The Author of the dictionary redraw the note from Francis Paece archive. Because the Paeca archive has over 180 volumes I have not identified yet the original labor note.↩
- An outline of the various social systems & communities which have been founded on the principle of co-operation : with an introductory essay / by the author of "The philosophy of necessity" Hennell, Mary, 1802-1843, and Charles Bray London : Longman, Brown, Green and Longman, 1844, p. 154-155.↩
- An outline of the various social systems & communities which have been founded on the principle of co-operation : with an introductory essay / by the author of “The philosophy of necessity| Hennell, Mary, 1802-1843, and Charles Bray London : Longman, Brown, Green and Longman, 1844, p. 155.↩
- J. Warren, Peaceful revolutionist, February 5, 1833, p. 7↩
-
https://contrun.libertarian-labyrinth.org/an-early-mutual-banking-proposal/↩
- Simon Crosby Hewitt, who was publishing, for a time, both the New Era and Paulina Wright Davis’ newspaper, The Una, ran a translated selection from Charles Fourier which Hewitt believed was connected to the “commercial structures” the spirits were dictating to him and other New England spiritualists who had long been promoters of Fourieristic ideas of a socialist economy, which Hewitt, along with Brook Farm alumni and spiritualists John Orvis and John Allen would soon try to help John Murray Spear inaugurate. They published a prospectus for a cooperative organization, the New England Association of Philanthropic Commercialists, which would attempt to put into practice the angelic market described below by Fourier, beginning with a commodity exchange market between Boston and New York on one end (supplying manufactured goods) and Chicago on the other end (supplying wheat). http://iapsop.com/spirithistory/no_invisible_hands_but_invisible_agents.html↩
-
http://iapsop.com/spirithistory/no_invisible_hands_but_invisible_agents.html↩
- (Boston: New England Association of Philanthropic Commercialists, 1855). The key ideas were also repeated in The Educator, 27- 38. The two men also lectured on the subject and published a prospectus for an earthly organization, the New England Association of Philanthropic Commercialists, to promote their ideas. On the history of the Association, John B. Buescher, The Remarkable Life of John Murray Spear: Agitator for the Spirit Land (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2006 , p. 163., Irene Cheng The Shape of Utopia: The Architecture of Radical Reform in Nineteenth-Century America, dissertation, 2014, p. 412-416↩
- Dual Commerce Association. Th e Dual Commerce Association: Its Experience, Results, Plans & Prospectus: First Report (Boston, Mass: Dual Commerce Association, 1859), p. 5.↩
- “Dual Commerce Association,” The Circular, 8, 4 (February 17, 1859), 4.↩
- Josiah Warren; A. C. Cuddon, The principle of equivalents: a subject of immediate and serious interest to both sexes and all classes of all nations, [Long Island, N.Y.? : Josiah Warren? ; London? : A.C. Cuddon?], 1861↩
- Conversation with M. Teresa Baer, Managing Editor of Indiana Historical Society Press.↩
- J. Pickering, The Working Man’s Political Economy, Founded upon the Principle Immutable Justice, and the Inalienable Rights of Man; Designed for the Promotion of National Reform, Thomas Varney, Cincinnati 1847, p. 170, 172.↩
- Palgrave, dictionary of political economy, vol 2, 1922, pp. 522-523.,↩
- Even though it was imperfect solution from the economic point of view, but such action taken by inhabitants was better than nothing. I would like to thank Leonidas Zelmanovitz for pointing out existence of more perfect solution for the depression that was not used b the participants of Labour for Labour exchange↩
-
http://timebankindy.org/↩