The Soul of Man under Socialism [with Biographical Introduction]

by Oscar Wilde

The Soul of Man under Socialism [with Biographical Introduction]

Genres: Nonfiction, Philosophy, Politics, Classics, Essays, Economics, History

44 pages, Kindle Edition

First published March 15, 1891

About the author

Oscar Fingal O'Fflahertie Wills Wilde was an Irish poet and playwright. After writing in different forms throughout the 1880s, he became one of the most popular playwrights in London in the early 1890s. He is best remembered for his epigrams and plays, his novel The Picture of Dorian Gray, and his criminal conviction for gross indecency for homosexual acts.
Wilde's parents were Anglo-Irish intellectuals in Dublin. In his youth, Wilde learned to speak fluent French and German. At university, he read Greats; he demonstrated himself to be an exceptional classicist, first at Trinity College Dublin, then at Magdalen College, Oxford. He became associated with the emerging philosophy of aestheticism, led by two of his tutors, Walter Pater and John Ruskin. After university, Wilde moved to London into fashionable cultural and social circles.
Wilde tried his hand at various literary activities: he wrote a play, published a book of poems, lectured in the United States and Canada on "The English Renaissance" in art and interior decoration, and then returned to London where he lectured on his American travels and wrote reviews for various periodicals. Known for his biting wit, flamboyant dress and glittering conversational skill, Wilde became one of the best-known personalities of his day. At the turn of the 1890s, he refined his ideas about the supremacy of art in a series of dialogues and essays, and incorporated themes of decadence, duplicity, and beauty into what would be his only novel, The Picture of Dorian Gray (1890). Wilde returned to drama, writing Salome (1891) in French while in Paris, but it was refused a licence for England due to an absolute prohibition on the portrayal of Biblical subjects on the English stage. Undiscouraged, Wilde produced four society comedies in the early 1890s, which made him one of the most successful playwrights of late-Victorian London.
At the height of his fame and success, while An Ideal Husband (1895) and The Importance of Being Earnest (1895) were still being performed in London, Wilde issued a civil writ against John Sholto Douglas, the 9th Marquess of Queensberry for criminal libel. The Marquess was the father of Wilde's lover, Lord Alfred Douglas. The libel hearings unearthed evidence that caused Wilde to drop his charges and led to his own arrest and criminal prosecution for gross indecency with other males. The jury was unable to reach a verdict and so a retrial was ordered. In the second trial Wilde was convicted and sentenced to two years' hard labour, the maximum penalty, and was jailed from 1895 to 1897. During his last year in prison he wrote De Profundis (published posthumously in abridged form in 1905), a long letter that discusses his spiritual journey through his trials and is a dark counterpoint to his earlier philosophy of pleasure. On the day of his release, he caught the overnight steamer to France, never to return to Britain or Ireland. In France and Italy, he wrote his last work, The Ballad of Reading Gaol (1898), a long poem commemorating the harsh rhythms of prison life.

Reviews

[Stefan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This Oscar Wilde essay is one of the most prophetic and insightful works of 19th century political philosophy I have ever read. In this essay, Wilde talks about a world that we are only beginning to imagine now, over 100 years later. He saw the full potential of socialism and its possibility of freeing the human race once and for all. On the other hand, he warned us of authoritarian perversions of socialist thought that have become predominant in the 20th century, long after Wilde's death. He sees the individualistic nature of socialism, contrary to the collectivist and authoritarian one that prevailed. Wilde understands that socialism should be about eradicating poverty and lives accordingly. Terry Eagleton describes Wilde's political views:

"There is a sense, then, in which the true harbinger of communism is not the proletarian but the patrician, as Oscar Wilde, a man who believed devoutly in communism in between dinner parties, was ironically aware. What better image of the indolent future than the dandy and aristocrat? Wilde thus had a wonderful political rationalization for his extravagantly privileged existence: just lie around all day in loose crimson garments reading Plato and sipping brandy and be your own communist society. In what Marx calls pre-history, being idle means that you die; in post-history, it becomes the finest way to live."

The biggest economic fault of 20th century socialism was that, instead of making everyone equal, it made everyone equally poor. Wilde warned us about it, but no one listened. Wilde was an artist. In order to achieve freedom, you need to be an artist, not a politician. The revolutionaries of the 20th centuries were not artists. Rather, they sought to enslave the artists. That is why 20th century socialism failed and that is ultimately why capitalism will fail.

Wilde, as an artist in a capitalist society, sees how the needs of the public dictate the works of artists, therefore destroying art. He sees the democracy for what it really is: a dictatorship of the majority. He unmasks democracy as deeply egoistical and shows how people dictate the lives of others in such a system, claiming them to be worse dictators than Princes or Popes.

Wilde accuses the idea of charity for perpetuating poverty. This idea ultimately led to socialism as we know it: a system in which everyone is poor and afraid. As he was often accused of egoism because of his views, he replies: "A red rose is not selfish because it wants to be a red rose. It would be horribly selfish if it wanted all the other flowers in the garden to be both red and roses." Wilde does not want socialism in which the government tells you what to do. He sees that it is no different from capitalism in which society tells you what to do. His radical individualism does not hurt anyone. This precisely is what hurt people the most. Oscar Wilde was a free man, and in a society of slaves, that is the biggest sin of all.

