A review of William Morris’ revolutionary vision of a future, moneyless society<\/p>\n\n\n\n
William Morris was one of the foremost creative artists of the nineteenth century.\n\nDesigner of furniture and wallpaper, printer, architect, novelist and poet, Morris was\n\nrespected by the ‘respectable’ people of Victorian capitalist society. His upbringing was\n\nfar from one of poverty. He was born in March 1834 into a wealthy capitalist family. He\n\nwas sent to public school and then to Oxford where his mother wanted him to train for the\n\nclergy. At university Morris fell under the spell of Ruskin who criticised the mechanised,\n\neconomically regimented nature of industrial capitalism. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
As time passed the success of William Morris as a celebrated artist clashed more and\n\nmore with his understanding that society was dominated by the values of money and profit.\n\nWhat passed as civilisation was merely the rule of Property. What was the point of being\n\ncreative in a world which regarded creations of art as just a few more expensive\n\ncommodities to be bought and sold? What was the point of producing great art when the mass\n\nof humanity was confined to the drudgery of wage slavery, forced to produce what was cheap\n\nand nasty for a mass market which paid no recognition to craft, skill and quality? In 1894\n\nMorris described his feelings as he first became a socialist: <\/p>\n\n\n\n
“Think of it! Was it all to end in a counting-house on the top of a cinder heap,\n\nwith Podsnap’s drawing-room in the offing, and a Whig committee dealing out champagne to\n\nthe rich and magarine to the poor in such convenient proportion as would make all men\n\ncontented together, though the pleasure of the eyes was gone from the world, and the place\n\nof Homer was to be taken by Huxley? Yet, believe me, in my heart, when I really forced\n\nmyself to look towards the future, that is what I saw in it, and, as far as I could tell,\n\nscarce anyone seemed to think it worth while to struggle against such a consummation of\n\ncivilisation. So there I was in a fine pessimistic end of life, if it had not somehow\n\ndawned on me that amidst all this filth of civilisation the seeds of great change, what we\n\nothers call Social-Revolution, were beginning to germinate. The whole face of things was\n\nchanged to me by that discovery, and all I had to do then in order to become a socialist\n\nwas to hook myself on to the practical movement… “<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The ‘practical movement’ for socialism which Morris joined was the Social Democratic\n\nFederation. This was the first Marxian political organisation in Britain, formed in 1883.\n\nMorris was an energetic speaker and writer for the cause of socialism from the moment he\n\njoined the movement at nearly fifty until his death in 1896. His two major contributions\n\nto the development of socialist thought were, firstly, his rejection of the policy of\n\nreformism, and secondly, his clear and simple expression of the outline of what a\n\nsocialist society could look like. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
We do not look back uncritically at what Morris had to say on these two subjects, and\n\nwhere his thinking was unclear or mistaken we shall endeavour to explain why, but we can\n\nlook back upon Morris as one of the pioneers of a genuine socialist tradition, as distinct\n\nfrom the pseudo-socialism of so many ‘socialist stars’ who reside in the gallery of\n\nleft-wing heroes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Revolution -v- Reform<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Socialists have one objective; the transformation of society from the profit system to\n\nproduction for use. There is no socialist programme for running capitalism – it would be\n\nlike a pacifist policy for running an army. The Social Democratic Federation (SDF) took\n\nthe absurd view that it could work for the abolition of capitalism while at the same time\n\nproposing reforms to improve the capitalist system. These reforms were put forward as\n\nso-called Stepping Stones to Socialism. But a socialist system cannot come about gradually\n\nas a result of legislative amendments to the profit system. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In December 1884 Morris, together with a number of other socialist revolutionaries\n\n(Karl Marx’s daughter Eleanor, her husband Edward Aveling, Belfort Bax and several others)\n\nresigned from the SDF and formed a new body, the Socialist League, which was free from the\n\nadvocacy of reforms – or palliatives, as they were then referred to. (It was refusal to be\n\npart of a reform-peddling organisation which led the founder members of The Socialist\n\nParty to leave the SDF twenty years later.) This was not their only reason for leaving the\n\nSDF. The party was also dominated in an undemocratic fashion by the arrogant,\n\npublic-school educated bully, H.M.Hyndman, who treated the SDF as if it was his own\n\npossession. He actually owned the press on which its journal “Justice” was\n\nprinted and regarded that as grounds for acting in a dictatorial manner as editor. He was\n\nalso an English nationalist and something of a racist. He ridiculed SDF members who were\n\nof Jewish origin and he supported the policy of having a strong British navy. An ardent\n\nsupporter of the British war effort, he formed a new outfit called the National Socialist\n\nParty in 1916! <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In his letter of resignation from the SDF, Morris made it clearwhy he could not work\n\nwithin a reformist organisation: <\/p>\n\n\n\n
