"ARTIST, VISIONARY, AUTHORITARIAN" ENDNOTES
[1]. A search of JSTOR (an electronic archive of journals and book chapters published across many academic disciplines) for works published between 2013 and 2022 that contained the term "socialism" and the name of a celebrated socialist shows that Morris (5,857 results) trails only Marx (11,114) and Engels (7,143) in terms of the frequency with which he is discussed. That's not a significant gap considering the prominence of Marx and Engels. Morris is referenced far more frequently than other celebrated socialists, such as Vladimir Lenin (2,800), Fidel Castro (2,106), Che Guevara (1,928), Eugene Debs (693), and August Bebel (435).
[2]. A search of JSTOR (an electronic archive of journals and book chapters published across many academic disciplines) for works published between 2013 and 2022 that contained the term "socialism" and the name of a celebrated socialist shows that Morris (5,857 results) trails only Marx (11,114) and Engels (7,143) in terms of the frequency with which he is discussed. That's not a significant gap considering the prominence of Marx and Engels. Morris is referenced far more frequently than other celebrated socialists, such as Vladimir Lenin (2,800), Fidel Castro (2,106), Che Guevara (1,928), Eugene Debs (693), and August Bebel (435).
[3]. William Morris, News from Nowhere (Hammersmith: Kelmscott Press, 1893), 249–55.
[4]. William Morris, "The Depression of Trade," in The Unpublished Lectures of William Morris, ed. Eugene D. Lemire (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1969), 132.
[5]. "An Unpublished Lecture of William Morris," ed. Paul Meier, International Review of Social History 16, no. 2 (1971): 15–16. Morris's most famous socialist biographer, E.P. Thompson, admits that "Morris repeatedly leaves the impression that he had come to regard the poetry and painting of his time (including his own) as in some way marginal activities." E. P. Thompson, William Morris: From Romantic to Revolutionary (Oakland: PM Press, 2011), 666.
[6]. Paul Meier, William Morris: The Marxist Dreamer (Sussex: Harvester, 1978), 1:82, 2:306.
[7]. William Morris, "True and False Society" (1886), The William Morris Internet Archive, https://www.marxists.org/archive/morris/works/1886/false.htm
[8]. In one of his most important works, The Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx originated idea that socialist society would develop over two phases. Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program, in The Marx-Engels Reader, ed. Robert Tucker(New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1972), 380–85.
Fans of Morris debate whether Morris came up with the two-phase idea depicted in News from Nowhere independently of Marx (e.g., Thompson, Morris, 690) or as a result of becoming aware of the ideas expressed in The Critique of the Gotha Programme, possibly from Engels, even though it had not yet been published when News from Nowhere was released (e.g., Meier, Morris, 282). Even if Morris did develop the two-phase concept independently of Marx, the fact that this theory dominates socialist thought is without question due to Marx's pronouncement that this was how socialist society would develop.
[9]. Marx wrote that socialist society would eventually "inscribe on its banners, 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,'" thereby signifying that perfected socialism had arrived. Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program, 383.
[10]. Vladimir Lenin writes that in second phase of socialist society based on abundance, there would be "no need for society to regulate the quantity of products to be distributed to each; each will take freely 'according to his needs.'" Vladimir Lenin, The State and Revolution, 2nd ed. (London: Laurence & Wishart, 1943), 113.
Tatah Mentah writes that a society based on "to each according to their needs" means that "individuals will have free access to what is produced according to self-defined needs." Tatah Mentah, Socialism: The Only Practical Alternative to Contemporary Capitalism (Mankon: Langaa Research and Publishing, 2012), 36.
Binay Sakar and Adam Buick write that "when the means of production had been sufficiently developed, socialism could go over to the principle: from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." They define this as "free access according to needs." Binay Sakar and Adam Buick, Marxism, Leninism: Poles Apart (West Bengal: Kolkata Avenel Press, 2012), ch. 10. See http://www.worldsocialistpartyindia.org/sc.php?cat=marxism-leninism-poles-apart.
For additional examples of this view, see the RFP paper "The Secret Sauce of Socialism" at secretsauceofsocialism.org.
[11]. One example of instances in which socialists have used the term "superabundance" to describe their expectation of what socialism would produce come from Leo Huberman: "With the discovery of atomic power and its ownership and planned development by a socialist society, the ultimate goal of satisfying the wants of all with a minimum of monotonous and burdensome labor need no longer be relegated to the distant future. Where formerly it was wise to estimate our ability to create a super-abundance in terms of centuries, now it is perhaps not over-optimistic to think in terms of years." Leo Huberman, The Truth about Socialism (New York: Lear Publishing, 1950), 198n, emphasis added.