When people see the likes of Oscar Wilde and Arthur Rimbaud as the real revolutionaries, rather than all the Lenins and Stalins of this world, people will finally be free. This essay is an excellent first step towards that realization.

[Maria Espadinha · Rating 4 out of 5]

Private Property — The Killer of Human Identity


Private property deprives humans from their identity, cos it leads mankind to exterior richness
Rich people 🤑 waste their lives in a senseless accumulation of more and more richness, whilst the poor are doomed to a life of slavery — they work till exhaustion to get what they’ll never get. None of them will ever reach the state of humans — they are living for possessions, focusing their lives in exterior things instead of searching for richness within.

However there are exceptions to this rule. In art, science, philosophy... humans are using part of their potential. Those are the ones who will — eventually — conquer the human status!
Therefore, it’s imperious to find an economic system capable of reversing these conditions, or else, mankind will be doomed, and that’s the scope of this clever essay!

Watching OW’s neurons in motion, is invariably an immense source of pleasure 😉😁👍😍🤩🤩

[Piyangie · Rating 4 out of 5]

So it looks like Oscar Wild thought that socialism is the total solution to the problems in the world. He advocates the view that the individualism which could only be brought by a socialist governing will be the key to making of a perfect society with peaceful, happy and content men. If only he lived to see how the actual socialist governance turned to be, perhaps he would have been truly shocked. I'm not politically conversant, but to my average knowledge, socialist governance turned no better than those of capitalism based democratic governance. But perhaps the fault lies not on the concept but on how it was defined, understood and executed by those exercising official authority.

In this essay, Wild expresses many of his thoughts. While they are ultimately tied up to his perception of individualism, which he believed can be perfectly achieved in a socialist society, his thoughts on art, religion, journalism, human nature and social views and attitudes are fascinating to read. It is obvious that he eyed all these disciplines in an aesthetic light. Although personally I cannot reconcile with some of his ideas, it was still interesting to read them. I have appreciated Oscar Wild as a great playwright, but now I'm fascinated by him as an essayist as well.

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's hard for me to decide whether Wilde expected what he wrote in this little book to be taken seriously or whether he meant it as a satire of liberal thinkers and do-gooders. One thing is reasonably clear; Wilde himself seems to have made no serious effort in his own life to practice the ideas he expresses in The Soul of Man under Socialism.

Consider this from the book:

"The majority of people spoil their lives by an unhealthy and exaggerated altruism—are forced, indeed, so to spoil them. They find themselves surrounded by hideous poverty, by hideous ugliness, by hideous starvation. ...Accordingly, with admirable, though misdirected intentions, they very seriously and very sentimentally set themselves to the task of remedying the evils that they see.  But their remedies do not cure the disease: they merely prolong it.  Indeed, their remedies are part of the disease.

"They try to solve the problem of poverty, for instance, by keeping the poor alive; or, in the case of a very advanced school, by amusing the poor.

"But this is not a solution: it is an aggravation of the difficulty.  The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible.  And the altruistic virtues have really prevented the carrying out of this aim."

So what is to be done? Wilde points out that educated men, men who have studied this problem, recommend, nay, implore "the community to restrain its altruistic impulses of charity, benevolence, and the like.  They do so on the ground that such charity degrades and demoralises.  They are perfectly right.  Charity creates a multitude of sins."

So it appears that while society is being reconstructed on a basis that poverty will be impossible, the current poor are to be left to themselves so the real horror of poverty will be clear to everyone.

You see why I wonder whether this book is a satire rather than an expression of ideas to be taken seriously.

Wilde himself seems not to have taken the above suggestions very seriously. In his story, The Happy Prince, the heroes of the story are the Happy Prince and the little bird that helped him. Helped him how? Why by providing bread for the poor starving children and warm clothing for the poor freezing boys. In The Happy Prince these kind acts of charity are rewarded by God with a place in His garden of Paradise for the little bird and in His city of gold for the Happy Prince. Strange rewards indeed for those who "[create] a multitude of sins".

So, according to Wilde, what are the poor to do while waiting for society to be reconstructed? "The virtues of the poor may be readily admitted, and are much to be regretted.  We are often told that the poor are grateful for charity.  Some of them are, no doubt, but the best amongst the poor are never grateful.  They are ungrateful, discontented, disobedient, and rebellious.  They are quite right to be so.  Charity they feel to be a ridiculously inadequate mode of partial restitution, or a sentimental dole, usually accompanied by some impertinent attempt on the part of the sentimentalist to tyrannise over their private lives.  Why should they be grateful for the crumbs that fall from the rich man’s table?  They should be seated at the board, and are beginning to know it.  As for being discontented, a man who would not be discontented with such surroundings and such a low mode of life would be a perfect brute. Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man’s original virtue.  It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion.  Sometimes the poor are praised for being thrifty.  But to recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting.  It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.  For a town or country labourer to practise thrift would be absolutely immoral.  Man should not be ready to show that he can live like a badly-fed animal.  He should decline to live like that, and should either steal or go on the rates, which is considered by many to be a form of stealing.  As for begging, it is safer to beg than to take, but it is finer to take than to beg.  No: a poor man who is ungrateful, unthrifty, discontented, and rebellious, is probably a real personality, and has much in him.  He is at any rate a healthy protest.  As for the virtuous poor, one can pity them, of course, but one cannot possibly admire them.  They have made private terms with the enemy, and sold their birthright for very bad pottage.  They must also be extraordinarily stupid."

