As my focal point of interest in history is the establishment and practice of Communism in the USSR in the 20th century, I naturally find it interesting to learn about anything related to socialism and its development in the modern world. One particular idea repeatedly piqued my interest during our discussion yesterday, and the chart drawn on the board at the conclusion of class intensified my thoughts on the matter. I had always assumed that all socialist thinkers believed in the full equality of every individual in all aspects of life – from their societal status to the very conditions in which they lived. I was surprised to learn that this was indeed not the case. As written on our chart, one of Soria’s assumptions was that ‘inequality was normal and desirable’. Furthermore, he did not strive to abolish social classes but rather to ‘introduce harmony’ between them – for example, by ending poor individuals’ resentment of the rich by giving them their own private cottages to live in. Further yet, one of his solutions was the ‘use of private property’. To me, these were shocking statements coming from a utopian socialist! While, from a capitalist viewpoint, it comes as a breath of fresh air to see a socialist advocating private property and accepting the reality of societal inequality, it strikes me as rather unusual. Moreover, his solution for introducing harmony by giving cottages to the poor seems a rather unlikely resolution – even if the poor had small dwellings to call their own, would they not still be jealous of the upper classes who had more than they did? I question Soria’s argument in this regard. As I see it, the abolishment of social classes is essential to the successful establishment of a harmonious socialistic society. After all, if inequality is still present, there will always be the threat of unrest and revolt from below. Even if true harmony is created for a short time, it cannot be expected to last permanently under such conditions.
Urbs
Just another UBC Blogs site
What makes you think that he’s a utopian socialist? He certainly was a radical in his youth – but more of the Liberal variety, and became more conservative over time. What aspects of his project remind you of utopian socialism?
I’m not completely sure, although the overall sense I got when discussing him was that he was in the utopian socialist camp. Specifically his belief in environmental determinism – the assumption that mankind is essentially good, and when placed in the right environment will live a moral, upstanding life – rings true with other utopian socialist thinkers. I generally connect this belief with socialist views of cooperation and equality: that human nature is naturally prone to cooperate with others and live a life of mutual benefit and perfect equality. However, I realize that this may be more of a personal preconception than an established fact.
This is a really interesting view and a great post! I too found the comparison that we did between Fourier, Garnier, and Soria fascinating. While we have touched on socialism in class, it was not until the viewing of the film Metropolis that I had begun to fully consider the strong link between utopian planning and socialism.
Until having reviewed your blog post, I had not yet considered Soria under socialist terms, however it seems that, like many of the utopian plans we’ve considered, that Soria’s ideal city is fueled by a sort of socialist undercurrent where many but not all characteristics of socialism are present. I found this to also be the case in Howard’s garden City. Howard strongly emphasizes the importance of cooperation and providing adequate housing with low rent to all classes, mainly the working classes.
Finally, I could not agree more with your belief that the abolishment of social classes is absolutely necessary as a means to establish a successful socialist society, which would lead Soria’s society to fail. However I suppose that the reality remains that the success of a perfect socialist state, that conforms to all the characteristics, is unlikely, if not impossible. I don’t think it’s possible to create a society where there is absolutely no inequality and consequently I believe there must always be the threat of revolution in such attempts.