- The Utopia of Sir Thomas More -

Image Source Here

- Preface -

Utopia – what is this elusive quality that both makes people yearn for it and throw it around as a buzzword to optimistic people? Well to even dare to approach the question, one ought to see the origin of the word “utopia” and pit it to the modern reactions of now. After all, Sir Thomas More's Utopia didn't came from a void, yet it still haunts us today even if derivatives of such have more influence over us.

- Philosophical Grounding: -

Yet, how does one qualify it with relevant philosophically-ideological terms? If we wish to be this abrupt, the simplest way to put it is that the Utopia in More's World is a fusion of pre-Marxist socialist society with flavors of Epicureanism extended to a national scale. Yet, a summary remains that: a summary. It contains not necessarily all the tastes one gets with a slow digestion of the material nor even a sense of all the bad and good things of this work. Indeed, this fast gulp is merely a sense-certainty outlook of this work; so let's sort out the jargon of philosophy here and explain three things: a critique of Feudalism, Pre-Marxist Socialism and Epicureanism.

Feudalism? Feudalism was a Social Order upon with the main antagonism between the ruling Noble/Aristocrat/Lord and the working peasant/serf. Wherewith, the working classes of Feudalism is diverse: the guilds-workers that take care of the manufacturing of items, the free peasant that owns fully their lot of land and can employ other peasants to till the land, the serf (the bound peasant / slave farmer) that tilled the land under the protection of the noble with in exchange for a percentage of their harvests and the merchants that owned no means of production but sold various wares and often depended upon the guilds for their success. Upon the ruling classes: the local lord was the simple ruler over all their serfs and employed the protection of both knights and peasants who acted as the local watch, the king who might as well been the head honcho of all lords at this time before the late renaissance and the Clergy with the Papacy acting as both the religious and legal guides in the Feudal World.

Upon this very superficial but necessary definition, it does seem impossible to think Utopia. However, we must keep in mind that The Utopia of Sir Thomas More was in the transition between the end of Late Feudalism and the rise of Mercantilism (especially within the first height of Euro-Colonialism). Moreover, the imaginative mind truly is endless but shall always reflect critically the conditions and SuperStructure (culture and ideology) that it lives under. To this end, Utopia can be in one-part a critique of Feudal economics and politics; how he carried them out, why look below!

Pre-Marxist Socialism? This, if not contentious already with modern misuages of Socialism, is to signify first that there existed types of Socialism before Marxism became popular and secondly the Utopian aspects of their character for which Socialism would be corrected upon on Marx's and Engels's arrival on the scene. (To make one last digression, that is not to say that Socialism is free from Utopia and Utopianism, Sander's "socialism" which I won't dignify with even an uppercase S is still a bit Utopic. Utopic only because it thinks we can purty up and make Capitalism a "more happier place" - still the outcry for fairness is still there and that's something worth fighting for, but something that's not achievable under Capitalism.) Pre-Marxist Socialism intended to diagnose, address and resolve/correct the main issues that plagued Pre-Capitalist and Capitalist Nations in both their economy and SuperStructure (culture and ideology).

Their ways of carrying it out always hinted in some sort of Idealism (not oh gee golly idealism, but Philosophical Idealism where mind is solely the master or is independent of matter) no matter how effective their solutions were and, at the same time, recreating the old problems from the society they managed to somewhat overcome. Regardless, their imaginations have fueled entire lines of Marxist imaginations on how to carry out the Socialist project while not falling into the pitfalls of the pre-Marxist cousins. Indeed, they were brave steps forward that could actually have advanced the March of History elsewhere despite the underlying mistakes; after all, hindsight is 20/20 and biased towards the Now when criticizing the past.

On how Sir Thomas More reflected this in the totality of the work, that shall be discussed down below. However, there is one more thing I must discuss that veers at the edge of Pre-Marxist Socialism but yet is its own project that acts more communally for a wholly different purpose.