So the virtuous poor are not to be admired but rather looked down upon as stupid. The smart poor, those whom we should admire, are those who steal to relieve their poverty. And why should we admire this? Because "...disobedience...is man's original virtue".

What do we see here? Well-off citizens are not to give to the poor because that just perpetuates poverty and makes things worse. Instead the poor are to steal from the well-off citizen because that is what a poor person of true virtue does.

Consider now what Wilde teaches about private property. "The possession of private property is very often extremely demoralising, and that is, of course, one of the reasons why Socialism wants to get rid of the institution.  In fact, property is really a nuisance. ...property has duties. ...Property not merely has duties, but has so many duties that its possession to any large extent is a bore.  It involves endless claims upon one, endless attention to business, endless bother.  If property had simply pleasures, we could stand it; but its duties make it unbearable.  In the interest of the rich we must get rid of it." This, of course, has got to be humor, and grand humor at that.

In summary let me say that I do agree with some of what Wilde presents in this book, but most of what he proposes I consider impractical or wrong or both. Wilde foresaw the charge of impracticability and answered it as follows: "It will, of course, be said that such a scheme as is set forth here is quite unpractical, and goes against human nature.  This is perfectly true.  It is unpractical, and it goes against human nature. This is why it is worth carrying out, and that is why one proposes it.  For what is a practical scheme?  A practical scheme is either a scheme that is already in existence, or a scheme that could be carried out under existing conditions.  But it is exactly the existing conditions that one objects to; and any scheme that could accept these conditions is wrong and foolish.  The conditions will be done away with, and human nature will change.  The only thing that one really knows about human nature is that it changes.  Change is the one quality we can predicate of it.  The systems that fail are those that rely on the permanency of human nature, and not on its growth and development."

Wilde died, too young, over 100 years ago. Since then "the conditions" have not materially changed and basic human nature has remained essentially the same. That this will continue to be true is why Wilde's version of Socialism will never come to pass. It is unworkable in a free society because there will always be those who make choices that result in unhappiness and both physical and spiritual poverty. And, of course, it will not work in a society that is not free because compulsion is the antithesis of the Individualism so admired by Wilde.

[Theo Logos · Rating 4 out of 5]

Radical political theorist almost certainly isn’t the first image you form when thinking of Oscar Wilde. Yet in The Soul of Man Under Socialism Wilde presented a cognizant, well reasoned and beautifully written case for the abolition of private property and reshaping society on an anarchist model. None other than the great anarchist Peter Kropotkin praised Wilde saying that his political writing was worth being engraved. And it is Anarchism, not Marxism Wilde is writing about, known also as Libertarian socialism, and defined as:

an anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist political current that emphasises self-governance and worker’s self-management. It is contrasted from other forms of socialism by its rejection of state-ownership and from other forms of libertarianism by its rejection of private property.

Wilde clearly states his disapproval of forms of authoritarian socialism, and his belief that any compulsion destroys the scheme:

Many of the socialistic views that I’ve come across seem to me to be tainted with ideas of authority if not of actual compulsion. Authority and compulsion are out of the question. All association must be quite voluntary. It is only in voluntary associations that man is fine.

He begins by attacking the idea of altruism in the form of charity as a fundamentally flawed and enslaving concept:

their remedies do not cure the disease, they merely prolong it. Indeed, their remedies are part of the disease.

It is immoral to use private property in order to alleviate the horrible evils that result from the institution of private property.

The proper aim is to try to and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible, and the altruistic virtues have really prevented the carrying out of this aim.

Wilde then moves to the unifying theme of his work — that it is individualism that is absolutely necessary to bringing about this radical change of society:

For the full development of life to its highest mode of perfection, something more is needed. What is needed is individualism.

He is not speaking of the American cliché of the rugged individualist who pulls himself up by his bootstraps and otherwise perfectly blends into the crowd, but of the individualism of the radically creative artist.

And in the same breath, he again warns against compulsive forms of socialism that would threaten that individualism:

If the socialism is authoritarian, if there are governments armed with economic power as they are now with political power, if, in a word, we are to have industrial tyrannies, then the last state of man will be worst than the first.

He effusively and repeatedly praises the defiance individualism offers to existing systems:

Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man’s original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made — through disobedience and through rebellion.

And he explains how private property can degrade the individual:

The recognition of private property has really harmed individualism and obscured it by confusing a man with what he possesses. It has made gain, not growth its aim, so that man thought that the important thing was to have, and did not know that the important thing is to be. The true perfection of man lies not in what man has, but in what man is.

