Edward Bellamy’s “Looking Backward” is a story of a man named Julian, who lives in a time where there is an serious wealth gap. Coming from an upper class household, he initially thinks of himself as superior to the common man. After his house burns down, he is left in a deep sleep for 113 years until he is awoken in 2000. He wakes up to a completely different society, where everyone is treated equally. It closely represents socialism because everything is publicly owned by the government, unlike the private ownership he is familiar with. He witnessed a non-competitive job market with equal pay and standard hours, in which all employees are expected to do the same workload. The national wealth is communal amongst Americans; every citizen receives a credit card for modest spending, but those with excessive spending habits are penalized. I found that this type of governing would suppress the belief that America the land of opportunity. Even though it can rid of poverty and hunger, it would eliminate any rewards for hard work. There is no longer a drive for innovation and it limits the potential of society as a whole. It also means that companies cannot access cheap labor overseas. Companies are limited to growth and the GDP will likely stay stagnant, which means that the communal income will not grow like a competitive market. People would see minimal benefits throughout their lifetime.
3 thoughts on “Socialism and its downfall”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
While incentives are altered dramatically in Bellamy’s utopian society, I believe that they are still sufficient in promoting innovation and progression. Bellamy makes a point in stating that there was a fundamental shift in the idea of what inspires honor. People now feel proud by working as a community or brotherhood.
Considering that this novel was published in 1888, you can understand why Bellamy believed that socialism would work. He believed socialism would mark progress and stand the test of time. Unfortunately in the 21st century, that is not the case. Yes, the world has made significant progress, but socialism has never been a key factor and it would have mostly negative effects on society.
I agree. Although socialism could potentially erase poverty, hunger, and wealth distribution it would be limiting for society. Since the central government owns all means of production and distribution there can be no competition, profits, losses, and market prices. In the long run socialism would be bad because it is limiting for societal progression.