Epicureanism? Epicureanism was a school of thought within Antiquity, first originating in the post-Socrates Age of Greece and under the philosopher that bears the name: Epicurus. Epicurus himself was an atomic Materialist (the earliest form of Materialism that quantified the building-blocks of the World qua atoms, the smallest unit, and the void which houses all of the atoms and their constructs) that followed in the footsteps of Democritus. However, Epicurus, and Epicureanism and his followers, intended to solve the question that Hedonism was trying to solve: what is pleasure, how can we attain it, why should we do so and what of the things that don't invoke pleasure nor its opposite; exempli gratia: pain and suffering. Epicureanism lays out a communal society of rotational labour where people will work what is needed for both the individual and collective to maximize their pleasure while minimizing their labouring. Of course, Epicureanism also advocated doing things in moderation; to enjoy pleasure for a while will lead to ill-health, to labour so little will make you not appreciate the pleasures of life and so on and so on.

For a philosophy(-ideology) like this, it certainly was a radical one. Going so far as to cover most of the Roman Empire in its height and surviving well into the Feudal World before either being abandoned, transforming into a town, being crushed by Feudal lords or converted into Monasteries for the Clergy. Nonetheless, Sir Thomas More takes a keen interest on how these communes operated (and well we don't have the economics but hearsay of both Feudal and Greco-Roman documents including documents found in these surviving sites) and wished to expand the conclusion Epicureanism brought unto a National scale (or an Island as the Utopia takes place on). Which informs More of his pre-Marxist Socialist project that he outlines here in a very literary format that, indirectly stemming from his research and philosophical ruminations, informs his critiques of Late Feudal society.

Criticism through literature:

Indeed, we do need to step back a bit and take seriously the notion that he had to write a fictional setting to critique Late Feudal society. About that time, repression of works of arts from paintings to books where being banned left and right; to the point that instead of keeping ideological purity, it furthered the factionalism within Christendom. And Sir Thomas More was a victim of this ideological crisis within Christendom, more so actually within England then with the whole of Europe that was melting down. See, while the concept of criticism through literature in Europe has been gone in the wind like Lucian of Samosata's works within Antiquity and got a rude awakening with Augustine's works within the Medieval/Scholastic project, it was effectively the way of critique within the High/Late Renaissance. And Sir Thomas More was one among them in the line of criticism disguised as fictional works, along with people like Erasmus with Praise of Folly, Niccolò Machiavelli with The Prince, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola with Oration on the Dignity of Man and Dante Alighieri with Divine Comedy (AKA Dante's Inferno, Purgatorio and Paradiso).

Etymology:

First coined by Sir Thomas More, the pun is recognizable if one were to directly translate to the Greek. A direct translation yields outopos or “no place”, this bearing a perfect spot for eutopos or “good place” when changing only the starting letter. Both outopos and eutopos come into play for the setting as Sir Thomas More needs not to explain where the Utopia is located nor its true "constitution" to say the least. Meanwhile, at the same time, having the creative liberty to build the world of Utopia as he pleases with all his critiques and forward-looking perspectives on a future World... That being equally possessive of wiggle room for his loads of satire that will help him condemn practices and perceptions of his time.

Satire:

World crafting aside, satire is the mainstay vehicle of this work as to mock Feudal society of then for all the wrongs he perceived in it. With such, some of those criticisms in the work can even be lobbed at modern society - as modern societies, though ruptures, do have continuity with Feudal societies in some way, shape of form. Meanwhile in the forefront, Thomas More is fleshing out and constantly pitting his society against other mock societies all throughout the work. Yet why to do so? To, as aforementioned, establish critiques of other societal norms (that live and breathe Feudalism) and make Sir Thomas More's Utopia not feel isolated in our World and make it seem constantly evolving despite being at the peak (I will get to why I didn't just outright state golden age here).

- Abstract -

So, without further ado, Thomas More’s Utopia upholds labour - yes, labour - to be the key pillar of what is what in society and permeates labor throughout as the Master-Signifier - or how other signifiers relate to each other and achieve signification.