With all of this established, he spends much of the remainder of the essay talking about artists, the history, meaning, and purpose of art as it pertains to true individualism, and how the radical new world he proposes can both be brought about by and is beneficial to the artist.

People sometimes inquire what form of government is most suitable for an artist to live under. To this question there is only one answer — the form of government that is most suitable to the artist is no government at all. Authority over him and his art is ridiculous.

It is with the future that we have to deal, for the past is what man should not have been, the present is what man ought not to be, the future is what artists are.

And finally, Wilde anticipates the objections that will be raised against the radical scheme he presents, and eloquently answers them with impeccable logic:

It will of course be said that such a scheme as is set forth here is quite unpractical and goes against human nature. This is perfectly true. It is unpractical, and it goes against human nature. This is why it is worth carrying out, and that is why one proposes it. For what is a practical scheme? A practical scheme is either a scheme that is already in existence, or a scheme that could be carried out under existing conditions. But it is exactly the existing conditions that one objects to, and any scheme that could accept these conditions is wrong and foolish. The conditions will be done away with, and human nature will change.

[Christopher · Rating 3 out of 5]

Important: Wilde was not a philosopher but a writer and no one should be taking his "proposals" here too seriously.

I agree with other reviewers that his remarks on the excesses of capitalism are fair and his anarcho-libertarian/socialist dreams can even be alluring for certain people. But I also agree with another reviewer here that it's perplexing to decipher just how much of his essay is actually tongue-in-cheek and how much is serious proposal. Even Wilde once said, "I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying."

Wilde was an excellent observer of man's behavior but he formed his own philosophy based upon a strange (to me) Christian antinomianism of ironic contradictions, situational ethics, personal interpretation, and the setting up of straw men based upon obviously limited understandings. And his unique view of Christ as "individual" and "artist" really make no sense to me as the reason that people follow or listen to Christ in the first place is not because he was man but because he was God, no?

Regardless, I think it works better in his later De Profundis as he matured through physical/emotional/mental trial because he is only coming to terms with his own individual sufferings there rather than making the decision to come to terms with and try to solve mankind's here. Utopia is fool's gold and oppressor is only followed by oppressor. The nature of man on his own (and of politics and nearly everything else) is to excess, good intentions be damned.

I won't add direct quotes from the piece here to make the points, other reviewers have done a fine enough job of assembling them already. But throughout the entire essay, it is unmistakably pure Wilde in personality and wit and it is still enjoyable to read, hence the three stars. He was a literary genius and the fearless criticism of society that he unleashed in his short life shines strongly in the prose here. He is right in pointing out things that are wrong in the world but that fact doesn't lead to him being correct about what is right.

[leynes · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Soul of Man under Socialism is an 1891 essay by Oscar Wilde in which he shares his socialist world views and examines the role of art within society.

The chief advantage that would result from the establishment of Socialism is, undoubtedly, the fact that Socialism would relieve us from that sordid necessity of living for others which, in the present condition of things, presses so hardly upon almost everybody. In fact, scarcely anyone at all escapes.

Oscar argues that, under capitalism, the majority of people instead of realising their true talents, waste their time solving the social problems caused by capitalism. Oscar did not see kindness or altruism per se as a problem; what worried him was its misapplication in a way which leaves unaddressed the roots of the problem. Thus, caring people "seriously and very sentimentally set themselves to the task of remedying the evils that they see in poverty but their remedies do not cure the disease: they merely prolong it." Oscar wants to reconstruct society on basis that would make poverty impossible.

Early on, it becomes clear that Oscar goes full utopian on us, and his suggestions aren't all that probable. Nonetheless, the values he promotes are worthy of discussion and shouldn't be glossed over.

It was not simply the material well-being of the poor that distressed him, but how society does not allow them to reach a form of self-understanding and enlightenment. Oscar examined the political conditions necessary for full self-development and devotion to art, arguing that only Art will lead to individualism. I thought it was so funny to see how quickly he steered off topic. I would argue that The Soul of Man under Socialism isn't all that much about politics but rather about Art.

The essay is quite dense and not the easiest to get through, and so I highly appreciated the Oscar-moments in this [aka all the typical dandy declarations that we're used to from his plays]:

It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion.

To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all. [Algernon, my dude, is that you? :D]

Despotism is unjust to everybody, including the despot, who was probably made for better things.

The Lords Temporal say nothing, the Lords Spiritual have nothing to say, and the House of Commons has nothing to say and says it.

Vulgarity and stupidity are two very vivid facts in modern life. One regrets them, naturally. But there they are.

These are just a few gems that absolutely delighted me and helped me focus on the information density and the structure of his arguments. I won't be able to examine every single one but I want to focus on the main two:

1 – On Poverty
I can definitely see why Oscar is often seen as snobbish and stuck-up but I would argue that he was actually pretty 'woke' for his time. ;) Personally, I loved how he examined poverty and materialistic tendencies in capitalist societies.

Don’t imagine that your perfection lies in accumulating or possessing external things. Your affection is inside of you. If only you could realise that, you would not want to be rich. Ordinary riches can be stolen from a man. Real riches cannot.

