Edward Bellamy's Vision of a Socialist Utopia

Francis Bellamy, who wrote the Pledge of Allegiance in 1892, was the subject of my August 30 blog post. In that article, I mentioned that Bellamy was a democratic socialist—but he was not so to the extent of Edward Bellamy, his cousin who authored a powerful novel about a socialist utopia.

Edward Bellamy’s Bio, Briefly

The fathers of Edward Bellamy (1850~1898) and Francis Bellamy (1855~1931) were brothers. Edward’s father was a Baptist minister, but Edward did not follow his father’s footsteps and did not become a minister as his cousin Francis did.

Edward, rather, became a journalist and then after developing tuberculosis at the age of 25 he became a novelist and wrote three unremarkable novels that were published between 1880 and 1885.

The life of Edward Bellamy changed drastically, though, after his utopian science fiction book Looking Backward, 2000-1887, was published early in 1888. Within a year it sold some 200,000 copies. 

By the end of the century, Looking Backward had sold more copies than any other novel published in America except for Uncle Tom’s Cabin and Ben-Hur. It “especially appealed to a generation of intellectuals alienated from the alleged dark side of the Gilded Age” (see here).

(Curiously, while I have known of the latter books for most of my life, I don’t remember ever hearing of Bellamy’s book until August of this year.)

Bellamy published Equality, a sequel to Looking Backward, in 1897, but it was a disappointment. The following year, less than two months after his 48^th birthday, Bellamy died in his home state of Massachusetts.

Edward Bellamy’s Book, Briefly

Even though, as indicated, I had not heard of Bellamy’s highly successful book before this past summer, I bought a Kindle copy (for 99 cents!) in early September and read it with great interest, in spite of some of it being rather pedantic.

The novel narrates the story of a young Bostonian named Julian West, who falls into a deep, hypnosis-induced sleep in 1887 and wakes up 113 years later in a radically changed Boston.

West is discovered in his underground sleeping chamber by a Dr. Leete, who along with his lovely daughter Edith explain and introduce West to the city, and the American society, of the year 2000. To his great amazement, the country, indeed, has become a socialist utopia.

Spark Notes (here) provides a detailed summary and analysis of the book—and even the full text of the novel—so I will make only the following brief comment about its content.

From Dr. Leete’s explanation, it becomes clear that Boston and the entire U.S. has become a utopia by the choices made through the years by the general public and not at all because of government control and/or coercion. It was, truly, the result of democratic socialism.

So, What About It?

I found Bellamy’s novel so intriguing because it was written at the very time that unchecked capitalism and “robber barons” such as Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller were causing such suffering by exploitation of the working people of the country.

The year Looking Backward was published was also the very time Walter Rauschenbusch was beginning to develop the Social Gospel—and his biographers say that the young pastor of the church in Hell’s Kitchen read Bellamy’s book.

A 2019 article titled “When Christian Evangelicals Loved Socialism” states, “Rauschenbusch never became an overt political activist allied with any socialist group. But he was sympathetic to the goals of socialists, if not always their methods.”

At the present time, the progressives in the Democratic Party are often vilified as being socialists, but perhaps they are merely seeking what Edward Bellamy and Walter Rauschenbusch envisioned; that is, a society in which the needs of all people are adequately met.

Why don’t we all want, and work for, such a society?

Myths About Socialism

It’s amazing what some people believe about the President. As reported in the current issue of Harper’s magazine, a January survey indicated that 24% of the Republicans in the country said President Obama “wants the terrorists to win.” Writing for the March 24 issue of U.S. News and World Report, Robert Schlesinger reports that a recent poll indicated that 57% of Republicans think the President is a Muslim and about one in four suspect that he is the Antichrist!

As indicated in my last posting, one of the persistent charges against the President is that he is leading the country toward socialism. According to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll as reported in the April 14 issue of the NY Times, 92% of the Tea Party backers “believe Mr. Obama is moving the country toward socialism, an opinion shared by more than half of the general public.”

