Isn't possible that the Shakers' religious basis was responsible for *both* their medium-term success *and* their long-term decline.
The first because their religion provided the personal and ideological solidarity that allowed their communities to be economically competitive in the rural US of the 19th century; the second because it prevented them from evolving either into capitalist corporations or into a general movement for general social change?
Julian
^^^^^^^^^^
CB: There's a straight forward vulgar materialist explanation for the Shakers' decline. They had the superstition of not believing in having sex.