Skip to main content

Using Capitalism to Save Yourself From Communism


Today I learned that the Oneida silverware-making company has a fascinating origin story. The company offers high-quality silverware and has been in business for a long time dating back to 1880. [1][2] Why that year? Because that's around the time that the Oneida Community dissolved. [3][4]

Thanks to David Friedman in an interview for the Voluntary Virtues Network I am now aware of this. [5]
The law between me and you is
The same as the law between you and me
And we may disagree as to what the law should be
But what's the big deal? Basically the Oneida Community was a commune organised on a basis of free love, with up to 300 members. All production and distribution by and between the commune members was handled by 27 standing committees and .

John Humphrey Noyes' belief in the doctrine of perfectionism found expression in the community, where every man was the husband of every woman, and every woman was the wife of every man. This is a very literal interpretation of what any form of communism ultimately aspires to, extending the family to encompass the whole community. Many were the quirks of this community from their practise of complex marriage, mutual criticism and stirpiculture.

Indeed they were referred to as Bible communists, though what they practised wasn't quite communism as we would understand the word today because they continued to trade with the outside world in goods and money, so while money was considered of no importance internally, externally it still offered to the means to purchase food and hire external labourers.

What did the community produce? Why, silverware, of course! Well, actually not so much. Silverware production only seems to have become a money-spinner towards the end of the commune's life. The big thing for much of the commune's life was steel traps of a new design whose inventor had joined the commune, giving the an edge in the marketplace for steel traps.

The Britannica has this to say on the decline of the commune;
Hostility mounted in the surrounding communities to the Perfectionists’ marriage arrangements, and in 1879 Noyes advised the group to abandon the system. As the reorganization of the community began, the entire Socialist organization of property in Oneida also was questioned. Noyes and a few adherents went to Canada, where he died in 1886. The remaining members set up a joint stock company, known as Oneida Community, Ltd. which carried on the various industries, particularly the manufacture of silver plate, as a commercial enterprise.

As Friedman points out in the video interview, the folks in charge of the reorganisation made sure that the revenues from the new business paid for the retirement of community members who had amassed no savings over their working lives in this commune.

The result, considering the quality of the steel traps and silverware produced by the guys and gals at Oneida, was that the remaining members actually flourished like never before. In this way a transition to capitalism saved people from their own adventure in partial communism.

~~~ ~~~ ~~~

[1] Oneida Limited customer-facing website
http://www.oneida.com/

[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneida_Limited

[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneida_Community

[4]
http://www.britannica.com/topic/Oneida-Community

[5] Mike Shanklin interviewing David Friedman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dm6232vqVz0

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Private Ownership and the Emergence of Field-based Agriculture

Quick update: There is a nicer, fancier article on this very subject on another blog. If for some reason you read my article below, treat yourself and partake of properal's piece too . ~~~ There is a paper by Samuel Bowles and Jung-Kyoo Choi called 'Coevolution of farming and private property during the early Holocene' and it is wonderful. It leaves a few stones unturned and its thesis needs to be empirically verified or falsified but it really begins to clarify the intimate relationship between the form of agriculture that we refer to as farming on the one hand and private ownership on the other. Their thesis is that technology was not the driver that led to long-term (inter-generational) farming, but also that farming did not follow some moment where the folks in a society all said "hey, let's all have private property now!" Rather, what they posit is that farming and private property actually coalesced, ad-hoc and over a multi-generational time-fram...

I AM AN AUSTRIAN

Is it so wrong? Really? Just humour me, dudes and dudettes. I am an Austrian. I am a Libertarian. I am an Austro-Libertarian. I'm evidently also a hypocrite, as I've used most of these words without capitals in past posts. Oops. I've made Austrian economics my home because it accords better with certain concerns of mine; why have a subjective theory of value and then lump desires and capacities into aggregates? Why declare that economic facts can be gleaned from the movements of particular markets at particular times in the past? Rothbard sums up the problem with both phenomena in a way that no mainstream economist ever would, since to do so would be to admit that there are entire fields of modern economics that are, at best, pointless, and at worst, harmful. NOT MAINSTREAM? Why is Austrian economics not mainstream? It rejects the efficacy of aggregates and mathematical formulae to arrive at economic truths. According to the Austrian worldview,...

1318 - The Evil Capitalists Own Your Mom!

The New Scientist ran a piece  on the economic relationships between the 43,060 transnational corporations in the world as of 2007. It turns out that 147 of 'em are thick as thieves, which each of those 147 entirely owned by one or more of the others within that clique. Naturally some anti-capitalists have decided that this proliferation of tight interconnections constitutes the proof that not buying what someone's selling will fail to put that seller out of business. Takes all sorts to make a world, brah. Is concentration scary in itself? No; John Driffill of the University of London, a macroeconomics expert, says the value of the analysis is not just to see if a small number of people controls the global economy, but rather its insights into economic stability. Concentration of power is not good or bad in itself, says the Zurich team, but the core’s tight interconnections could be. As the world learned in 2008, such networks are unstable . “If one [compan...