Utopia and Communism AKA: Why We Should Read and Write Utopian Fiction

This post was originally posted on my old website in October of 2021.

You might have heard that the word utopia comes from Greek, and it means the perfect place and also no place. The common modern interruption of this word in a modern context is that the perfect place or society is impossible. But what if I told you that the book that introduced the word in the English lexicon wasn’t trying to say that at all.

But first, we have to go through some history. A lot of history. Utopia was written by Tomas More and was originally published in Latin. It was published in the year 1516; this was during the rule of King Henry the 8th near the end of the Renaissance and the being of the protestant reformation and the age of exploration.

The early 1500s was a transitionary period for Europe and especially England, where Tomas More was from and spent most of his life. The Renaissance was still in full swing, and neo-classical art and philosophy were still in vogue. Still, the protestant reformation had also taken hold over a large part of central Europe during this time. While England wouldn’t leave the Catholic Church for another twenty or, so years; protistan sentiment was starting to prickle upon the British Isles.

This was also the start of the Exploration era when Spain and Portugal held significant holdings in the “new world.” While England wasn’t in the colonial game just quite, yet they were certainly gearing up to. This was back when most Europeans knew that the “new world” existed but had little to no idea what this “new world” was like.

Finally, we have to talk about the shifting economic conditions of the time, which is arguably why Tomas More wrote Utopia in the first place.

At the time, the economic situation of England was starting to shift from a feudalist society to a capitalist society. Now historians and economists argue when capitalism truly emerged in England but surfaced to say at this time, we definitely start seeing elements of capitalism or at the very least mercantilism. (Which is essentially what some economists considered to be the transition phase from feudalism to capitalism to be.) The important thing for our discussion here is that we start to see the nearly complete closure of the commons, leaving many surfs and peasants homeless, moneyless, and jobless. As much of the once agricultural land was transformed into pastures for sheep.

This naturally led to an increase in crime, particularly robbery, because, well, they were starving and had no other choice. So, in this situation, what do you think the British legal system did. A: Force wealthy landlords to reopen the commons. B: distribute necessities such as food and clothing equally. C: start a welfare state that provided people with jobs and compensation for those who were prevented from working or D: Murder all of the "criminals" to “deter” crime. It was D: murder all of them. They murdered all of them.

Now Tomas More was a lawyer at the time and thought that this system was stupid and unnecessarily and cruel because it was stupid and unnecessarily cruel. And presumably, whenever he would bring up this obvious fact up to anybody, they would respond in a “Well, could you come up with anything better?” And so Tomas More wrote Utopia doing just that, creating a better society.

But the story doesn’t end there, because over three hundred years later. This obscure philosopher, Karl Marx, along with Fredric Engels and others, developed this little-known philosophy called Marxism. And their ideas were quite similar to the ideas exposed by More, at least when it came to the economic structures.

This was quickly noticed by Marxist and non-Marxist thinkers alike, and so naturally, in the preceding century or so, the work became muddled with both pro and anti-Marxist readings. At this point, Utopia was already considered a classic piece of literature and was taught all over the English-speaking Western world. And if you know anything about English academia it's that they really hate changing their reading list even if some of the work is problematic or if there are better works to discuss a certain topic. I would know. I’m an English major.

Plus, Utopia is one of the best examples, if not the best example, of English non-Shakespearean Renaissance literature. But suffice it to say, academia was put in a tricky spot. How were they going to teach Utopia? And more importantly, how were they going to translate it?

As I mentioned earlier, the book was originally published in Latin, and translating any work is complicated especially older works. But there seem to be two main translation approaches. One way is just to try and translate the text as literally as possible. The other is translating the work to capture the spirit and flow of the original work without worrying about its literal translation. And while both methods have their pros and cons. The biggest problem in Utopia’s case is whether or not to make a direct reference to communism or not.

On the one hand, mentioning or making direct references to communism or Marxist theory seems revisionist. After all, no matter how you read the text, there’s no way Tomas More could have been alluding to Marxist theory because Carl Marx wouldn’t be born for another three hundred years.

But at the same time, it sort of feels disingenuous not to discuss Marxism or other socialist theories. Because the parallels are uncanny, and in my personal opinion, I think it’s ridiculous not to make those comparisons as a modern reader.

But enough of the back story, let’s finally get into what the book is actually about and some popular interpretations of it.