Similarly, one example of socialists speaking in terms of "limitless abundance" comes from Fidel Castro: "Anyone can understand that this [increased productivity] is the only way to develop the wealth of our country, its natural resources, to a maximum and that it is the only way to enable our people to benefit from a limitless abundance of the necessities of life." Fidel Castro, "Fidel Castro Speaks to Graduation Tractor Operators [October 2, 1968]," Castro Speech Database, http://lanic.utexas.edu/project/castro/db/1968/19681002.html, emphasis added.
To learn more and see additional examples, see the RFP paper "The Secret Sauce of Socialism" at secretsauceofsocialism.org.
[13]. In News from Nowhere, Morris is explicit that the society of Nowhere is one in which "there is no buying and selling" (138) and no money. The book's first edition includes in the phrase "Where's the money[?]" (48) in the marginalia alongside a scene in which the protagonist, William Guest (a visitor to Nowhere transported magically from the capitalist past), attempts to pay for goods like a pipe (52) and services like a river ferry (12) only to be met with confusion by the citizens of Nowhere, who have no idea what he's trying to do. When Guest visits what appears to be a market with shops, he notes that "as far as I could see, the people were ignorant of the art of buying and selling," and he receives goods for free (46). There are a few instances when citizens of Nowhere recognize "money" and "buying and selling" as concepts from a distant past. For example, when Guest talks about "making money," the person he's speaking with responds, "I understand what that queer phrase means" (285).
[14]. Meier, Morris, 2:390.
[15]. This is how author Dennis Bartels describes Morris's vision of socialist society in News from Nowhere. Bartels even suggests that this is a realistic vision for our current world. Dennis Bartels, "The Road to Nowhere: Morris, Utopia and Global Climate Change," Journal of William Morris Studies 12, no. 3. (Fall 1997): 40.
[16]. Socialist thinkers are explicit that craftwork and socialism do not mix. Craft violates multiple socialist principles, including socialism's demand for efficiency of production. As Michael Harrington, the founder of the Democratic Socialists of America explains, efficient production is a "moral as well as an economic necessity." Harrington also states that, in socialist society, efficiency would not to be defined by the "private interest" but rather on the basis of social goals. This makes it clear that society would have to determine which methods are sufficiently productive—a test it's hard to imagine craft could ever pass. Michael Harrington, Socialism, Past and Future (New York: Mentor, 1992), 267.
Morris himself recognized that craftwork's inefficiency would mean that socialist society would be devoid of craftwork—unless and until socialism created a world of overflowing abundance. E. P. Thompson explains that Morris expected craft to play no role in the first phase of socialism.: Any return of craft would be a "choice to be made after the transitional stage" (Thompson, William Morris, 654). Paul Meier writes, "Not for one moment could William Morris be regarded as a crusader for handicraft [in socialist society] …. For him, handicraft was … a distant utopian expectation" (Meier, Morris, 2:352; cf. 2:351).
To learn more, see the RFP paper "Why Socialism Says Craftwork Is 'Idiocy'" at craftidiocy.org.
[17]. A. L. Morton explains that "Morris, perfectly aware that socialism implies the victory of man over his environment, is not concerned with such details [of how the economy functions], which are passed over with the most casual of references." A. L. Morton, The English Utopia (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1922), 165.
Perry Anderson explains that the "material abundance" that underpins the socialist society of Nowhere is "founded on the facilities of an advanced technology that has abolished all industrial drudgery." But there are no details in the novel about this magic technology. Instead, "Unseen, machinery and technology effortlessly support this universe." Perry Anderson, Arguments within English Marxism: Utopias (London: Verso, 1980).
[18]. Every work referring to News from Nowhere should make it clear that the society Morris depicts represents a second, perfected phase of socialist society premised on the existence of superabundance that makes every needed thing free forever. And every such work should explain that Morris's vision of what socialism would be like prior to the magic of abundance is diametrically opposed to what's portrayed in his novel.
But such disclosures rarely occur. As one example of the dozens of similarly misleading claims, consider Dennis Bartels's description of William Morris's beliefs, already quoted above: "Morris envisaged a society composed of small, self-sustaining and self-governing communes" (Bartels, "Road to Nowhere," 40).
