A Consideration of Edward Bellamy’s
Vision of Societal Perfection as Presented in Looking Backward (Published
in 1887)
Here I
consider Edward Bellamy’s vision of societal perfection in his Looking
Backward (published in 1887).
Two
questions are of interest:
1) Is
Bellamy’s vision realistic: Could a heavily centralized
socialist system ever create favorable
conditions
for humankind?
2) Is
Belamy’s vision ideal: Would his prescriptions for a highly
educated, completely egalitarian socialist society be the best for
humanity?
...........................................................................
1) Is
Bellamy’s vision realistic: Could a heavily centralized socialist
system ever create favorable conditions for humankind?
One cannot
ignore that the two prime attempts to establish centralized governments in
behalf of the masses did not work out well: 1) Stalin
represents the specter of the dictator who appropriates the idea of the
dictatorship of the proletariat for the benefit of his personal position and
unopposed agenda of industrialization; 2) Mao started
with considerable promise in creating the Jiangxi soviets, superintending the
Long March, moving between the Caves of Yen’an and village peasantry in
planning the civil war, and overseeing cooperativization during the 1950s but
succumbed to deadly romantic fantasy during the last decade and a half of his
life.
But those
implicit objections by example could be challenged by the circumstances in
Bellamy’s (via the character, Dr. Leete) account of an American society that
had reached a highly developed stage of industrialization, therefore had the
large proletarian class that Russia and China did not and, experiencing
prospect for class conflict predicted by Marx, opted to resolve the
contradictions of the prevailing substructure and superstructure by installing
a dictatorship of the masses, no longer proletarian but rather classless as
society organically became egalitarian: Citizens were remunerated
equally in a demonetized economy; those citizens were highly
educated in the liberal and vocational arts; and, subject to certain
agreed-upon conditions of labor and life, also enjoyed many personal options
that tended toward high-level aesthetic pursuits.
One could
argue that under those circumstances, a centralized government would be so
imbued with the values of egalitarian altruism that leaders would naturally
serve the public with integrity and competence.
For me,
the key would be a highly educated populace that had, through discussion and
agreement, to a person achieved the necessary level of knowledge and
morality (with only a few exceptions of those who as in Belamy’s society had to
be further convinced or humanely sequestered if according to biological
constitution not able to cooperate).
This
circumstance, if ever achievable, would necessitate educational improvements
that would in my view take at least two centuries into the future.
And the
achievement of the requisite level of education and such a society would be so
difficult as to call into question the probability of the Bellamy vision ever
being possible.
Ultimately,
then, while amply considering conditions for success, my answer to the first
question is that no, Bellamy’s vision is not realistic and that a heavily
centralized socialist egalitarian system could not be achieved.
...........................................................................
2) Is
Bellamy’s vision ideal: Would his prescriptions for a highly
educated, completely egalitarian socialist society be the best for
humanity?
Much of
the Bellamy vision is appealing: demonetized economy that gives full
rein to one’s professional or vocational or professional
inclinations; high level of education that induces the populace to
live according to an exalted aesthetic; the perfectly egalitarian
ideal that recognizes the equal dignity of all labor and remunerates
accordingly; the elimination of international tensions and violence
both domestic and worldwide.
Bellamy
challenges us to consider why we would tolerate so many conditions of life so
detrimental to fully realized happiness. I heavily identify with the
propensity to question life as it is.
Attitudinal
improvement, though, would have to advance toward a more perfectly
nonpatriarchal society than presented by Bellamy.
Vexing
tensions pertinent to race and ethnicity would have to be
resolved; Bellamy mentions race and ethnicity not at all.
Also,
Bellamy’s society maintains a level of regimentation making necessary all
citizens jettisoning individuality in embracing two years spent at the lower
levels of the industrial army; the agreement of people vocationally
to retire most commonly by 45 or at times by 55 years of age; and
accepting the goods manufactured by centralized design as fulfilling all human
wants.
I am
continuing to think through the matter of Belamy’s vision as ideal, assuming
that the matters of gender and ethnicity could be worked out satisfactorily.
As stated,
and even if improved by addressing gender and ethnicity--- and for
all of the appealing aspects--- I am not ready to declare
agreement with Bellamy’s vision as constituting the ideal society.
...........................................................................
Here I
raise questions that I discussed a few moons back in the aftermath of reading
two of Lane Kenworthy’s excellent books: Social Democratic
America; and Is Democratic Socialism Necessary?
The first
book pursued a line of argument asserting that the United States has under the
presidencies of Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and Barack Obama followed
more slowly the path trod by the European, particularly Nordic, nations toward
social democracy and will ultimately fully create such a society.
The second
book asks the question, “Is democratic socialism, technically defined as
entailing 67% government control over industries and enterprises,
necessary--- or is social democracy that combines the welfare state with
a mostly capitalist economy enough?”
Kenworthy
argues for the latter premise, essentially maintaining that the Nordic social
democracies feature an admirable level of cooperative spirit while giving rein
to individual and business initiative.
At this
juncture, after much pertinent rumination, I agree with Kenworthy.
Certainly,
the societies created by the Nordic social democracies, take humanity a long
way toward the ideal society. Perhaps the dialectic processes of societal
evolution could take humanity even further toward the communal, egalitarian
ideal. But the path laid by the Nordic democracies would provide a mighty
fine promontory for admiring the view. And at this moment in time, I find
appealing the combination of communal spirit with space for considerable
individuality.
Another
observation at this point would be that while I admire the desire of some to
eliminate middlepersons so as to bring consumer and producer closer together in
cooperative and communal spirit, I am more concerned with the creation of
knowledgeable and moral people via fact-heavy education with energetic
discussion of political and ethical issues.
Some seek
to create a model communal enterprise.
I seek to
create a model public school district.
