Decentralization for Socialists: A Brief Primer
25. Aug, 2009 
12 Comments
by Brion McClanahan, LewRockwell.com
One thing that consistently vexes me is the amount of time the modern statists, particularly on the Left, spend labeling the idea of decentralization and secession as “kooky.” The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 – if they have read them or know about them – are often portrayed as quaint and unsophisticated pronouncements of provincialism; the Essex Junto and Hartford Convention are called the products of deranged Northern madmen; Andrew Jackson, they say, was on the right side when he threatened the use of force to keep South Carolinian secessionists in line in 1832; and of course, they revel in the ultimate coup de grâce to states’ rights and secession, the Northern victory in the War for Southern Independence. Who could root for the evil, “undemocratic slave power” clad in butternut, anyway?
This would be well and good if their arguments were logical. They of course forget that the South seceded through a democratic process, but beyond that, one only has to look at the history of American socialists and reformers to find that many of them were secessionists and viewed decentralization as the logical path to their “utopian” society.
The case of the failed “utopian” experiment Brook Farm in Roxbury, Massachusetts nicely illustrates how convoluted the Leftist argument against secession has become.
Brook Farm was established by George Ripley and his wife, Sophia, in 1841. They were transcendentalists who believed in the socialist ideology of Frenchman Charles Fourier, the intellectual progenitor of modern feminism. The Ripley’s devised an autonomous community that emphasized a communal lifestyle in the pursuit of leisure.
Every resident was to share equally in the task of growing products for market in order to maximize the time each individual could spend at leisure and learning. Sophia Ripley also ran the communal school. What they found is that most preferred leisure to work and a handful of the residents kept the rest afloat. Part of the commune ultimately burned down, and the Brook Farm “closed” in 1847.
But Brook Farm illustrated how socialist utopians viewed secession, or the removal from society, as the best means to practice their societal values. Fourier ultimately believed that no more than 1600 people should be involved in a single commune and each commune would be autonomous with only a loose confederation to oversee the entire process. In other words, there was very little large-scale centralization and tremendous decentralization, which they rightly viewed as the most democratic method of government.
Additionally, abolitionists consistently called for secession during the 1840s and 1850s. William Lloyd Garrison, for example, demanded an end to the Union in 1843. Henry David Thoreau simply seceded from society at Walden Pond. Other “reform” communities in New York’s “burnt over” district sought the protection secession offered for their way of life. Secession need not come from an established political entity to exist in fact. These groups in many ways viewed themselves as autonomous and democratic societies operating in disobedience of laws they considered unjust.
John Noyes and many of his followers were eventually run out of Oneida, New York for partaking in group marriage, a practice that violated the moral sensibilities of the rest of the state, but something the community believed was perfectly justifiable and natural. By flaunting their independent religious community and thumbing their nose at the state government, the Oneida community ultimately practiced a form of de facto secession from New York.
The same could be said for many individuals who headed west in the nineteenth century. Several towns operated outside the limits of the law, and federal or state power was often non-existent. “Boom towns” often exemplified the anything-goes spirit of the West, though in time churches, banks, schools, and other civilizing entities would show up. Even then, things remained fairly “rough” as long as the gold and silver kept pouring out of the mines.
These were virtually independent communities and many of the people who resided there were interested in evading government for one reason or another. The West offered anonymity and protection from government abuse. The Mormons, who headed to Utah after being kicked out of Illinois, chose the West for that very reason and ultimately went to war with the United States – and threatened secession – after they were placed under the federal heel. But in spirit, they were already independent and had their own laws and government in place.
These were not “right wing” groups by modern standards, particularly the “reform” communes in New York and Massachusetts, but they understood that decentralization offered a hedge against alien threats to their society and lifestyle. Thomas Naylor of Vermont, hardly a “right winger,” has been trumpeting the idea of an independent Vermont for almost a decade.
He has recognized that the lifestyle Vermont citizens want to enjoy will be consistently retarded by imperial bureaucrats in Washington D.C. This only makes sense. If Californians, for example, want universal health care, have at it, but don’t expect the people of Alabama to pay for it. If New York wants to severely curtail private gun ownership, go for it, but don’t subject the people of Georgia to the same loss of civil liberty. That is how federalism should work and is how the founding generation designed it to work.
