sensible; it was reasonable. Communism they did not favor, for their
motto was, "Community of property is the grave of individual liberty."
Instinctively they rebelled against it.

The organized communities held everything in common--houses, lands,
moneys and goods; even prescribing what garments should be worn, and
also electing a religious creed for their members. It was not
compatible with the greater ideas of freedom held at Brook Farm. It was
not a free life and it could not be a true life, for they all believed
in the motto, "The _truth_ shall make you _free_," and
instead of freedom, the "Communities" used mental constraint and
tyranny to hold themselves together.

The Brook Farmers believed that the laborer owned the value of his
labor; if it was used, it was credited to him, and a part of the
increased value of the domain belonged to him. It never belonged to the
organization;--that is, the value of it--but by mutual consent might be
retained, invested and added to the laborer's stock. Theoretically the
result would show that the person who was the most capable, active and
industrious would in time own the most accrued capital. This the Brook
Farmers claimed was right and according to nature, and, combined with
_yearly diminishing interest_, could not be destructive, as
capital is now.

They had fallen unwittingly, it may be said, on ideas that coincided
with those of Charles Fourier. There was an agreement between them,
unknown at the start. Their idea that certain mutual guarantees were to
be in the constitution, such as immunity from labor in extreme age and
youth, care in sickness--a certain "minimum" of rights according to the
prosperity or wealth of the institution--and that an "integral