As I indicated in my previous posting, it might be a positive thing for vast numbers of people if the country did move more toward socialism. But there is little indication that the country has, in fact, moved very far in that direction. On April 10, Bill Quigley, a law professor at Loyola University, New Orleans, posted “Nine Myths about Socialism in the US” on “Bill Quigley’s Blog.”

Quigley compared the U.S. with the thirty countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). He says that when one looks at how the U.S. compares to the thirty OECD countries, “the hot air myths about the US government going all out towards socialism sort of disappear into thin air.” (For those who are interested, you can read about the nine myths here.)

Quigley’s conclusion: “Despite what the right wing folks are saying, the US is not on the path towards socialism.” Then he adds, “But if socialism means the US would go down the path of being more generous with our babies, our children, our working families, our pregnant mothers, and our sisters and brothers across the world, I think we could all appreciate it.”**

So, while some people charge the President with leading the country toward socialism, seeing that as a very negative thing, the facts seem to show the U.S. is a long ways from socialism at this point—and for many people who are hurting now that may be the bad news rather than the good news.

** You may be interested to know that Quigley, who teaches Social Justice Lawyering and other courses at Loyola, was awarded the Pope Paul VI Teacher of Peace Award in 2003. The first person to be given that award by Pax Christi was Dorothy Day in 1978, and other recipients include Daniel Berrigan (1989), Joan Chittister (1990), and Bishop Thomas Gumbleton (1991). You may not be familiar with the latter name, but he was the bishop interviewed briefly by Michael Moore in Capitalism: A Love Story.

Who Loves Capitalism?

My previous posting was about income tax, and I am continuing to think about economic matters in this article. Just the evening before Tax Day, June and I watched Michael Moore’s 2009 movie “Capitalism: A Love Story.” We thought it was a good movie. But there are those who not only don’t like it, they hate it.

I was a bit surprised that the movie included brief comments by a retired Catholic bishop from Detroit and two other Catholic priests, who were all quite negative in their comments about capitalism. But through the years there has been a rather long line of prominent Christians, Protestants as well as Catholics, who have been critical of capitalism.

As you know, those who are conservative politically are strong opponents of President Obama, and there has been a steady stream of criticism calling him a socialist and decrying his leading the country into socialism (or even Communism). His pushing for the healthcare reform bill, of course, has been one of the main reasons for that attack. And, in fact, the President is probably just one of many prominent politicians who are somewhat critical of capitalism.

In the previous posting, I mentioned Ronald Dellums, the current mayor of Oakland (CA). He served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1971 to 1998, and he was the first openly socialist congressperson since World War II. Although I have known of him since the early 1970s because of his opposition to the Vietnam War, I did not know until recently that he is a democratic socialist. But I was not surprised when I learned that.

Are you aware that Bernard “Bernie” Sanders (1941), the junior U.S. Senator from Vermont serving in his third year, also describes himself as a democratic socialist? He is said to be the first open socialist to serve in the Senate. There are, of course, many others, mostly liberal Democrats, who are regularly charged with being socialists. And maybe a number of them are democratic socialist sympathizers. But is should that be considered a bad thing?

If even half of the things Michael Moore says about capitalism are true—and probably more than half are, in fact, true—then it seems to me that followers of Jesus Christ ought to be among the leaders of those seeking an alternative economic system, or at least modification of the present capitalistic system.

Thankfully, there have been some modifications through the years. Michael Harrington (1928-89) was one of the outstanding socialist scholars in the twentieth century. Perhaps his most influential book was The Other America: Poverty in the United States (1962), a work that had an impact on the Kennedy administration and on Johnson’s subsequent “war on poverty.”

So, who loves capitalism? Primarily, those who have capital. And it probably can be said that, in general, the more capital one has, the more that person loves capitalism. But there is little love for capitalism by most of those who live in “the other America,” and also by those who are most concerned for people living in poverty.

Realism Triumphs Again

Well, it looks as if health care reform is going to pass. As you know, the Senate version was approved early on December 24, and one way or another the Senate and House versions will likely be harmonized, maybe even in time for the President’s signature before his State of the Union address late next month.