Leftists would do well to remember that their complaints about a slow and unresponsive federal government could be solved by decentralization. They have more control over state and local governments and could implement their utopian vision of an egalitarian society more quickly and easily. And, if you don’t like where you live, you can always move to a more suitable republic of your choice. There would be plenty of “conservative” and “liberal” republics to choose from in North America.
Of course, as we all know, modern state socialism is an ideology of power, money, and statism, which is why its “champions” at the federal level, the “progressives,” will never allow decentralization to infiltrate their political vocabulary; however, if enough Americans could be rightly persuaded that Washington is not the answer, either for “conservative” or “liberal” causes, then maybe the people would be willing to part ways and allow the Left to dominate the Northeast and West Coast and the Right to control the South and Mountain States.
This is a peaceful, just, and democratic solution to a centuries-old problem. Let the people of each sovereign state decide their own fate. As Thomas Jefferson said in 1801, “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments to the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”
Brion McClanahan [send him mail] received his Ph.D. in American History from the University of South Carolina and is a History Professor at Chattahoochee Valley Community College in Phenix City, Alabama. He is the author of Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers (Regnery, 2009).
Copyright © 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
Humm,
while Thomas Naylor trumpets an independent Vermont. The people, ( meaning the MAJORITY) elected Bernie sanders, the self proclaimed Democratic socialist, and has done so for the past almost 20 yrs… So much for using Vermonts lifestyle as an example. I can think of better examples.
Brion, this is exactly the point. Your description is what America is suppose to be, why we’re different than all other nations, and how the pursuit of happiness is suppose to work.
Disregard any comments that try to change the focus of your article. I’d like to see a cogent argument from anyone who disagrees with your central point. Thanks.
Thes folks dont know what socialism is and are just talking out the side of they neck
I think the reason that people in VT elected a socialist is because there’s a lot of socialists in that state!
The interesting thing, though, is that there’s a really strong presence there of people who believe in decentralized socialism – socialism for their state only..and don’t want to impose it on everyone else.
I don’t prefer or want that option, but that’s how the system works. They have their version there, other people have their own in other areas.
Rawdawg,
you mean like crocodile dundees definition of a knife opposed to the other guys “knife?”
This is a very pertinent article and discussion. The Tenth Amendment/sovereignty movement means nothing if the Left remains unified in opposition.
What is needed is to convince the left of just what Brion wrote- that decentralization serves their purposes as well as those on the right and center.
I think socialist/communist either are ignorant of the historic example reviling the true nature of their “ideal system” or they don’t care, and simply want the largest level government doing it so that there is and can be no competing political and economic system as to show people just how inherently destructive their socialism/collectivism is to both liberty and economy.
Perhaps they think if they can just achieve a level of government able to put up an iron curtain like the USSR did they could prevent the skilled and otherwise labor from being able to flee to freer lands, and thus force them to submit?
I think this is our issue with socialism/collectivism as a matter of principle (Not Constitutionality) it’s not just the fact that their “ideal system” is a demonstrated economic disaster. Our issues with Socialism/collectivism is exactly the fact that it inherently crushes our liberty, as it attempts to make us all slaves to a government, that is it’s greatest and most intolerable of evils, inherit in its very nature just as it is inherent to a far more tolerable and limited degree in the very nature of government (Why Government is at best a necessary evil).
For those of us with principles know that to trade liberty for economic property is to trade everything for nothing.
I don’t think a society can trade liberty for economic prosperity. We can certainly trade liberty for less overall prosperity, but a more equal distribution of what remains.
I think the liberals don’t align with the cause because politics has long been a game of winners and losers. They view the cause as a collective rant against their winner – i.e. sour grapes.
Sure enough, when the political tide changes back to Republicans, they will be looking for their rights once again.
Perhaps you’re right Jeff, if so we must be determined to press this option among the republican ranks as the only long term permanent strategy for liberty and conservative values.
Conservatives must be made to understand there is no way to win with too much federal government even if its in the control of their kin. We can not swash the liberal tendency to dream of their utopia and want to implement it haphazardly. all we can really do is provide them a forum to test it with out hurting us in the process, so that they can see for themselves the consequences of their own collectivist views, given they clearly will not take our word for it nor will they learn from history.
In any case I do not believe we can trust a republican congress and president all that much more then a democratic congress and president, to seriously reduce their own power.
I look to some future mistake by Obama that demonstrates his true alignment- which is NOT on the side of the people. Once this happens, pandora’s box will be open and many on the left will join the 10th movement.