Part 2: The Book

If you are already familiar with the book click here to skip to my analysis.

So, one important thing to note is that the book is written in a classical Soto Socratic style. It is separated into three parts: a prologue written as a “letter” to Peter Giles (a real person) asking him to look over his manuscript. I mean account, to make sure it is as accurate to what happened as possible.

Now one other thing we should note is that this entire story is completely made up. Every thought and idea expressed came from More’s mind. But More decided to write this book as if the whole book is based on a conversation he had with Rafael Hallway, a made-up Portuguese explorer. Meaning all of Rafael’s beliefs and personality are constructions of More’s imagination. And possibly a reflection of his own beliefs, but we’ll get to that later.

Then we go into Book One. Now interestingly enough, book one was originally written and published after book two. A sort of Star Wars episode 1-3 situation. So, Book One is sort of a prequel to Book Two, serving as a setup for Book Two, which is arguably the main story.

Book One covers the story of the start of “Thomas More’s” and Raphael’s and Peter Giles’s conversation. This whole first book is written like classical Greek and Roman works. The conversation delves into real problems of the time in their society (which in this case is England and, more broadly, western Europe).

This is accomplished mostly through stories and sometimes stories within stories and other forms of anecdotal and veg statistical evidence. So, the two, “Tomas More” and Rafael (Peter doesn’t contribute to the conversation), continue this discussion for a while.

Raphael takes the everyone and everything is stupid and corrupt, and the entire system could be run better if the people in charge weren’t such fucking moans. And Tomas takes the more centrist position of, I basically agree with everything you say, but I don’t know how we could improve society and what it would look like. Basically, the classical “Well, can you come up with a country/ society that’s better.”

This leads to Book Two of Utopia, which is basically Rafael describing different aspects of Utopia’s society from daily life, government and economic structures, warfare, religion, public health, and slavery…yeah, slavery. I mean, he was an English man from the sixteenth century, what do we expect?

Book two is essentially like a hundred pages of pure world-building with a few footnotes from “Tomas More” and “Peter Giles” giving his brief perspective or reaction to the things being described.

The book's ending is just a page or so of Thomas reflecting on what Rafael had described to him.

Ok, so now that you all have a brief rundown of the book. Let’s get to the fun stuff.

Part 3: Popular Analyses/ My Interpretation of Utopia

Ok, so a couple of things I need to clear up before we get into this section. As I mentioned earlier, there are several different types of translations of Utopia, and depending on what translation you read might influence how you analyze the book. I’m using the translation in my textbook which was published by The Broadview Anthology of British Literature and was translated by G.C. Richards.

This version chose not to draw parallels to communism or socialism. Still, it did modernize the language to make it an easier read for modern-day audiences.

A lot of the popular interpretations of this book are mostly coming from those discussed in the said textbook and by my English 205 teacher. It might seem limited, but these are the interpretations that are widely opposed and taught in at least American universities. Still, naturally, I’m not going to talk about every single interpretation of this book.

So, if you like to express your interpretation of the book or a popular interpretation that I didn’t cover, please leave a comment below.

Ok, so first off, let’s talk about the question I’m sure everyone has on their mind was this meant to be taken seriously?

I mean, Thomas More could have just been sarcastic the entire time. After all, he might not have believed a single word, he said in the entire book. We’ll never know. I mean, what if this whole post is sarcastic? You’ll never know for sure.

So, this is a legit interpretation of the book that I’ve heard of, repeatedly actually. Basically, the evidence for this is that some of the languages are a bit witty and could be read as sarcastic.

And the fact that Thomas More was catholic, and this supposed “Utopia” society has things like euthanasia and divorce. Things that the Catholic church doesn’t endorse, and Tomas More was a Catholic.

And as we all know, every single individual Catholic believes exactly what the Catholic church says in the exact same way the catholic church teaches because all Catholics are just mindless followers. Especially during the Renaissance and the Protistan Reformation when people were totally not openly criticizing the Catholic Church.

Plus, there are contradictions in this society, which means that it was meant to be sarcastic and meant to describe a dystopian society.

Now here’s the thing, if this was a death of the author’s situation, and these people personally think that Utopia is actually a dystopian society. Then that would be fine and valid. No one says you have to like the society described in Utopia. I mean, I know there are aspects I don’t like, and that’s fine.

