For\n as long as there has been human oppression there have been dreams of \nthe oppressed. Oppressed people have not usually had access to the means\n of recording their dreams, so too many of them have been lost. Nor have\n they had the power to communicate their dreams as widely as the \npowerful have been free to spread theirs, so all too often such visions \nof what could be have been relegated to an area outside of “serious \npolitics”, derided as the literary yearnings of unimportant masses, or \nneatly filed away under the heading of “impossibility” \u2014 a heading which\n is made to measure the needs of the ruling class of the day, as \nMannheim clearly showed in his book, Ideology and Utopia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The politics of Utopia begins with the visions of those who see \nbeyond the way life is. Utopia \u2014 which derives from the Greek words for \ngood place and no place \u2014 is never compatible with the mistaken \ncertainties about how society must always be which all ruling classes in\n the history of class society have sought to perpetuate. Utopias smash \nthrough the barriers of “reality” (our rulers’ reality) and project a \nnew form of existence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Early Utopias reflected naive and physically unrealisable wishes of \nthe oppressed majority. For example, the 14th century poem, The Land of \nCockaygne, depicts a world where geese fly around ready-roasted calling \nout to be eaten. This was no realisable scheme of how society could one \nday be, but it did reflect the impotent desires of hungry serfs, just as\n the American folk song. The Big Rock Candy Mountains (originally a \nNorwegian Utopian song, according to the folk music historian, A.L. \nLloyd) tells us something about the dreams of the American hobo when it \ndepicts its land of soda water fountains, lemonade springs, streams of \nalcohol trickling down the rocks, and lakes of stew and whiskey too \nwhich you can paddle all around in your own canoe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Not all Utopias have been fantasies. Many have constituted genuine \ncritiques of the existing social order. In The Politics of Utopia by \nGoodwin and Taylor it is contended that we should take what have been \nlabelled as Utopian ideas seriously; instead of pushing them aside to a \ndiscarded limbo between political science and mere literary criticism, \nthose interested in politics should find time to recognise the important\n contribution of “utopian” thought:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Consciousness of the difference between existing reality and a \nnon-existent, but potentially existent, future \u2014 a morally desirable \nfuture \u2014 was one of the most important ingredients of this quest (for \nthe good life). Unless we feel absolutely confident that we have now \nreached the limits of our capabilities and creativity, that we have \nadvanced to perfection already, to dispense with utopianism would be to \nrenounce a large part of what it is to be a political animal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Our present rulers, be they avowedly conservative or allegedly \nradical, do feel confident that with the present social system we have \nreached our human destination: reform it, perhaps, but scrap it: \nimpossible, it’s utopian.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Capitalism, with its big promises of liberty and rewards for hard \nwork and freedom, and the mean reality of what the system has been in \nexperience, has given rise to utopian thought. Never was such thought \nmore expressive than in the decades of disappointment which followed \ncapitalism’s hour of glory, the French Revolution. Schemes were drawn up\n by men who believed that they alone had the blueprint for The New \nSocial Order. These men \u2014 Fourier, Owen, St Simon, Babeuf, Weitling \u2014 \nwere “utopian socialists”. Much of what they dreamed about would not be \ndismissed by socialists today, either in terms of their political ends, \nsuch as the abolition of government and money or their poetical impulse \nto destroy the pompous claims of property-based civilisation. To be \nsure, much of what they envisaged seems crazy now \u2014 some of it must have\n done then \u2014 but that is the price to be paid for the idealistic act of \nconstructing a blueprint for the future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
MARXISM AND UTOPIA<\/strong> Marxism (that rather inadequate term which we use to sum up the \nessential theories of Marx and Engels and those who think in their \ntradition today) is a materialist theory of history. Its starting point \nis not based upon the moral imperative of what should be or the ideals \nof blueprints which start and finish in the realm of human \nconsciousness, but upon the material recognition that in order to \ntransform society we must revolutionise its material (productive) base. \nWe should not be surprised, then, that the advocates of such an outlook \nwould find themselves at odds with the utopians of their day.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main criticism levelled against utopians by Marx (and, with \ngreater force than in any other work, by Engels in Socialism: Utopian \nand Scientific) was their lack of a theory of history: Who was going to \nconstruct their Utopia? The answer of the Utopians was, We are \u2014 we who \nhave had the unique foresight of seeing life as it could be. For Marx \nand Engels that was the arrogant nonsense of philosophical idealists who\n imagined that Ideas make History. The working class, which constitutes \nthe majority of humankind, must be the creators of the new social \nsystem. If the workers are to create socialism (or communism; Marx and \nEngels used the words interchangeably) they must want it and desire it. \nThe utopians had no time to wait for the workers to be brought in on the\n act of their own emancipation. This was a crucial reason for hostility \nbetween Marxism and utopianism, just as it is for the battle between \nmodern socialists and the Leninists and other vanguardists who like