I loved the fact that he stressed that one shouldn't confuse a 'a man with what he possesses.' We're still living in a society that is completely build on materialistc riches and it's enough to drive me mad. I don't agree with the notion that socialism/marxism is the way to go but I certainly agree that capitalism isn't either. It was interesting to see how he stressed individualism above authority [especially for socialist societies]. However, unfortunately, I don't think that's probable at all, and it's certainly not the way humanity is headed.

It was also satisfying to witness Oscar's respect for the working classes and that he was able to see the big picture and didn't blame individuals for their shortcomings.

One man owns a machine which does the work of five hundred men. Five hundred men are, in consequence, thrown out of employment, and, having no work to do, become hungry and take to thieving.

He talked about the fact that many people in England are on the brink of sheer starvation whilst a small circle of people own most of the property. The gap between rich and poor is even a bigger today than it was back then, and I like the fact that Oscar was fighting the good fight.

Nonetheless, I didn't agree with his examination of slavery, in particular his dismissal of the accomplishments of African slaves and everything they overcame.

It was, undoubtedly, the Abolitionists who set the torch alight, who began the whole thing. And it is curious to note that from the slaves themselves they received, not merely very little assistance, but hardly any sympathy even; and when at the close of the war the slaves found themselves free, found themselves indeed so absolutely free that they were free to starve, many of them bitterly regretted the new state of things.

This is such an ignorant and racist statement that I don't feel the need to point out its problems and false arguments. After all, Oscar was just a privileged white male who never bothered to understand what slavery really entailed for all the people who suffered from it. Just like many other white writers of his time he can write statements (such as the one above) whilst in the same breath saying that "human slavery is wrong, insecure, and demoralising." It becomes apparent that Oscar was unable to connect the dots there.

It's disheartening and certainly something I'm unable to forgive, nonetheless, it's somewhat relieving to know that Oscar's entire personality and outlook on life changed after his imprisonment and that, in his last writings, he displays a great care and empathy for people of all backgrounds, and became an advocate for equality on all fronts.

2 – On Art and Censorship
As mentioned earlier, I had to smirk when I realized that Oscar's intention for this essay might not have been his socialist views per se but his views on Art [and how the general public is stupid af and doesn't get it.]

Whenever a community or a powerful section of a community, or a government of any kind, attempts to dictate to the artist what he is to do, Art either entirely vanishes, or becomes stereotyped, or degenerates into a low and ignoble form of craft. A work of art is the unique result of a unique temperament. Its beauty comes from the fact that the author is what he is. It has nothing to do with the fact that other people want what they want.

Oscar, being the aesthete he was, couldn't deal with the constraints that society put on artists. There were so many taboos concerning form/style and, of course, topics that shouldn't be written about [e.g. homosexual relationships]. He criticises the public and their want of taste, to flatter their vanity, to tell them what they have been told before, and to amuse and distract them. I genuinely feel like these are issues that we're still dealing with today. Looking at the literature that is being published, it becomes apparent that authors, publishers and readers always jump on the same hype trains, and it's hard for new (marginalized) voices to be heard.

When they say a work is grossly unintelligible, they mean that the artist has said or made a beautiful thing that is new; when they describe a work as grossly immoral, they mean that the artist has said or made a beautiful thing that is true.

I found it refreshing to see how pissed off Oscar was. Previous to this, I was more familiar with Oscar's petty and witty side. Upon reading his essays, I discovered this more raw [and somewhat vulnerable] side of him. It breaks my hard to witness how much he suffered by the constraints [in life and art] he was put under.

Lastly, I want to discuss some of the personal revelations that I got out of this essay [most of which are heartbreaking as well, yay.] It was so bizarre to read some of these passages because knowing of Oscar's end they almost seem like a self-fulfilling prophecy:

1 – The private lives of men and women should not be told to the public. The public have nothing to do with them at all. In France they manage these things better. There they do not allow the details of the trials that take place in the divorce courts to be published for the amusement or criticism of the public.

It's so crazy that exactly this problem led to Oscar's ruin. His trial with the Marquess of Queensberry and his homosexual relationship to Alfred Douglas were constantly talked about. The press and the public wouldn't shut up about it, and Oscar was slandered in the most horrific manner due to his sexuality and his refusal to back down.

2 – A man is called affected, nowadays, if he dresses as he likes to dress. But in doing that he is acting in a perfectly natural manner. Affectation, in such matters, consists in dressing according to the views of one’s neighbour, whose views, as they are the views of the majority, will probably be extremely stupid.

I mean, it doesn't come as a suprise that Mr 'You-can-never-be-overdressed' dressed himself in a very flamboyant manner. However, during his lifetime, this was often frowned upon and Oscar was often publicly criticised for his fashion style. I'm glad he knew that those haters could kiss his sweet ass.

3 – Anybody can sympathise with the sufferings of a friend, but it requires a very fine nature – it requires, in fact, the nature of a true Individualist – to sympathise with a friend’s success.