But my problem with this interruption is when people insist that this was More’s intention and or interpretation, and this is where I just find the idea absolutely ridiculous. The best evidence I have for this comes at the end. Literally, the last few lines of the book where More says.

“When Raphael had finished his story, I was left thinking that not a few of

that people’s customs and laws were absurd…. And yet I readily admit that

there are many features of the Utopian commonwealth that I can more easily

wish for in our own societies than hope to see realized” (More 68).

And I think that line right there disproves the dystopian argument. The fact that “Tomas More” sees some of Utopia’s customs as ones that can be implemented into English society is noteworthy.

I also think that it disproves the notion of this all being sarcastic or ironic. It just doesn’t make much sense for the time. Like why would Tomas More be satirizing communal ways of living in a time when that was hardly being discussed?

If this were all satirical, why would he write the first book that points out real problems in English society? And make fun of the people who claimed that nothing could change or that the current system was the best possible system. Then give a serious, all-be-it-out-there suggestion for the time. But that doesn’t mean the text wasn’t sincere in exploring an alternative society that was better than the present English system. Just because sincerity is dead now doesn’t mean it was dead in the early 1500s. Alright, next point.

So kinda going along with the sincerity point is the idea that Tomas More didn’t endorse any of Utopia’s ideals or didn’t see Utopia as a well Utopia. This mostly comes from the fact that “Tomas More” says:

“‘I can’t agree,’ I said. ‘Life can never be happy or satisfying where all things

are held in common. How could a sufficient supply of goods be kept up? Each

person would spend less time working. If hope of personal gain does not

motivate a man, he becomes lazy and relies on the industry of others” (More

36).

And this section gets a lot of attention. It is arguably the best quote to support the argument that Thomas More didn’t endorse Utopia’s ideas or at least the whole “things held in common part” (communism). However, that’s only part of the quote this is the rest of that quote.

“But when people are driven to labor by poverty and are not allowed to keep

what they have worked for, is there not bound to be continual trouble,

bloodshed and revolution? Not to mention that magistrates must lose both

authority and dignity, for how there can be any place for them among men

who are all on the same level escapes me” (More 36).

So, this very section already kinda argues against its own previous point. As it’s said, when basic services are denied and their labor value is denied, they revolt.

That isn’t a very pro-capitalist ideology if you ask me. Still, in all fairness, it’s not necessarily an anti-capitalist argument. But even if we take that passage as anti-communist or communalist, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the inter-book is. Case in point, literally the next section when Raphael disavows the entire argument in the first few lines.

“‘I am not surprised that you think so,’ Raphael said, ‘for you have either no

conception, or a false one, of the sort of state I describe. If you had been with

me in Utopia and had yourself seen how people behave, as I did (for I lived

there more than five years and would never have wished to leave except for

the desire to make that new world widely known), you certainly would admit

that you had never seen a more well-ordered people anywhere’” (More 36).

Now one might argue that this isn’t a very sound argument, given Raphael is basically arguing that More doesn’t know what he’s talking about and that he had learned from personal experience that this does work. This is further compacted by the fact that we as the audience know Utopia isn’t a real place. However, in the conceit of the story, Utopia is a real place, so within the story's narrative, we should view Raphael’s argument as more valid since he has personally experienced such a society, and More is only speculating on such a society.

This interpretation of the book also assumes that Thomas More is actually Tomas More. This is a fair reading, and, in all honesty, I think there is some merit to that interpretation. But how does that explain Raphael Hythloday, who takes up most of the book, and whose ideas were barely challenged passed, but that’s totally different and completely demolishes social structures, and that’s a point. A very good point because…people don’t like change or bullshit like that.

The book doesn’t even really make that last claim. They’re just like, well, that’s kinda weird, and that’s about it. So, another interpretation of the book says that

Tomas More isn’t actually Tomas More. Still, Raphael Hythloday is, or at least he’s the one who holds More’s true beliefs. And I think this is the more accurate interpretation, though not quite how I personally read it.

How I see it is more like this. I think the actual Tomas More essentially believed in almost everything that Raphael says, at the very least on a subconscious level. Why else would he write a book that praises these ideas? Especially when things like communalism, representative democracy, etc., were hardly ideas floating around Europe (keyword Europe) at the time. I mean, sure, these ideas float around all the time today, but you have to remember this wasn’t just pre Marx; this was pre Lock, pre-Smith, pre fucking Calvinism.

