Article #2 >>>>> >Journal of the K-12 Revolution: Essays and Research from Minneapolis, Minnesota<, Volume XII, Number Nine, March 2026

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.