I found this quote particularly distressing because Oscar's later experiences proved him wrong in this point. When he fell from grace due to the 'sex scandal' everyone [except for Robert Ross, such a pure soul] turned away from him. No one shared his pain and took some of the burden from him, not even Bosie [the hoe] who shared the responsibilty for this whole mess. I could just cry whenever I read something by young, naive Oscar who still had some faith in humanity left. Alas!

4 – After all, even in prison, a man can be quite free. His soul can be free. His personality can be untroubled. He can be at peace.

Oh, my sweet summer child, you got a big storm coming. I just want to huddle in a ball when I read these clueless comments. Ugh. I can't deal. It's crazy to compare this essay to some of his letters that he wrote after his imprisonment. He learned the hard way that one cannot prosper in prison and that the conditions in English prison were very sickening and unacceptable.

In conclusion, I appreciate The Soul of Man under Socialism for all the insights it gave me into Oscar's personal views and life. Whenever I read something by him, I learn so much and am left wanting more.

[Katie · Rating 2 out of 5]

Tripe. I am a fan of Oscar Wilde, so when I saw this book offered free on iTunes, I figured I'd check it out - I really wish I hadn't bothered. If I had to boil down what it seems that Mr. Wilde was trying to say it would go something like this: 1) People shouldn't have to work for a living; life's necessities should be provided by machines so that folks can spend more time contemplating their navels. 2) Artists are the greatest and most important group of people around. 3) If the general populace likes a work of art that means it must be awful and worthless (HIPSTER ALERT). 4) Artists thrive best with no government, so that's how it should be... Good grief. I was expecting an actual analysis of socialism and its possible benefits to balance out Ayn Rand, which I'm also reading; however, socialism seemed to be an afterthought in this wildly outrageous ramble.

Thankfully, Oscar Wilde was not involved in economic planning back in the day... England would have gone bankrupt and the world would be a very different place! This book was hard to read by reason of pure inanity. The ONLY reason I did not give it a 1 is because if you consider who Oscar Wilde was and the time he lived in, this drivel does give some insight into what happens to people's minds when they are overly repressed; his cries for individualism and freedom of the spirit are clearly tied to his experience as a dandy at the turn of the century and his homosexuality, which was, of course, illegal at the time. One can see, when taken in its historical context, why Wilde argues what he does here... that doesn't mean it makes sense or that any of the ideas are any good, but it's an understandable viewpoint for someone in Wilde's position.

[Kathleen · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Art is Individualism, and Individualism is a disturbing and disintegrating force. Therein lies its immense value. For what it seeks to disturb is monotony of type, slavery of custom, tyranny of habit, and the reduction of man to the level of a machine.”

Oh, boy. I bet a lot of people got their panties in a bunch over this one! He takes on authority, capitalism and religion, and that kind of thing doesn’t tend to go over very well. And his interpretation of Christ’s message has been called into question, but really, shouldn’t all interpretations be questioned?

This was fantastic--intriguing and thought-provoking. It’s not really about Socialism. It’s about non-conformity. It’s a thought experiment—Socialism as a springboard of possibilities, mostly regarding the creation of a world in which an artist and non-conformist like Oscar could better thrive.

“There are three kinds of despots. There is the despot who tyrannises over the body. There is the despot who tyrannises over the soul. There is the despot who tyrannises over soul and body alike. The first is called the Prince. The second is called the Pope. The third is called the people.”

There is so much to be considered here, and so much that I agreed with in concept. His aren’t easy fixes, but Wilde explains that.

“It will, of course, be said that such a scheme as is set forth here is quite unpractical, and goes against human nature. This is perfectly true. It is impractical, and it goes against human nature. That is why it is worth carrying out, and that is why one proposes it. For what is a practical scheme? A practical scheme is either a scheme that is already in existence, or a scheme that could be carried out under existing conditions. But it is exactly the existing conditions that one objects to; and any scheme that could accept these conditions is wrong and foolish.”

It was good to see so many oft-quoted Wilde lines in context here:

“For the recognition of private property has really harmed Individualism, and obscured it, by confusing a man with what he possesses. It has led Individualism entirely astray. It has made gain not growth its aim. So that man thought that the important thing was to have, and did not know that the important thing is to be. The true perfection of man lies, not in what man has, but in what man is.”

“With the abolition of private property then, we shall have true, beautiful, healthy Individualism. Nobody will waste his life in accumulating things, and the symbols for things. One will live. To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all.”

I think I’ll take his advice, and not try to tell anyone else what to think. I’m taking his ideas to heart for myself, but you do what you want. We’re all individuals, and that’s a good thing.

[meandermind · Rating 3 out of 5]

There's a lot of things one could say about this. Most of them I've said IRL, in my mini socialist book club that me and one friend has started. So I'll just say this: It's very refreshing to read a book before Soviet, when not every attempt at figuring out a better society was met with a "NOPE. DID NOT WORK. CAN NEVER WORK BECAUSE OF THAT ONE TIME IT FAILED". It fills me with a joy to see another viewpoint than today's sort of blind acceptance of capitalism. HOWEVER, Wilde's sharp witty tone soon becomes tedious, and after a while he just abandons the socialism and starts to ramble about art criticism for about 30 pages (this is in a 40 page essay).