How could this work come from anywhere but a sincere place of an intellectual and creative thought experiment on how the world could work differently from the late feudalist early capitalist or mercantilism of the early 1500s.

Ok, but if that’s all true, why create the character of Raphael Hythloday at all? Why not just espouse his ideas directly on the page. Own up to his opinions. Well, for one, it’s more entertaining to hear a story about a faraway land that is shockingly similar to home in its material conditions but radically different in its social construction, rather than a 400 hundred page Dasia about what is wrong with society and how we could fix it.

Second of all, that style of writing wasn’t popular or established at the time. As I mentioned earlier, the type of writing style that was popular at the time was a neo-classical sort of writing. Similar to Greco-Roman style there is almost always a counter-argument figure someone who has to challenge, let just say our “Protagonist.” And “Tomas More” is filling that role.

He can’t exactly fill the Role of Raphael because he wasn’t an explorer. He never went to the “new world” and, as I mentioned earlier, probably knew very little about it, as of most Europeans at the time. And since More had no authority on the new world and its people, he couldn’t say that he knew of this place called Utopia because, suspension of disbelief, no one would believe him.

But if Ralph the Portuguese explorer did, well, now that’s more believable. And then, of course, there’s the fact that it was a way to make sure that the aristocracy of the time wouldn’t condemn him for treason. Because he, Tomas More, the sheriff of London, wasn’t saying all that stuff that could potentially get him killed. No, it was Raphael, you know Raphael, the explorer who is no longer on the continent, so you can’t double-check.

Now you might say, well, if that was the case, how do you explain him being Martyred about twenty years later? Well, for one, he died because of his religious beliefs, not his political ones. I don’t know if you know this, but people (especially Christians) are more willing to die for their religious beliefs than their political beliefs.

Also, it was twenty years later, and things can change in twenty years. Pulse, this was still a scathing piece of literature to write at the time. I mean with passages from “Raphael” like this…

“‘Your sheep,’ I replied, ‘which used to be so mild and content, are now, it is

daid so greddy and wild that they devour men, laying wast and depopulating

fields, houses and towns. For those parts of the realm that produce the finest

and therefore most costly wool, nobles and gentlemen, and even holy abbots,

are unsatisfied with the revenues and annual profits they derive from their

estates. They are no longer content with merely leading an idle life and

contributing nothing good to their country. They must also do it real harm.

They leave no ground to be tilled, enclose every bit of land for pasture, pull

down houses, and destroy towns leaving only a church for a barn….Thus so

that one fat cat an insatiable and terrible scourge to his homeland, might

enclose some thousand acres of tillable land in a single fence, many tenants

are ejected. Some, through fraud or violence, lose their goods. Others are so

wearied by oppression that they are driven to sell. Thus by hook or by crook

poor wretches are compelled to leave their homes” (More 25 and 26).

I mean, holy shit, could you even imagine someone today writing something like that, maybe against industrial farming or oil and natural gas companies. I mean, they would get in so much trouble. Like, oh my gosh, it would never get published in any sort of mainstream publisher or publication. Alright, I think I made my point. Let’s move on to the next.

I guess we should probably talk about what, in my opinion, is the most miss interpreted title of all time. I don’t think the title is the secret message everyone thinks it is. First of all, Utopia isn’t even the full title. The full title is Utopia, The Best State of a Commonwealth, and that New Island of Utopia A Truly Golden Handbook No Less Beneficial than Entertaining.

So, let’s break down this actual title. First off, notice Utopia subheading “the best state of a commonwealth,” suggesting that this is a debate of the best society could be. Notice the language here it’s not saying a perfect state or society but the best.

And then the second part of the heading “The New Island of Utopia.” This suggests that Utopia is a real place or a newly discovered one.

So remember earlier when I said that while most Europeans were familiar with the idea of the “new world,” but they had no real context of what the people were like and how much was really out there. So, the idea of this Utopia is not out of the realm of possibility in the minds of the average European, even the literate ones. Given the way in which Utopia is written and presented, I wouldn’t be surprised if some people at the time thought this was a real place.