the \nUtopians believe that they, as exclusive possessors of the revolutionary\n ideal, must lead the witless masses to the New Jerusalem \u2014 which all \ntoo often comes to look something like East Berlin or Gdansk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Marx and Engels refused to prepare recipes for the cook-shops of the \nfuture. The only statements which they could make about what socialism \nwould be like were made upon the materialist basis of what was then \npossible. Of course, time has rendered some of these projections \nobsolete, and, as good materialists, Marx and Engels would be the first \nto admit the outdated nature of some of their comments about socialism \nwhich came out of 19th century conditions, but are still advocated \nreligiously and unhistorically by 20th century utopian leftists. For \nexample, the view of Marx that labour vouchers could play a role in the \ndistribution of goods in the early days of socialist society before \nenough for all could be produced, has been superseded by developments in\n technology which make the move to a moneyless world society an \nimmediate result of the socialist revolution to come.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So, we can see that the utopian outlook, which we began by praising \nas the innocent child of oppressed desire, met the wrath of science and \nbecame perceived as a hindrance to revolutionary change. In short, it is\n precisely when “Utopia” becomes practical that Utopians become \nobstacles to the achievement of the new way of living. We need to dream \nwhen we are unfree to act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n BELLAMY’S UTOPIA<\/strong> Edward Bellamy, the son of a strict Baptist Minister and a \nfrighteningly puritanical mother, a journalist of some ability, born in \nChicopee Falls, Massachusetts on 26 March, 1850, set himself the task of\n writing a utopian novel which would show the world how different \nsociety could be from the rottenness of American capitalism. That he did\n well depict the absurdity of the capitalist way of organising society \nis demonstrated by the passage from Looking Backward which we re-publish\n at the end of this article. That his novel did have an impact is clear \nfrom the fact that approximately half a million copies of it were sold \nin the few years after its publication in 1888. It was, according to \nGoodwin and Taylor, “probably the most widely read fictional utopia ever\n written”. In addition to being read it was acted upon: the novel gave \nrise to a Nationalist movement, seeking to put into practice the vision \nof Bellamy’s novel. According to Cyrus F Willard (who was one of the \nmovement’s leading figures), the Nationalist Clubs had over 6,000 \nmembers and 500,000 “believers”. He wrote that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n We have fifty or more papers and magazines unreservedly advocating Nationalism. (The Nationalist, II, No. 1, December 1889)<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Nationalist movement’s principles were based upon those in \nBellamy’s book and the book was a bestseller, so the obvious question \nremains, what did it say? The novel tells the story of Julian West, a \nprosperous resident of Boston, who, unable to fall asleep, has his \nbutler hypnotise him and . . . then, one hundred and thirteen years \nlater when he wakes up, he finds himself in a fundamentally transformed \nBoston, the social details of which are explained to him by the rather \ntedious Dr Leete and his daughter, Edith \u2014 with whom, of course, Julian \nfalls in love during his trip to utopia. What is Bellamy’s utopia like? \nThe following features, supported by some quotations from Bellamy’s own \nsummary of the novel in the Dawn of 15 September, 1889, define the new \nsystem:<\/p>\n\n\n\n 1. The entire nation of the USA has become “a general business \npartnership, in which every man and woman is an equal partner”. These features provide only a rough summary. For example, Bellamy \ndevised an elaborate scheme for electing officers for the national army,\n giving the vote only to those over the age of 45! We shall not bother \nourselves here with the more obviously outlandish features of Bellamy’s \nvision. Its most important contribution to the thinking of the time was \nits vision of a moneyless, wageless, classless society \u2014 although, as \nwill become clear, those conditions were somewhat equivocal in Bellamy’s\n scheme of things. His utopia showed workers a society where life could \nbe different \u2014 better, happier. That is what socialists must be doing. \nThe influence of Bellamy upon the American working-class movement was \nconsiderable. The foremost Marxian thinker of early 20th century \nAmerica, Daniel DeLeon, was quite evidently influenced by Bellamy. \n(Indeed, DeLeon maintained some of Bellamy’s non-socialist utopian \nfeatures within his own vision of socialism even after he ceased to be a\n Nationalist.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n UNSATISFACTORY DEPICTION OF SOCIALISM<\/strong> So, the first criticism which socialists must make about Bellamy is \nthat he was utopian, not in the sense of being a visionary (which all \nrevolutionaries are), but in the sense of rejecting a scientific or \nmaterialistic idea of change. But it was not only the lack of a means of\n achieving socialism (and Bellamy refused to call his utopia that in \ncase it might offend Americans) for which socialists criticise Looking \nBackward. The very depiction of socialism presented is unsatisfactory. \nThe idea of such a change occurring in one country is an impossibility, \ngiven the global interdependence of the capitalist system. The \nstate-capitalist sense of the nation being organised as a huge business \ncorporation, with all the people as its conscript employees, does not \ninspire those of us seeking a truly liberated society. The abolition of \nthe wages system (a quiet common socialist demand in American history) \nis spoilt by the picture of everyone having to live in a society of \ncredit cards. The sexism of the role of women is unattractive to \nsocialists, as indeed is the potentially eugenicist notion of creating a\n perfect human race which follows from Bellamy’s ideas on marriage. The \nnew social order (and you will need to read the book to get the sense of\n this) is over-concerned with consumerism, technology and the pleasures \nof living an ordered existence. That crucial element of socialist vision\n which is about the unity of work and art, values beyond immediate \nconsumption, and life being more than a process of individual \nsatisfaction, is too often missing from Bellamy’s outlook. No wonder \nthat it was William Morris, a socialist who embodied all of those \nbroader notions of what it is to be a revolutionary socialist, who was \namongst the first to attack Bellamy’s novel. Indeed, it was Morris’s \ndisgust at reading Looking Backward which led him to write his \ninfinitely better novel about what socialism might be like: News From \nNowhere.