This was not Morris's vision of socialism following capitalism. It's what he hoped perfected, abundance-fueled socialism might be like. Morris expected the first stage of socialist society to be based on a centralized society, the very opposite of "small, self-sustaining and self-governing communes." But Bartels makes none of this clear. He discusses Morris's belief that the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism would be required but fails say one word about Morris's expectation of a first phase of socialist society that would have nothing to do with the fictional depiction in News from Nowhere. Rather it would be a centralized, authoritarian society devoted to the mass suppression of private enterprise, of social "parasites," of "useless" work, of "useless" products, and even of art.
Moreover, he fails to explain that it's the very fact that Morris assumes a world of overflowing abundance which makes the key features of Nowhere, including its basis on "small, self-sustaining and self-governing communes" possible.
[19]. Countless articles about Morris's socialism fail to make it clear that News from Nowhere is premised on the assumption of superabundance. And countless of these articles also fail to explain that Morris expected a first phase of socialist society based on an authoritarian government undertaking a campaign of suppression.
A particularly egregious example of both of these issues is found in Stephen Coleman's "The Economics of Utopia Contrasted" (Journal of William Morris Studies 7, no. 2, [Spring 1989]: 40.) This article compares the worlds depicted in the two most famous novels describing a socialist future: Morris's News from Nowhere and Edward Bellamy's Looking Backwards.
Bellamy's novel portrays a centralized authoritarian state where all citizens are compelled to perform their duty. Coleman contrasts this vision with that of New from Nowhere, a society where citizens are free to do as they wish. But Coleman makes no mention of the fact Morris expected a first stage of socialism based on an authoritarian and centralized government that in many ways mirrors what Bellamy describes. There's no question that Morris hoped this would not be the endpoint of socialism, but that doesn't mean he believed this period of authoritarianism could be skipped over. If anything, the suppression Morris expected in the first phase of socialist society exceeds that depicted by Bellamy. Morris expected wholesale suppression of various types of jobs, an incredible number of products, and even the arts, which is far more draconian than what Bellamy portrays.
Coleman fails to explain Morris's expectations about the first phase of socialist society. He also fails to explain that it's the assumption of a world of superabundance that stands behind every feature of News from Nowhere that he praises.
Socialists who want to sell Morris's vision of the future are flatly dishonest when they fail to mention the "transitional" period that Morris believed was necessary. That's also the case when they fail to explain that it's the assumption of a world of overflowing abundance that makes the features of Nowhere possible.
[20]. William Morris, quoted in Thompson, William Morris, 510.
[21]. William Morris, Useful Work versus Useless Toil (London: The Socialist League, 1886), 27. Note that Morris is effectively citing socialism's long running standard of duty "from each according to their ability."
[22]. Bernard Shaw, "William Morris as I Knew Him," in William Morris, Artist, Writer, Socialist, vol. 2, Morris as a Socialist (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1936), ix.
[23]. William Morris, "Art and Labour," in Unpublished Lectures, 115.
[24]. Morris, "Unpublished Lecture," 23.
[25]. Talk of suppressing people's jobs can be off-putting, so socialists often speak in terms of "freeing" people instead. Socialist superstar Friedrich Engels may have been the first to do so. What does Engels say would happen to those of us whose work he considers "at best, superfluous"? Come socialism, we would "become free to engage in useful labour" (Friedrich Engels, "Speeches in Elberfeld," in Marx/Engels Collected Works, vol 4 [Chadwell Heath: Lawrence and Wishart, 2010], 4:248.). To learn more, see the RFP paper "The Socialist Obsession: The Central Role of 'Parasites' in Socialist Thought" at parasiteobsessed.org.
[26]. Morris, Useful Work versus Useless Toil, 24.
[27]. Typical of socialists generally, Morris attacked various groups in capitalist society as "parasites" any number of times. Among those he considered "parasites" who were to be eliminated come socialism were not only capitalists and the well-off but also all those who make products or provide services for the well-off. Morris even labeled domestic servants as "parasites" despite the fact he was himself wealthy and the employer of at least three full-time, live-in domestics to serve his household.
Morris wrote, "Many of these workers are not producers. A vast number of them once more are merely parasites of property, some of them openly so, as the soldiers by land and sea who are kept on foot for the perpetuating of national rivalries and enmities, and for the purposes of the national struggle for the share of the product of unpaid labour. But besides this obvious burden on the producers and the scarcely less obvious one of domestic servants there is first the army of clerks, shop assistants and so forth." Morris, "Useful Work," 23.
To learn more, see the RFP paper "The Socialist Obsession: The Central Role of 'Parasites' in Socialist Thought" at parasiteobsessed.org."