“We believe that to hold out hopes of amelioration of the condition of the\n\nworkers, to be wrung out of the necessities of the rival factions of our privileged\n\nrulers, is delusive and mischievous.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Pleading with one group of capitalists to throw a few more crumbs in the direction of\n\nthe workers in return for which the workers would give the crumb-throwers their votes, was\n\na policy repeatedly rejected by Morris: <\/p>\n\n\n\n
“The palliatives over which many worthy people are busying themselves now are\n\nuseless because they are but unorganised partial revolts against a vast, wide-spreading,\n\ngrasping organisation which will, with the unconscious instinct of a plant, meet every\n\nattempt at bettering the conditions of the people with an attack on a fresh side. “<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This was a far-seeing comment by Morris. We have seen how after all of the reforms\n\nobtained by ‘worthy’ reformers who sought welfare aid for workers, the system simply\n\ncreates new dimensions of poverty which undermine whatever apparent progress the reformers\n\nmade. Capitalism as a social system cannot be humanised by reforms; as Morris pointed out\n\nin 1886: <\/p>\n\n\n\n
“Those who believe that they can deal with capitalism in a piecemeal way very much\n\nunderrate the strength of the tremendous organisation under which we live…; it will not\n\nsuffer itself to be dismembered, nor to lose anything which is its essence… “<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In July 1885 the League declared its difference from all other parties by stating that:\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“It is a new society that we are working to realise, not a cleaning up of our\n\npresent tyrannical muddle into an improved, smoothly-working form of that same order…\n\n” <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Social revolution and nothing less was the aim. The Socialist League had in its day, as\n\nthe Socialist Party does in ours, to deal with all kinds of diversionary policies for\n\nrunning capitalism in the interest of the working class. Like now, there were those who\n\nsuggested that the workers should form co-operative businesses and exploit themselves in\n\norder to pay the bank interest. Then there were left-wingers who called for the\n\nnationalisation of industry, partial or wholesale. Morris and the League rejected these\n\nschemes, referring to the ‘statist’ policies as ‘State Socialism’. (The accurate term is\n\n‘state capitalism’, as we have seen in the case of the nationalised industries in Britain\n\nand the state-controlled economies in Russia and China.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Morris drafted The Manifesto of the Socialist League which was adopted at its July 1885\n\nconference. Its dismissal of reformist policies is worthy of quotation: <\/p>\n\n\n\n
“As to mere politics, Absolutism, Constitutionalism, Republicanism have all been\n\ntried in our day and under our present social system, and all have alike failed in dealing\n\nwith the real evils of life. Nor, on the other hand, will certain incomplete schemes of\n\nsocial reform now before the public solve the question. Co-operation so-called – that is,\n\ncompetitive co-operation for profit – would merely increase the number of small\n\njoint-stock capitalists, under the mask of creating an aristocracy of labour, while it\n\nwould intensify the severity of labour by its temptations to overwork. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Nationalisation of the land alone, which many earnest and sincere persons are now\n\npreaching, would be useless so long as labour was subject to the fleecing of surplus value\n\ninevitable under the Capitalist system. No better solution would be that State Socialism,\n\nby whatever name it may be called, whose aim it would be to make concessions to the\n\nworking class while leaving the present system of capital and wages still in operation. No\n\nnumber of merely administrative changes; until the workers are in possession of all\n\npolitical power, would make any real approach to Socialism. The Socialist League therefore\n\naims at the realisation of complete Revolutionary Socialism and well knows that this can\n\nnever happen in any one country without the help of the workers of all civilisation.\n\n“<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Morris agreed with Marx before him that there could be no socialist revolution until a\n\nmajority of socialists understood and wanted it. His conception of revolution did not\n\nbelong to the tradition associated with Lenin, who modelled his idea of a revolution on\n\nthe capitalist coup d’\u00e9tats of the past in which one minority class had grabbed political\n\npower from another. In contrast to the undemocratic notions of Blanqui, Lenin and others\n\nwho imagined that workers would be unconscious pawns in a revolutionary game, Morris was\n\nclear in his rejection of: <\/p>\n\n\n\n
