1
The image of Oscar Wilde is confused with that of an Irish dandy aesthetician fond of witty phrases, condemned in an unfortunate trial for his sentimental preferences. Some remember The Picture of Dorian Gray, his demonic novel about an image that accumulates the traits of physical and moral degeneration from which its model is magically exempted. Few know that he was a socialist, and that he defended the collective cause of humanity under the contradictory banner of individualism. In his central essay of 1891 The Soul of Man under Socialism he masterfully resolves the antinomies that such an enterprise raises, arguing that “the main advantage that would result from the establishment of socialism is, undoubtedly, the fact that socialism would free us from the sordid necessity of living for others which, in the present state of things, presses so hard on almost everyone” (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-man/).
2
Our dandy's argument starts from the economic basis. Idolatry towards work is a commonplace of the most diverse tendencies. But there are two types of work. According to Wilde, “many people, at present, because of the existence of private property, can develop a very limited individualism. They are those who do not need to work to live, or they can choose the sphere of activity that really suits their personality and gives them pleasure. They are the poets, the philosophers, the men of science; In a word, authentic men, men who have fulfilled themselves, and with whom all of humanity achieves partial fulfillment.” Wilde argues that “men with their own private means, such as Byron, Shelley, Browning, Victor Hugo, Baudelaire and others, have been able, more or less completely, to realize their personalities. None of these men gave a single day of their work for wages. “They were able to get rid of poverty.”
3
On the other hand, “there are, however, many people who, without private property and always being on the verge of hunger, are forced to do the work of beasts of burden, tasks that have nothing to do with them and to which they are forced by the peremptory, irrational, degrading tyranny of necessity. These are the poor; There is no grace in their manners or their words, nor education, culture or refinement in their pleasures, nor joy in life.”
XNUMX
Regarding this alienated labor, our Irishman points out that “there is nothing necessarily significant in manual labor, and most of it is absolutely degrading. It is mentally and morally offensive for man to do something in which he finds no pleasure, and many forms of activity bring absolutely no pleasure. Sweeping a muddy square for eight hours a day when the east wind blows is a repulsive activity. Sweeping it away with mental, moral or physical dignity seems impossible to me. To sweep it away with joy would seem overwhelming to me. Man was made for something better than removing dirt. All work of that type should be done with machines.”
5
Could this statement in 1891 seem utopian, fanciful, unrealizable? Today it is obvious, as is its consequence: “and I have no doubt that it will be done. Up to this point man has been, to some extent, the slave of the machine, and there is something tragic in the fact that as soon as a man invents a machine to do his work, he begins to starve. Naturally, this is the result of our property system and our competition system. One man owns the machine that does the work of five hundred men. Five hundred men are therefore driven from his work, and without work they suffer hunger and turn to stealing. A man secures the product of the machine and maintains it, and has five hundred times more than he should have and probably, although it is not really important, much more than he can need.
6
The aesthete becomes a visionary. A century later, there are not five hundred men thrown out of their jobs by machines: they threaten to supplant all of humanity. Wilde suggests the remedy: “if that machine belonged to everyone, everyone would benefit from it. It would provide a huge benefit to the community. All non-intellectual work, all monotonous, boring tasks, all tasks related to ugly things that involve unpleasant conditions, should be done with machines. Machines should work for us in the coal mines, take care of sanitation, fire-fighting ships, clean the streets, carry messages on rainy days, and do anything tedious or depressing. Nowadays, the machine competes with man. Under favorable conditions, the machine will serve man”(…) “The future of the world depends on mechanical slavery, on the slavery of the machine.” As long as, as our Irishman demands, “that machine belonged to everyone.” Well, “the proper objective is to try to reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty becomes impossible.” Since “socialism, communism, or whatever one wants to call it, by converting private property into public wealth, and by replacing competition with cooperation, will restore society to its condition as a healthy organism, and will ensure the material well-being of each.” member of the community.”
7
But what will become of humanity then? “There is no doubt that this is the future of the machine, and just as trees grow while the farmer sleeps, in the same way, machines will take care of all the work.” necessary and unpleasant while humanity has fun, or enjoys cultivated rest - that is the purpose of man, and not the task - or making beautiful things, or reading them, or simply contemplating the world with admiration and delight.
8
Concludes, not the poet, but the thinker: “Is this utopian? A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not even worth looking at because it leaves out the country where humanity is always landing. And when humanity disembarks there and sees a better country, it once again sets its course towards it. “Progress is the realization of utopias.”