[28]. Morris, "Depression of Trade," 132.
[29]. William Morris and E. Belfort Bax, Socialism: Its Growth and Outcome (London: Swan Sonnenschein and Co., 1893), 289.
[30]. Morris, "True and False Society."
[31]. Meier, Morris, 2:306.
[32]. Meier, Morris, 1:82.
[33]. William Morris, "Individualism at the Royal Academy," Justice, April 24, 1884.
[34]. Morris, "Individualism at the Royal Academy."
[35]. Morris, "Unpublished Lecture," 15–16. E. P. Thompson admits that "Morris repeatedly leaves the impression that he had come to regard the poetry and painting of his time (including his own) as in some way marginal activities" (Thompson, William Morris, 666).
[36]. See note 15 above.
[37]. Morris, "Useful Work," 36.
[38]. Morris, "Individualism at the Royal Academy."
[39]. Suppression is at the heart of the socialist project. Morris is but one of the countless celebrated socialists who call for the suppression of liberal rights, of private enterprise, of alleged "parasites," of "useless" work, of "useless" products, and so on. To learn more, see the RFP papers "Our 'So-Called' Rights" (available at socalledrights.org), "The Socialist Obsession: The Central Role of 'Parasites' in Socialist Thought" (available at parasiteobsessed.org), and "A 'Defect' of Liberalism" (available at redflagspress.org/defect).
[40]. The lynchpin of what Morris disparages as liberalism's "paraphernalia of checks and safeguards" is our individual rights. Our liberal rights are the "safeguards" that protect us from compulsion by others, including the state. The very fact that socialism is based on the compulsory duty of "from each according to their ability" means these rights will be severely curtailed in any socialist society. For socialism's duty to give our time and talents to society to have meaning (as socialists certainly intend it to) requires that our rights be limited.
Karl Marx had little use for human rights, describing them as "rubbish," "nonsense," and "so-called" rights. And, as celebrated socialist R. H. Tawney explains, the socialist view is that "society should be organized primarily for the performance of duties, not for the maintenance of rights."
To learn more, see the RFP paper "Our 'So-Called' Rights" at socalledrights.org.
[41]. So many aspects of socialism are byproducts of its foundation on the compulsory duty of "from each according to their ability," a duty that gives those running society the right to control our time and talents. For example, socialism's fixation with alleged "parasites" and their suppression—a fixation shared by Morris—results from the fact that socialism assumes that our time and talents are society's property to control. Noted socialist Beatrice Webb describes socialist duty as "the duty not to be a parasite." To learn more, see the RFP paper "The Ripple Effects of Socialist Duty" at redflagspress.org.
[42]. Morris, "Useful Work," 27.
[43]. Lenin describes the arrival of socialism's second phase: "The state will be able to wither away completely when society adopts the rule: 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'" (Vladimir Lenin, The State and Revolution, 2nd ed. [London: Laurence and Wishart, 1943], 112). Lenin, Stalin, and Mao each promised that their socialist societies would create a world of abundance and, in turn, a society of freedom in which government—and thus the threat of government compulsion—would "wither away." Like Morris, these three socialist dictators were clear that the first phase of socialism would be one of authoritarianism and suppression in the belief this would yield the perfected second phase of superabundance and freedom. Unlike Morris, however, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao had the power to act on socialism's plan for suppression, and millions perished in the process.
Those who promote Morris will surely argue that he would have been appalled by Lenin and Stalin's Russia and by Mao's China. They will, of course, argue that he didn't desire anything like what happened. But should he really have been surprised by this outcome? True to the socialist norm, he called for a first phase of socialist society that was based on compulsory duty and suppression galore. Morris called for a society with the very conditions that made Lenin, Stalin, and Mao possible. How could anyone who called for an authoritarian society hell bent on suppression be surprised when a Lenin, Stalin, or Mao ended up in charge? How could anyone who called for a society in which even art is the focus of mass suppression be surprised when things go off the rails?
[44]. In the USSR and the People's Republic of China, over 50 million individuals lost their lives directly at the hands of the socialist state or indirectly when the flaws of socialist theory resulted in devastating famines. Millions more died at the hands of their government in other socialist states.
In the USSR, millions were murdered by the socialist government, executed without trial, or victims of intentional starvation. For a good introduction to the history of oppression and death in the USSR, see Anne Applebaum's Red Famine and Robert Conquest's Harvest of Sorrow.
Similarly, in the People's Republic of China, millions died