This is not an ideal health care bill. For the Republicans, of course, every health care bill is fatally flawed and to be strenuously opposed. Many Democrats, included the President, it seems, wanted things included in the health care bill that are not there. Many compromises were made, but such compromises had to be made in order to get the necessary votes to pass the bill.

The current issue of The Economist opines, “Every time someone tells you to ‘be realistic’ they are asking you to compromise your ideals” (pp. 38, 40). That is probably true. But the President and many senators had to be realistic and compromise their ideals to some degree in order to get a health care bill passed.

We have to realize that “politics is the art of compromise.” (I have been unable to find a source for that adage.) Also, “politics is the art of the possible” (Otto von Bismarck). As I wrote earlier, in spite of his fine Nobel Lecture, President Obama’s deployment of troops to Afghanistan showed the triumph of realism over idealism. And now with the health care bill, we see realism triumphing again.

While the health care bill leaves a lot to be desired, it is not a bad bill. Although it still leaves out millions, this reform will extend coverage to more than 30,000,000 Americans who don't have it now. This is no small matter, for that number represents nearly 10% of the nation’s population.

The health care reform bill is one example of democratic socialism at work. It is democratic in that it will be enacted by Congress, the democratically elected leaders of the nation. It is socialistic in that the government guarantees health care for at least most of the citizens of the nation.

The health care reform bill is socialistic in the same way that Social Security and Medicare are socialistic. There are problems, mostly financial, with both of those programs. But would any except the wealthiest among us want to do away with Social Security and Medicare? (I challenge those of you who might be opposed to the health care bill because it is socialistic to voluntarily forfeit your Medicare coverage.)

I would like to have had an “ideal” health care reform bill. But I am glad that realism triumphed over idealism, for in this case something is far better than nothing.

Is Giving Alms Enough?

This is my follow-up to the posting about “The Amazing Booths” (Dec. 8). As I indicated then, I have the highest admiration for William and Catherine Booth and for the work of the Salvation Army, which they founded. I also have deep appreciation for local organizations, such as Harvesters, Love INC, and In As Much Ministry, and for those who volunteer to work with and who support those worthwhile groups.

But the question I raise is this: is giving alms (food, clothing, and other necessary items) enough? On the one hand, at the beginning the Booths and those who worked with them thought giving physical assistance was not enough, for they also expected those who received material help to receive spiritual help as well.

“Soup, Soap, and Salvation” was a slogan long associated with the Salvation Army. But now the Salvation Army, as well as the other organizations I mentioned, seem to place little emphasis on salvation, in the sense traditionally understood by evangelical Christians.

The main question that I have about groups that conduct praiseworthy charitable activities, though, is this: should they work more on the cause of poverty and physical needs instead of just focusing on the current needs of the persons they minister to?

Certainly, people need help now, and in no way do I want to belittle the assistance given the needy by organizations like the ones listed above. But the causes of poverty need to be addressed seriously also. But how can that be done effectively? Here we face strongly opposing ideas.

Hélder Câmara (1909-99) was a Brazilian priest who became an archbishop. You probably have heard his oft-quoted words: ““When I gave food to the poor, they called me a saint. When I asked why the poor were hungry, they called me a communist.”

Other South American priests who espouse “liberation theology,” a theology seeking to find ways to free people from extreme poverty and oppression, are, in fact, Marxists to a degree. They, of course, do not accept Marxist ideology or atheism, but they understand history largely as class struggle. And they believe that systemic changes must be made for the sake of the poor. The liberation theology they developed stresses God’s “preferential option for the poor.”

Liberation theology, both the South American version and the Africa-American version in the U.S., is sometimes criticized as fostering violence. I in no way condone violence, but I am far more opposed to the violence done against the poor of South America or against the African-Americans in this country than I am of the violence committed by desperate people. And it is unquestionable, I think, that there is systemic violence. That is why the system needs to be changed.

With regard to societal change, the extremes seem to be conservative capitalism seeking to maintain the status quo on the one hand and Marxism/Communism seeking structural change by violent revolution on the other. As usual, I want a position between the extremes, and perhaps that position is best found in some form of democratic socialism, which I probably will write more about later.