“… riots carried out by men who do not know what Socialism is, and have no idea\n\nwhat their next step is to be, if, contrary to all calculation, they should happen to be\n\nsuccessful. Therefore, at the best our masters would be masters still, because there would\n\nbe nothing to take their place.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Morris was an opponent of the idea of bringing about socialism by parliamentary means.\n\nThis opposition needs to be clarified. Firstly, Morris is to be clearly distinguished from\n\nthose leftists who oppose the use of the ballot box as a means of registering the\n\nexistence of a socialist majority and think that a socialist majority could never be won;\n\nso they want to bring about socialism without a socialist majority. (For example, the\n\nleader of the Leninist SWP informs his readers that, “In our times there is not a\n\nsingle issue that can be decided by ballots. In the decisive class battles bullets will\n\nprevail.” Lenin, vol. 3, p.36.) <\/p>\n\n\n\n
As we have shown, Morris was not an advocate of insurrections, riots, gun battles or\n\nother tin-soldier plots devised by those who cannot imagine the possibility of there ever\n\nbeing a majority of workers in favour of a socialist revolution. Secondly, Morris’s real\n\nopposition was to what is sometimes called parliamentarianism – the reformist policy of\n\nwinning local or national government power and then sitting in office administering\n\ncapitalism in the name of socialism. Morris believed that for socialists to enter\n\nparliament would be an inevitable collaboration with the system as it stands. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Socialist Party is committed to the use of the ballot box as a means of\n\ndemocratically sending socialist delegates into parliament. Revolutionary socialist\n\ndelegates will have one single mandate – to abolish capitalism. While there are only a\n\nminority of socialist delegates in parliament (assuming that workers in some areas arrive\n\nat socialist consciousness before others), it will be their task to use the platform of\n\nthe parliamentary stage as a means of opposing all policies for running the capitalist\n\nsystem of exploitation, and to speak out for working-class interest – Socialism. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Although Morris tended to think that parliament was an inherently reformist\n\ninstitution, even he stated that: <\/p>\n\n\n\n
“I believe that the Socialists will certainly send members to Parliament when they\n\nare strong enough to do so; in itself I see no harm in that, so long as it is understood\n\nthat they go there as rebels, and not as members of the governing body prepared to pass\n\npalliative measures to keep Society alive.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Morris’s overriding concern was to defend socialist principles from the compromise of\n\nreformist politics. You cannot demolish a slum and clean it up at the same time. In the\n\nyears since Morris’s death the workers have been deluded by scores of political\n\nslum-cleaners; his pioneering role as an advocate of capitalist demolition was an\n\nimportant contribution to the socialist movement. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
A Vision of Somewhere<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The working class has not only got too little, but it wants too little. The job of a\n\nsocialist is to make workers want more; to show that there is an alternative to the way we\n\nlive now which is not only reasonable but desirable. In outlining the vision of how we\n\ncould live – as equals in a world of our own – few writers have done better than William\n\nMorris in capturing the sense of genuine freedom which socialism will make possible.\n\nMorris was not concerned about designing a blueprint for socialism – to say that this or\n\nthat is how the future must be. No individual, or any minority of socialists, can abrogate\n\nto itself the decisions about how to live. These must be determined democratically by the\n\npeople who make the socialist revolution. What we can do is to offer a glimpse into\n\nsociety as it could become once it is freed from the stranglehold of the money men. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Above all, Morris was concerned in showing how work would be transformed in a socialist\n\nsociety. Under capitalism, what is work? For workers, ‘looking for work’, ‘going to work’,\n\n‘needing extra work’, ‘being out of work’ has nothing to do with freedom. What most\n\nworkers call work is in fact employment. It is using their energies under the command of\n\nthe boss. We are taught from an early age that we must work hard, that we must do as we\n\nare told at work, and that if we do not work we will not eat or be able to pay the rent.\n\nThe price paid for being out of work is abject poverty. The reward given for being\n\nemployed to work is a wage to keep us working. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The person who becomes rich by hard work is such an exception that he or she is a\n\ncelebrity. Even then, becoming rich by hard work usually involves getting out of the\n\nworking class by finding others to work hard for you. Generally speaking, you do not\n\nbecome a millionaire by hard work. It is a strange system in which we live; where those\n\nwho do not need to ever do a day’s work are rich and secure, while the hardest and most\n\nuseful working people are poor and insecure. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Not only is work under capitalism a path to poverty of varying degrees, but it is\n\noccupation which is often boring and over which the worker has little or no control. The\n\nproduct of work under capitalism is the commodity – objects to be sold on the market – and\n\nsuch is the alienation of the profit system that the commodity dominates the\n\ncommodity-producer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In a society of common ownership and democratic control of the means of living, humans\n\nwill have a totally different approach to working. After all, work is the expenditure of\n\nour mental and physical energies. It is part of our nature to apply our energies to the\n\nworld around us. Morris looked at what work could be like within socialism and concluded\n\nthat: <\/p>\n\n\n\n