It's like talking to a drunk guy at a party, even one you agree with becomes unbearable after the second hour of uninterruptable ramblings. Even a charming drunk, such as Oscar Wilde.

[Fazilet Özdiker · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wilde söz konusu olunca bireycilik anlayışı her ne kadar aklıma gelse de sosyalizm hakkında yazacağını hiç hayal etmemiştim. Oscar Wilde’ın Gizli Yaşamı’nda okuduklarımı da düşünerek varmıştım esasen bu kanıya. Ancak okuduklarım beni yine hayrete düşürdü ve Wilde yeniden kalbimi fethetti.

Kapitalizmin gölgesinde yaşayan insanların, hayatlarını nasıl mahvettiği ve toplumculuk yerine bireyciliği benimseyenlerin bile sorunların kökenini tam anlamıyla analiz edemediğini örneklerle açıklıyor makalesinde Wilde. Toplumsallık yerine bireyselliğe dayalı bir sosyalizm anlayışını savunup din temelli birçok kuruma da karşı çıkıyor. Yoksulluğun nedenlerini ve sonuçlarını ele alırken özel mülkiyet kavramının kaldırılması ile gerçek, güzel ve sağlıklı bireyciliğe sahip olunacağını gözler önüne seriyor.

Nasıralı İsa’nın sözlerini de şahit tutarak, kişilerin ancak sahip olduklarından kurtulmaya çalıştıklarında erdeme ulaşabileceğini ve servetin kusursuzluğa erişmede bir engel teşkil ettiğini anlatıyor Wilde. Kişilik ve özgürlük kavramının yanında içinde bulunduğumuz topluma uyum gösterme zorunluluğunun da insanları çıkmaza sürüklediğinden bahsederek yönetim biçimlerinin birer başarısızlık olduğunu kanıtlamayı hedefliyor makalesinde.

Sonuç olarak; insanın mutluğu olduğu zaman hem çevresi hem de kendisi ile uyum içinde olacağını ve bireylerin sadece yaşamanın peşinde koşmalarının gerektiğini yazıyor. Tavsiye ediyorum…

[Joanka · Rating 4 out of 5]

I did enjoy Wilde’s essay a great deal. I must admit, however, that this was not the first time where I read a description of a Utopia and felt slightly irritated at times. I perceive myself as an idealist but I prefer discussing the reality and how it can be improved, what can we really do and now, to make the world the better place. Still, it was interesting read and I would love to have Wilde comment on socialism after seeing the attempts people performed with introducing it to the world.

Still, even if I had my reservation to the first part, I loved the one about being an artist and creating a lot. It was such a food for thought and I might sometimes roll my eyes slightly at how Wilde is balancing on the verge of arrogance, I also had to agree with most of the points he made.

This is kind of a book I’d like to push in everyone’s hands to discuss it later together.

[Kaśyap · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wilde's egoistic utopia found on aesthetic ideals. A scoiety where there is no property, no poverty and hunger and no burdens of wealth. Where machines do all the tedious labour and a man is completely free to chose himself. Wilde seems more concerned with the banality of the bourgeois than the suffering of the proletariat. You can clearly see that this is an artist's vision.

It's interesting to contrast this with Ayn Rand. Invdividualism vs communism is a false dichotomy.

[Salman Tariq · Rating 5 out of 5]

added in my "read again shelf" .
Its satire on Drama, Arts and Literature plus our myopic approaches to these productivities
A must must read.

Life

To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all.

Who dictates art

Upon the other hand, whenever a community or a powerful section of a community, or a government of any kind, attempts to dictate to the artist what he is to do, Art either entirely vanishes, or becomes stereotyped, or degenerates into a low and ignoble form of craft.

Dilemma of being a novelist

It is at once too easy and too difficult to be a popular novelist. It is too easy, because the requirements of the public as far as plot, style, psychology, treatment of life, and treatment of literature are concerned are within the reach of the very meanest capacity and the most uncultivated mind. It is too difficult, because to meet such requirements the artist would have to do violence to his temperament, would have to write not for the artistic joy of writing, but for the amusement of half-educated people, and so would have to suppress his individualism, forget his culture, annihilate his style, and surrender everything that is valuable in him.

[Rafal · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nie sądziłem, że przeczytam tę książkę z taką przyjemnością.
Oscar Wilde jest jednak świetnym pisarzem nie tylko, gdy pisze powieści, ale także jako polityczny filozof.

Ta książka została napisana bardzo dawno temu, dlatego jej aktualność jest zaskakująca. Zaskakująca pozytywnie, mimo naiwności i anarchizmu utopijnych i idealistycznych rozważań o tym, że "rząd, który może zapewnić prawdziwą wolność to brak rządu". Obok takich spostrzeżeń są i te, które wskazują, że funkcjonowanie kapitalistycznego społeczeństwa prowadzi do nieograniczonego kumulowania kapitału oraz rosnących nierówności. Niedawno to samo przeczytałem u Thomasa Piketty'ego.

