The Confused Socialism of Oscar Wilde
Like many intellectuals at the turn of the 19th century, Oscar Wilde was both interested in the problems of society and a proponent of socialism.
Though Wilde was more concerned with criticizing Victorian society via his satirical works than puzzling over the problems of social organization, he did briefly examine social philosophy in his little-known essay, The Soul of Man Under Socialism.
Wilde's approach is hardly praxeological — in fact, he assays the problem of socialism from the perspective of an artist rather than an economist or philosopher — but nevertheless, his essay is instructive, and has much to teach about both the confusion of the intellectuals vis à vis socialism, and, ironically enough, about the problems of state power in general.
What makes Wilde's essay so remarkable is that, even as he errs regarding his arguments, upon closer examination one observes that he in fact possesses deep insights that might remain hidden to the casual reader. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (13)
Advocates of state socialism never cease to amaze me. At least the anarcho-collectivist varieties tend to be somewhat more consistent, although not too much.
Published: November 23, 2007 6:58 AM
Maybe it would help to distinguish between a couple forms of socialism. It seems like you are assuming that Oscar Wilde had a similar view of socialism as what we have seen in the 20th century, or that in the mind of Marx. He clearly has not, he has in mind some form between anarchy and state socialism.
Published: November 23, 2007 7:55 AM
I think Wilde wrote that the problem with socialism was that "it would take too many evenings." Sometimes misquoted as "it would take too many meetings." So he seems to have a good idea of some of the problems of socialism.
Published: November 23, 2007 7:55 AM
The state must not only manipulate (the products of) artists. It must also manipulate the products of scientists, particularly social "scientists" like economists and psychologists, but also, for example, climatologists (global warming) and geneticists (Viktor Lysenko).
In other words, ALL spheres of creativity.
Published: November 23, 2007 10:14 AM
The parallels with that other skeptical English socialist George Orwell are striking. Orwell's skepticism was better developed apparently than Wilde's, but he insisted to being known as a socialist nonetheless.
Published: November 23, 2007 10:16 AM
George Orwell (Eric Blair) - yes he opposed the Soviet Union (and its supporters in the West, and those who believed in should not be resisted in Europe or anywhere else), but he continued to be a socialist.
As for thinking that submission to the collective will mean more individual freedom - because there will be no more "tyranny of want" or the need to obey an employer....
Of course, such ideas go back to Jean-Jacques Rosseau and before.
In the 19th century Karl Marx went on (in the "German Ideology" 1845) about how if "society organized production" individuals could be hunters in the morning, fishermen in the afternoon, critics after dinner - whatever they felt like.
The idea (apart from denying the division of labour and speicalization)is that everyone will be so rich each indivudal will be like a "private gentleman of fortune" only working at things he likes.
Why collective control of the means of production, distribution and exchange is supposed to produce this is not explained (other than to claim that demands for proof, logical or empirical, just shows that one is a slave of capitalist class interests).
Utterly absurd, but very attractive to many people.
Of course the only real chance of increasing the percentage of people who have the resources to only work at things they like doing, is to follow a policy of supporting private ownership and unrestricted civil (voluntary) interaction.
The exact opposite of socialism.
But whether even such a policy could one day (with the advance of technology and so on)mean that "everyone" could be in such a happy position is not something I have an opinion on.
Published: November 23, 2007 12:45 PM
Wilde's essay does seem to be contradictory. I would not regard it as real endorsement of 'socialism'.
"At present, in consequence of the existence of private property, a great many people are enabled to develop a certain very limited amount of individualism. They are either under no necessity to work for their living, or are enabled to choose the sphere of activity that is really congenial to them and gives them pleasure. "
Published: November 23, 2007 2:13 PM
"Up to the present, man has been, to a certain extent, the slave of machinery, and there is something tragic in the fact that as soon as man had invented a machine to do his work he began to starve. "
Oh well...
Published: November 23, 2007 2:19 PM
the politics of "the artist" make me think of Susan Sontags "illness as metaphor". In it she notes that in the early 20th century people who died of cancer were seen genericly as cold unfeeling people. people who were afraid to love and live. whereas people who died of tuberculosis were like great artistes who took life by the ...neck or something. i actually had a friend say that in fact "they died beautiful deaths". she was an ex "junkie" from wellesley massachusetts!! one of the most expensive places to live in america.
Published: November 23, 2007 2:22 PM
"There are three kinds of despots. There is the despot who tyrannises over the body. There is the despot who tyrannises over the soul. There is the despot who tyrannises over soul and body alike. The first is called the Prince. The second is called the Pope. The third is called the People."
Published: November 23, 2007 2:24 PM
"It is to be noted also that Individualism does not come to man with any sickly cant about duty, which merely means doing what other people want because they want it; or any hideous cant about self-sacrifice, which is merely a survival of savage mutilation. In fact, it does not come to man with any claims upon him at all. It comes naturally and inevitably out of man. It is the point to which all development tends. It is the differentiation to which all organisms grow. It is the perfection that is inherent in every mode of life, and towards which every mode of life quickens. And so Individualism exercises no compulsion over man."
Published: November 23, 2007 2:29 PM
"Wilde's vision of socialism, men will be free to pursue their own artistic goals without fear of any sort of coercion, and will thus reach the utmost heights of artistic self-expression. Wilde fails to realize that under the socialist state, the artist is only at liberty to produce that which the state deems appropriate."
A few notes on artists:
Applying for grants, government or otherwise, makes you accountable to someone for what you will produce artistically.
It is not uncommon for artists to encourage...or insist...on conformity.
If you want to see an artist get nervous, tell them what you don't like about a critic. They will shoosh you and look all around for fear that someone may have overheard you. Better yet, tell a critic what you think. :)
Political affiliations will also affect your standing in the community.
In a way, the world of an artist is a miniature version of the State. But there is a group of artists, the ones who work the festivals, who are very independent. They work for themselves, 7 days a week, and for as many as 40 weeks out of the year (the rest of the year is devoted to creating more work). They understand the market better than the average artist. They love to work at being an entrepreneur as much as being an artist. They understand that unformity of work would simply create price wars, so there is an economic as well as an artistic benefit to being different.
BTW, I don't know if any of you have ever noticed, but Jeffrey is an artist. But he has retained his artistic sensibilities and his individuality because of his libertarian ideals. Way to go Jeffrey!
Published: November 23, 2007 3:03 PM
You quoted:
"if governments are armed with economic power as they are now with political power: if, in a word, we are to have Industrial Tyrannies, then the last state of man will be worse than the first."
and then said:
"Again, Wilde's confusion is the key to understanding this statement and extracting from it the considerable truth it contains. Wilde fails to grasp that socialism by definition requires the transfer of economic power from the individual to the collective, i.e., the state."
I must disagree, for to me the greatest insight is that he knew, somehow without noticing his own knowledge, that government does not produce anything.
Yes, the transer of economic output to the greedy maw of the state - because the state is NOT an economically viable entity by itself. It literally cannot feed itself let alone profit without feeding upon the efforts of others.
That, right there, shows the inherent fallacy of his thinking. How can a blundering inefficent state, incapable of turning an honest profit, even equal let alone out-perform those entites which amidst stiff competition emerge as market leaders?
Even if we ignore the transfer and stealing aspect, the fact the state cannot properly run a corner shop is plenty enough reason not to trust them with the entire economy.
I'm reminded of the insult "If he had a brain he'd be dangerous". IF the state were capable of running a proper business, which it isn't, things would be even worse?
That's beyond a contradiction, that's his argument's foundation sliding into a sinkhole.
Wiggly
Published: November 24, 2007 11:38 AM