- The Base in Base-Superstructure -

For if labour is key to all things in Utopia, then how does Sir Thomas More go about to represent a society that is centered around the labourer? Our inquiry shall be wise to start out investigating the fundamental organ of society, and that is the Base of Utopia itself. As to quote Engels from Socialism: Utopian and Scientific - "The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men’s brains, not in men’s better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange."

Yet why does it bear meaning into Sir Thomas More's works other than the connection of Labour? As one can go in and read in Utopia, we can see how starkly contrasting Utopia is to wherever one goes or whatever one works, they labour. Yet for their labours, they get what they deserve and what they need to live on if they cannot work or cannot produce enough. To go further, the Means of Production (MOP), or the instruments of labour and the raw resources, and the Relations of Production (ROP), or each classes relation to the MOP, necessitates and maintains how society is. But true to the Dialectical out world: in turn for creating society, society will come to help mold and maintain the Base as to keep its (re)production alive and ongoing for the life it wishes to live. Yet here, we can see how, in any a case, the Base or Economy dictates the politics of society and the culture of society dictates whether those politics where favorable to its continued existence. If favorable, then the politics are reproduced; if not, then the Economy is slightly changed as to keep the Base alive but molded enough where it doesn't start producing politics that'll hurt both itself and the Economy as well.

In More's society, everyone by technicality owns the MOP and they all help mold the MOP to reproduce itself and sustain the Utopia. The only ones that don't are, without even misquoting Sir Thomas More, the underclasses with the Syphogrants and the ruler properly titled the Prince. More-so, everyone can just move to next place if they wish to but will eventually as they are called to do so with the rotation of labour. Regardless, nobody is ever compelled to do labour in their home county, but it is required for the continued existence of society.

Yet, Utopia uses labour in order to produce what is necessary for the local unit and those who labour "is much less than you perhaps imagined." For the labourer in the Utopian’s eyes is the only one performing necessary labour for the locality and the country at any given time. If there were to be an influx of active laborers, there would be a surplus of products for how much society can handle at one time. On the aside, if a town is lacking products, then the concern of overproduction would matter not and be very useful to end the crisis of underproduction in the town. Truly, one could say Utopia has achieved post-scarcity in their society but still suffers from the occasional drought that can happen to any locality at any time.

Nota bene: if one has not caught onto this, then 'tis the fact that this mindset of producing what's necessary will overflow to other parts of society.

- Travel -

Again, labour reflects heavily as people travel and how they deal with wares. Take, for instance, the stay of a Utopian in a different locality. "If they stay in any place longer than a night, everyone fellows his proper occupation, and is very well used by those of his own trade […] if he expects to be entertained by them [country house staff], he must labour with them and conform to their rules […]"

Already in this fray one can see that labour is always expected out people regardless of travel or intent, truly a person acts only as an expandable labour unit when in travel. Yet Sir Thomas More's system is more liken to laborers laboring to earn a labor vouch to then get something in return. Of course, in this Utopia the labour unit isn't a mere number in a profit calculator like, per se Capitalism, but a real living entity that labours with their labour-power. To which labour can actually be used in many ways for the exchange of an item, all without the barrier of a currency. And this currency-less barrier makes labour more worthwhile and useful in the fact that labour is already spent and cannot be reserved in order to accumulate Capital over time. Unlike, say, money reserved in a bank or a gold bar that is saved to be later be sold when the prices are high in a market.

Thus the labourer and the person/group receiving it cannot cheat each other and all transactions are equal enough to be fair to all parties in accordance to what Sir Thomas More suggests here. In essence, a highly creative demand that may as well informed Karl Marx with his Critique of the Gotha Programme as he suggests only in a Communist society do people earn "[f]rom each according to [their] ability, to each according to [their] needs!" Indeed, entertainment qua entertainment must be earned so one can feel the pleasure of earning that satisfaction; yet the restocking of supplies will go unnoticed as it is according to their needs and not a luxury at all. Already, we have a progressive mindset at the helm as he drops in Utopia.