This is why the name of the island nation is so fitting; remember, even though the word is generally used and translated to mean a perfect place that can’t exist in the real world. The actually Greek translation means simultaneously the perfect place and no place. Not an impossible place or unattainable place, but no place meaning it doesn’t exist, at least now.

So, what I think Thomas More was trying to say with the title is that it isn’t actually a new island. It doesn’t exist as a real place.

The other part of the above-mentioned interpretation is that More believed this place couldn’t exist. Again, I think that’s a misreading of the text. Not invalidated, of course, but Utopia was specifically designed to be a mirrored version of England, so to say. This is clear in how the landscape of Utopia is described as an arid island kinda cut off from the rest of the world but kinda not.

So, I guess I should answer the question we’ve all been asking is it Marxist? Well, here’s a passage from Raphael on page 25 of the book.

“Let us consider what happens every day. Now there are a great many idle

noblemen who not only live like drones off the labors of others, such as their

tenants, whom they squeeze to the utmost by raising their rents for that is

the only way to get money they know, being otherwise so extravagant as to

beggar themselves, but also carry about with them a huge crowd of parasites

who have never learnt a trade by which to live. When their master dies, or

they themselves fall ill, they are soon turned out, for it is easier to maintain

the idle than the sick, and in any case the heir can’t always support as big a

household as had his father so in the meantime their energies turn to

starving, if not thieving. For what can they do? When by a vagabond life they

have worn out both clothes and health, sickly and ragged as they are,

gentlemen will not engage them and country folk dare not, knowing well that

someone softly brought up in idleness and luxury been and has been wont to

strut around in sword and buckler, looking down with a swaggering

expression on the whole neighborhood, and thinking himself miles above

everyone, is not fit to render honest service to a poor man with spade and

hoe, for scanty wage and on frugal fare.’”

As I said, it’s up to you. Well, to be quite frank, I haven’t heard of any popular interpretations of this book that claims it to be Marxist or communist, exactly. Though keep in mind I attend a liberal university in a far-right country with fascistic tendencies that have basically banded the teaching of Marxism and other anti-capitalist ideologies.

From what I can tell from my basic outside research, the general Marxist interpretation of this book is that Utopia is an example of “primitive communism.” This is kinda a loaded term and has some negative racial implications, but that’s a different topic for another time. But “primitive communism,” or as I would prefer to put it, pre-enlightenment communism is essentially a pre-industrial classless and stateless society. Utopia (the fictional society within the book) is an example of (all be it a very European example).

Then there’s the anti-Marxist perspective which claims there is absolutely no connection between Utopia and Marxist theory. Now how they can explain quotes like this…

“Price of food has risen in many parts. Wool too has gone up in price. So

much so that the poor, who used to make cloth in England, cannot now afford

to buy it, and so are driven from work to idleness. For after the great

increase in pastureland a plague killed off a vast number of sheep had risen,

the price wouldn’t have fallen, because of the monopoly-excuse me, the

oligopoly, for there are more than one of them. Wealth stays in the hand of

the same few, who are not obliged to sell before they wish and they do not

wish to sell until they get the price they ask…These rich men will not rear

calves as they do lambs, but buy them lean and cheap elsewhere and then,

having fattened them up in their own pastures, resell them again at a tidy

profit. I fear that the full mischief of this system has not yet been felt. Thus

far it has raised the prices only where the animals are sold; over time,

though, if the buyers remove them faster than they can be bred, then as the

supply gradually diminishes in the areas where they are bought, there will

great shortages. Thus the unscrupulous greed of a few is ruining the very

thing for which your island was once counted most fortunate” (More 26).

Well, they claim that this has nothing to do with capitalism or feudalism really. It’s actually a critique of the protestant revolution (and maybe the death penalty). No, they do not seem to draw the connections between the protestant work ethic and how that might have led to and or allowed capitalism to rise in Europe in the first place. But that’s more for another post.

But regardless of my personal opinions on this interpretation, the perspective is valid; all literary readings are valid. It’s just a lot of them aren’t good. Though, in fairness, it does have some points. Like I don’t think Thomas More intended to write a takedown of capitalism, his motivation to write this book was most likely the failings of the English penial system. In fact, the entire premises of book one start with a conversation about the English penial system.

To be quite frank, it’s unlikely that Tomas More even really knew what capitalism was, but, the work whether internal or not, became anti-capitalist. I mean, even the act of imaging a society that isn’t reliant on markets but rather needs is an anti-capitalist act.