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Looking Backward, published a century ago, is a novel worth reading, \nif only for the kind of penetrating critique of capitalism typified by \nthe extract which follows. His rather less interesting book. Equality, \nwritten in 1890 and lacking the literary quality of Bellamy’s magnum \nopus, pursues the same corporatist vision, showing clearly the link (one\n which is often a source of embarrassment to the state-loving Left) \nbetween state-capitalism and fascism as corporatist ideals of economic \norganisation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A century after Looking Backward came off the press the oppressed are\n still entertaining visions of what could be. Those of us who seek to \npull from the roots the rottenness of what our rulers say must always be\n are still derided as utopians. But then, as Thomas Muntzer, the \nanabaptist revolutionary of the Sixteenth Century, pointed out, history \nbelongs to those of us who “possess the strength to realise the \nimpossible”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Steve Coleman<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" For as long as there has been human oppression there have been dreams of the oppressed. Oppressed people have not usually had access to the means of recording their dreams, so too many of them have been lost. Nor have they had the power to communicate their dreams as widely as the powerful have been…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"magazine_newspaper_sidebar_layout":"","footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-2480","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2480","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2480"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2480\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2482,"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2480\/revisions\/2482"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2480"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels began to construct their theory of revolutionary socialism at a time when to be socialist was regarded as an act of futuristic utopianism. Most socialists in the 1840s were followers of one blueprint or another; in America the Utopias had become more than blueprints and embryonic Utopian socialist communities had sprung up in their thousands.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Marxism left the task of transforming society to the workers. For historical reasons too complex to enter into here, the workers did not jump to the task. On the contrary, capitalism survived the scientific theory of its destruction, just as it had outlived the utopian desire for the same end. Socialism and Marxism came to be dirty words and those seeking change began to look in new directions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n 2. All people in the new society are part of the “army of industry” \nwhich they must serve in some form between the ages of 21 and 45. The \nargument is that just as capitalism conscripts labour for destructive \npurposes in times of war, the new system conscripts labour for peaceful,\n productive ends. There is, incidentally, a special corps of the “army” \nfor professional people and even one for the disabled.
\n 3. No wages are paid for working, but people receive vouchers (in \nfact, an elaborate credit card system operates) which allow them to have\n what they need from the common store. If some fields of work are less \nattractive than others, then the hours of work are shortened.
\n 4. The feminine corps of the army is “devoted to the lighter classes of occupations”.
\n 5. At the age of 45 all people are discharged from the army of \nlabour and are “free to occupy themselves as they will for the remainder\n of their lives”.
\n 6. There is no money (in the old sense) and credit cannot be stored by individuals, so creating economic inequality.
\n 7. There is virtually no crime: “Robbery, theft and fraud of every \nsort are without a motive in a society where all have abundance, where \ncovetousness is not stimulated by different degrees of luxury, and where\n equality of resources is annually renewed”.
\n 8. Much more wealth is produced than under capitalism because waste \nis avoided and science is properly used for peace and not war.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Like all Utopians, Bellamy lacked an historical theory of social transformation. By far the weakest part of his book is that which describes the coming of the new order: it came because people saw that it was a good idea, so they let it be, capitalists collaborating with workers, without any violent resistance, without any political action. Indeed, Bellamy goes out of his way to state that socialists were a counter-productive influence upon the great utopian change. But history does not change like that. The class struggle will not collapse into a utopian act of national goodwill. And Bellamy’s utopia was an historical non-starter. The Nationalist movement, which sought to bring about the utopian change simply by the moral preaching of educated persons of goodwill did not take long to fall to pieces, now utterly forgotten except by historians. <\/p>\n\n\n\n