- Fashion and Luxuries -

But, although more of a social concern than an economic concern to the lazy eye, what speaks of the Utopians' tastes of fashion? For the humble Utopians, they live modestly with "[t]he fashion[s] never [altering]; and as it is neither disagreeable nor uneasy, so it is suited to the climate and calculated both for their summers and winters. Every family makes their own clothes […]" For Utopia, this merely is second nature to them as they can thrive with objects having extended lifespans; while being multi-purposed and easily craft-able in the home’s cottage. Anyways, fashion in utopic senses all around, serve to just give what the people need not to play off some Male gaze nor being frivolous that it hinders a person's ability to do something. Thus any crazy design and overabundance of the same cloth truly is looked down upon, lest justified in accordance to the user's, locality's and/or Utopia's needs for such an article of clothing.

And the same can be easily said for luxuries by the Utopians. Yet, as suggested in the work, Utopians take a more active role in shaming or devaluing everything we seem to derive hedonistic pleasure from like gold and crystals. For again, why have something more than what is necessary to live in the eyes of all Utopians. For superficial features determine not what you are inside, but why romanticize the outward appearance? In our society, we easily just chalk it up to "because 'tis natural to LOOK different" but 'tis natural also to be different in every other way? A question that our society nowadays seems to have conflicting answers for and differing approaches to the insincere question that demands a sincere answer all together! Yet with an Economy as theirs, where not many labour and those that labour are contingently doing so, why to be frivolous? Of course, in an ambiguity (double-sense) to criticism, this was a jab at dignitaries, lords, merchants and knights that dressed fancy and chose to be that way as to highlight their wealth; while all of their working classes toiled in simple shirts and dirty pants.

- Mentality to the self, the individual -

Yet for Utopia, this makes a world of sense to be as different to your friend. As going back to production and labour, they need people to do the differing amounts of necessary labours in order for society to function. On this, people can easily say that all societies need this aspect to function and would seem a big duh right now with what has been said. Yet I can hear so right now people screaming that a revolutionary project should be concerned about removing labour altogether. Why? Because they think human agency doesn't need labour, or that labour hinders human agency, and that if post-scarcity is achievable that we can live in permanent hedonism. Yet this is an incorrect approach to viewing labour as it is in content and not its forms. To leave a small component out of the equation is to deceive one's self to what the object really is.

For this component isn't the same as we have with global capitalism, for labour that is put forward into making the product has to equally have the education to make it possible in the first place. Nevertheless, remember that Utopia isn't an industrial society but a Christian Feudal society interwoven with Epicureanism in its core. So they yearn to get pleasure, with the least amount of unnecessary work but doing the most amount of necessary work to receive maximal and realistic pleasure. As to draw parallels to similar projects: the Mao years of the PRC, Lenin and Stalin years of the USSR, the Castro (and still ongoing Socialist) years of Cuba and so on and so on prove Sir Thomas More's point that labour can indeed bring a great society. These projects, no matter how much more sophisticated and complex they were to Sir Thomas More's Utopia, they did indeed fulfill the simple wish of him that Marx noted in Anti-Dühring: "[h]itherto, force — from now on, sociality. A pure pious wish, the demand for “Justice.” But Th. More made this demand 360 years ago, and it has yet to be fulfilled."

- Concrete -

On this, Utopia ought to be called a communal society if it wasn't clear from earlier. Indeed, his World is now a bit simple for our ever-changed needs; indeed maybe a bit repressive in aspects of the politics in maintaining Utopia - yet ever remember Sir Thomas More cared to critique Feudalism and showcase a World beyond Feudalism. For which only a few would be able to before Utopia was published and few after in the Feudal World. Indeed, the dream for labour to be king and guide the masses would be found in Marxist projects like Thomas Sankara's Burkina Faso, or early with the third year in the French Revolution when Maximilian Robespierre decided to lead the charge, or maybe in 1870 with the Paris Commune, or even just mere decades ago with Muammar Gaddafi's Libya and so on and so on. Indeed, when the masses took charge, the pious wish for "Justice" was fulfilled and Sir Thomas More was a happy spirit alright.

- Sources -

Marxist.org website hosting Sir Thomas More’s Utopia

Utopia as a book/pdf