Honestly, it doesn’t matter if it was meant to be or seen as an anti-capitalist because it is now. And that’s kinda the entire point of the argument; why keep teaching and printing it at all? Why is it important, and how does this book affect us today? And or what does this work teach us about the past? And I think the answer to those questions is obvious, but I don’t think a lot of people want to hear. So, let’s get into it.

Part 4: WTF was the Point

Why am I really writing this 19-page post in my own volition about a book I was forced to read in school? Honestly, Utopia surprised me. I didn’t think that anything being discussed in a book written by an English lawyer in the 1500s would ring true or affect me in any way. And then, I read the description of how Utopia handles public health.

“Special care is taken of the sick, who are looked after in one of the four

public hospitals that are spaced out at the edges of town, a little outside the

walls. These are so roomy that they seem like small towns; the purpose is to

prevent the sick, however numerous, from being packed close in discomfort

and also to isolate the contagious and thus prevent their passing on their

maladies to others. These hospitals are so well furnished and equipped with

everything conducive to health, and the expert attending physicians provide

such delicate and careful treatment, that although no one is sent there

involuntarily, there is hardly anybody in the whole city who, when ill, does

not prefer to be cared for there rather than at home” (More 43).

This shouldn’t seem Utopic this shouldn’t have made me cry because it’s just a society taking care of its sick. And the funniest thing is they don’t even talk about health insurance in Utopia or medical fees or anything like that. Like it’s just assumed that this sort of stuff is free. I mean, could you imagine being in a world where you get good quality health care for free and still be treated like you’re still treated like a human. Like could you imagine living in a society that actually puts human lives first? That’s put effort into keeping the hospitals well equipped and staffed because they care about public health.

As of writing this, the US has had a total of 51,769,969 cases and 827,343 deaths, the most in the world despite our population only being the third-largest and having the most resources and best medical technology in the entire world.

But even if we ignore the pandemic, about 45,000 people a year die because of lack of health insurance. And there’s a lot of reasons why America doesn’t provide even the most basic essentials when it comes to health to all of its citizens. Even when based on its own logic (capitalist logic), it makes sense to do so. (But most of it has to do with neoliberal capitalism and, if we’re being honest, kinda narcissism). And yet, despite all this, the “most progressive” democratic party isn’t even really discussing even the most minor health care reforms.

It’s like they can’t imagine nay refuse to imagine a world any different. I shit you not. I have had real people tell me that universal health care or a universal health system is a utopian idea, despite the fact that all other developed countries and even some developing countries have some form of universal health care or health system.

But wait a second, why is “utopic” even a valid criticism when it comes to policy. Why shouldn’t we strive for a utopic society even if it is in some way impossible? Isn’t the whole notion of progress that we’re constantly changing and evolving to get closer to or to reach that utopic society?

Personally, I think we’re using utopia wrong or the idea of utopia wrong. Utopia shouldn’t be about the perfect unattainable society because that’s an unproductive idea, but rather it should mean more like the best society, not a perfect society, but the best society could be. And that use of utopia is actually more closely related to the idea that Tomas More exposed in utopia, the best society, not a perfect society. So, you might be asking what is the best society?

And well, I don’t know. All I know for sure is that it’s not this one. Like we all know that right, we can all agree this shit is not the best humanity can do, right?

That’s why I think books like Utopia and other utopian fiction is so important, it gives people the opportunity to experience different worlds from their own to see that humanity is capable of better things. That in some way, society can change for the better. It challenges people’s assumptions about humanity and the world. And maybe it can give possible answers to the problems in our society. Or maybe it doesn’t, and that’s ok too.

The point of utopian fiction isn’t literally creating the perfect or honestly even the best society, but to try and imagine a better one that reimagines our existing systems and normative social relations.

But we don’t see a lot of Utopian fiction in the literary world. Which is kinda weird, don’t you think? I mean, you would think in a world with such political unrest and the slow decomposition of neo-liberal capitalism. This would be the perfect time to create utopian novels that give people an escape or hope. But we’re not seeing that, at least not in the mainstream. We tend to see it’s emo twin dystopian fiction, so what does that say about our society? And if Utopian fiction is inherently anti-status quo, then what is dystopian fiction?