“Nothing should be made by man’s labour which is not worth making; or which must\n\nbe made by labour degrading to the makers.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Furthermore, in a society of co-operative labour, where work will not be for wages but\n\nfor the good of the community:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“It is right and necessary that all men should have work to do:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
First – Work worth doing;<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Second – Work of itself pleasant to do; <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Third – Work done under such conditions as would make it neither <\/p>\n\n\n\n
over-wearisome nor over-anxious. “<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Morris saw that socialism would break down two distinctions which are characteristic of\n\ncapitalist society. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Firstly, the distinction between work and leisure. It is only in a society where\n\nworking is a compulsory burden that there is a special time of the day for what is called\n\nleisure – it should be more properly called the non-employment period. In this period\n\nworkers are rather like prisoners allowed to combine socially outside their cells for a\n\nfew hours a day. In a socialist society work will be part of living. Of course, we will\n\nall need to do our bit to make sure that our common home, the world, is kept going. But\n\nthe types of work we do will vary. We need not be stuck in one job or specialised area of\n\nwork for life. Working hours will be shorter – possibly only four or five hours a day.\n\nAfter all, under capitalism vast millions of people are employed doing work which is\n\ntotally pointless from a useful social point of view. They are servants of the buying and\n\nselling system. In a socialist society people at work will be freed from the irritation of\n\nknowing that what they are doing is only being done to make someone else rich. Work in a\n\nsocialist society will be free from control by bosses and tin pot foremen. Work will be\n\npart of what makes life worthwhile, not a horrible prison occupation to be escaped from as\n\nsoon as a siren sounds. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Secondly, in a socialist society the distinction between work and art will no longer\n\npersist. The regimented labour of the commercial system stifled the art of those who could\n\nproduce by the skill of their hands. Morris was not suggesting that socialism would mean a\n\nretreat to the days of handicraft, but that, in a society of production for use, the\n\npleasure to be obtained in creative and expressive work activities would be encouraged. In\n\na socialist society the producer would be treated as an artist, a creative being. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In 1890 Morris serialised in the Socialist League’s newspaper, “Commonweal”,\n\na story about a socialist who wakes up one morning into a society established by a\n\nsocialist revolution. The story, which was subsequently published as a utopian novel\n\ncalled “News From Nowhere”, offers a wonderful picture of Morris’s vision of a\n\nmoneyless, wageless, stateless, propertyless society. The word picture made no claim to\n\nrepresent what socialism would have to be like. Much of it reflects Morris’s romantic\n\nattachment to qualities of medieval England, and not all socialists would go along with\n\nthese desires for how society could be. What was more important than the contents of\n\nMorris’s desired society was its role in stimulating its readers to think about a world so\n\ndifferently arranged from the capitalism of the late nineteenth century. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
One hundred years later it still strains the imagination of workers; tempting us to\n\nthink practically about how it might be to live in a socialist society. The visitor to\n\n‘Nowhere’ goes ‘shopping’ and attempts to buy a pipe and some tobacco from some children\n\nwho are looking after a stall. When he offers to pay them for it he is greeted with looks\n\nof amused incomprehension. The entire novel, with its refreshing perspective of looking at\n\nthe conventions of capitalism as if they are eccentricities in a new world, is a useful\n\ncontribution to the struggle to persuade workers to want more. For until workers know what\n\nthey could have they will be all too ready to put up with what they have. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Please email your comments about this article to feedback@worldsocialism.org<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Back to the Socialist Writers Index<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n