A Further Realization of Utopia: Edward Bellamy's "Equality"

Given ten years to reflect on his work, Bellamy was able to expand upon the thoughts and issues of the utopian society in Looking Backward. Equality is not so much a sequel to that novel than it is a continuation. There were questions in Looking Backward that went unanswered and that is where Equality comes up with the answers. For example, the gender gap is one that Bellamy took into account and remedied.

A photo of Edward Bellamy,
as seen in the Libary of Congress,
(1889). Source: Wikimedia Commons

In the first novel, a woman’s role in the 20th century is not all that different from their role in the 19th century. The women West meets still dress relatively the same, and they seem to defer to their male counterparts, content in the role of daughter and mother. Bellamy explains this away by describing Letee’s need to make West comfortable in his first few weeks in the year 2000. He had his wife and daughter dress in a similar fashion to that of women in 1887 so that West would not be shocked to discover that women are allowed a more independent lifestyle, one that involves wearing pants and working any job they please.

A further explanation of the banking and work placement system are other issues tackled in Equality. West is allowed to open his own account, and he questions the teller about how the system works without capitalism. In summation, the teller recounts the old capitalist system and how it was designed to trick the consumer into thinking that capitalism and individual freedoms were synonymous, when in fact, the opposite was true. With the new system of the year 2000, many commodities are paid for by the government, like utilities, music, news, theater, postal and electronic communications, and transportation. Because of that, small stipends are awarded each citizen, totaling to around 7,000 dollars a year, enough so that they can still purchase the things that they would wish, like food, clothing, and rent. The new economic system was created under the mindset that “nobody owes anybody, or is owed by anybody, or has any contract with anybody, or any account of any sort with anybody, but is simply beholden to everybody for such kindly regard as his virtues may attract” (34).

The idea of the loss of individual liberty in a Marxist society is addressed and debunked by Bellamy in Equality. For decades, it has been assumed that if a government nationalized the banking and job systems, then that security is the trade people would have made in exchange for their independence.

However, West enters the nationalized workforce and learns that he can choose whichever profession he would like to study, and if that position is not available to him later on, he can transfer to another city where it is available, or make do with a second or third choice in his profession. The government does not assign professions to citizens, rather it assigns what hours each job receives for a day’s work (shorter work hours for more physically demanding jobs, like coal mining), and what pay each worker receives (each worker receives equal pay, be it a doctor or bookkeeper). When people receive different pay for different work, they begin to assume that they are better than others, and that is where class warfare really begins. Human beings that are working, regardless of the job, should be regarded with the same respect that everyone else receives. There are many that would find Bellamy’s Marxist society as distasteful or unnatural, but in retrospect, our Capitalist (not ‘free-market’ society as suggested by the media, but Capitalist) society is the unnatural one, as it fosters poverty, a feudal class system, and creates gods out of the top money-makers.

Bellamy, Edward. Equality. Boston: D. Appleton & Company, 1897. Print. 

Better Government through the Eyes of Thoreau and Douglass

The United States has always been the ideal for a better life and the sought-after ‘all-American dream’. Thanks in large part to the founding fathers with their inspirational words and declarations, freedom of choice is available for each and every United States citizen: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,”. While these words convey a sense of a just government coupled with equality for all, neither of those concepts were always implemented or accepted as the status quo. Before the Civil War, two great men had similar thoughts about what was wrong with the United States government: Henry David Thoreau and Frederick Douglass. Both of these men had entirely different backgrounds, but Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience and Douglass’ What to the Slave is the Fourth of July have much in common concerning the legitimacy of the laws at the time.

Civil Disobedience speaks of the fallacies of ‘big’ government. In fact, Thoreau believed in the idea of no government at all, claiming in his essay that when man was ready for it, they would govern themselves, (McMichael & Leonard, 2011). His ideas may have been rooted in common sense, but at the time they were radical. Radical was also the describing word for Douglass’ What to the Slave is the Fourth of July. He began by complimenting the founding fathers and their sacrifices, leading into a lamentation of slave’s oppressions in comparison with the ideas of freedom sustained only 76 years prior. Douglass explained quite eloquently how the Fourth of July was not a holiday to be enjoyed by all, because it was a celebration of freedom earned only for the white man. Slaves were in chains, at times literally, therefore the Fourth of July for a slave was a holiday that was a pantomime of freedom and equality. The arguments brought forth by Douglass and Thoreau appeared on the surface to be vastly different, but there are some common threads that bond them.

Essentially, Douglass and Thoreau both desired a better government. Thoreau demonstrated this in Civil Disobedience, “But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government,” (McMichael & Leonard, 2011). Douglass also displayed his will for an improved government in What to the Slave is the Fourth of July, “[…] nations number their years by thousands. According to this fact, you are[the United States], even now, only in the beginning of your national career, still lingering in the period of childhood. I repeat, I am glad this is so. There is hope in the thought, and hope is much needed, under the dark clouds which lower above the horizon,” (McMichael & Leonard, 2011). 

Civil Disobedience was not exactly an anti-slavery piece, but it called for men to use their conscience above all else, a sentiment which Douglass would have wholeheartedly agreed with, “Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience,” (McMichael & Leonard, 2011). Given Thoreau’s words, it can be safely assumed that he believed slavery to be an act unjustifiable, to be rectified by men with morals and a conscience.

The United States has had decades to evolve and learn from society’s many mistakes. However, over a hundred and fifty years ago, Henry David Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience and Frederick Douglass’ What to the Slave is the Fourth of July were two intelligent literary pieces that shared similar thoughts about the faults of the United States government and how to better it. Both men saw beyond themselves, differentiating what was truly important from the everyday monotonous tasks of human life. It takes a unique soul to recognize injustice, and an even braver soul to speak out against it. Thankfully, unique and brave men like Thoreau and Douglass paved the way for a better American way of living.

McMichael, G. & Leonard, J. S. (2011). Concise anthology of american literature. (Eds.).

New York, NY: Pearson Education, Inc.