Bardzo ciekawe są rozważania technologiczne. Tak jak dziś - technologia wywołuje strach; jednak u Wilde'a technologia ma być zaprzęgnięta do służby społeczeństwo i odciążania ludzi od czynności, które nie sprzyjają rozwojowi człowieka i jego indywidualizmu.

Te rozważania są czasem niespójne ale jednocześnie błyskotliwe, piękne i idealistyczne. Może za kolejne 100 lat niektóre z tych ideałów uda się zrealizować.

[John Hatley · Rating 5 out of 5]

This brilliant essay demonstrates Oscar Wilde’s genius. He not only wrote humourous and entertaining literature. He was also capable of developing new ideas of an entirely serious nature, as he does here. He presents the idea, new to me, of “individualism”, which goes well beyond mere socialism. He is political, sociological, religious and philosophical. As he develops the idea, he also discusses art (painting and sculpture) and literature (prose and poetry). There is a lot here to think about. I recommend it highly.

[شمس · Rating 5 out of 5]

Now, nothing should be able to harm a man except himself. Nothing should be able to rob a man at all. What a man really has, is what is in him. What is outside of him should be a matter of no importance.

. . . With the abolition of private property, then, we shall have true, beautiful, healthy Individualism. Nobody will waste his life in accumulating things, and the symbols for things. One will live. To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all.

. . . for as man moves northward the material necessities of life become of more vital importance, and our society is infinitely more complex, and displays far greater extremes of luxury and pauperism than any society of the antique world. What Jesus meant, was this. He said to man, ‘You have a wonderful personality. Develop it. Be yourself. Don’t imagine that your perfection lies in accumulating or possessing external things. Your affection is inside of you. If only you could realise that, you would not want to be rich. Ordinary riches can be stolen from a man. Real riches cannot. In the treasury-house of your soul, there are infinitely precious things, that may not be taken from you. And so, try to so shape your life that external things will not harm you. And try also to get rid of personal property. It involves sordid preoccupation, endless industry, continual wrong. Personal property hinders Individualism at every step.'

. . . And as I have mentioned the word labour, I cannot help saying that a great deal of nonsense is being written and talked nowadays about the dignity of manual labour. There is nothing necessarily dignified about manual labour at all, and most of it is absolutely degrading . . . To sweep a slushy crossing for eight hours, on a day when the east wind is blowing is a disgusting occupation. To sweep it with mental, moral, or physical dignity seems to me to be impossible. To sweep it with joy would be appalling. Man is made for something better than disturbing dirt. All work of that kind should be done by a machine . . . so while Humanity will be amusing itself, or enjoying cultivated leisure – which, and not labour, is the aim of man – or making beautiful things, or reading beautiful things, or simply contemplating the world with admiration and delight, machinery will be doing all the necessary and unpleasant work. The fact is, that civilisation requires slaves. The Greeks were quite right there. Unless there are slaves to do the ugly, horrible, uninteresting work, culture and contemplation become almost impossible. Human slavery is wrong, insecure, and demoralising. On mechanical slavery, on the slavery of the machine, the future of the world depends.

. . . It will, of course, be said that such a scheme as is set forth here is quite unpractical, and goes against human nature. This is perfectly true. It is unpractical, and it goes against human nature. This is why it is worth carrying out, and that is why one proposes it. For what is a practical scheme? A practical scheme is either a scheme that is already in existence, or a scheme that could be carried out under existing conditions. But it is exactly the existing conditions that one objects to; and any scheme that could accept these conditions is wrong and foolish.

__________
This blazing Essay focuses largely on how the full development of individualism can be attained through Socialism, and also touches a little on Art.

My admiration for Mr. Wilde continues to grow . . .

A must-read.
_____
Read from The Works of Oscar Wilde
__________
Art is the most intense mode of Individualism that the world has known. I am inclined to say that it is the only real mode of Individualism that the world has known.

It is at once too easy and too difficult to be a popular novelist. It is too easy, because the requirements of the public as far as plot, style, psychology, treatment of life, and treatment of literature are concerned are within the reach of the very meanest capacity and the most uncultivated mind. It is too difficult, because to meet such requirements the artist would have to do violence to his temperament, would have to write not for the artistic joy of writing, but for the amusement of half-educated people, and so would have to suppress his individualism, forget his culture, annihilate his style, and surrender everything that is valuable in him.

. . . the arts that have escaped best are the arts in which the public take no interest.
__________
Or a man is called selfish if he lives in the manner that seems to him most suitable for the full realisation of his own personality; if, in fact, the primary aim of his life is self-development. But this is the way in which everyone should live. Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live. And unselfishness is letting other people’s lives alone, not interfering with them. Selfishness always aims at creating around it an absolute uniformity of type. Unselfishness recognises infinite variety of type as a delightful thing, accepts it, acquiesces in it, enjoys it.

[spillingthematcha · Rating 4 out of 5]

Genialny i błyskotliwy esej!

[Bryham Fabian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un mapamundi que no incluya una utopía no vale la pena mirarlo, pues le faltaría el país en el que todos los días aterriza la humanidad. Y cuando la humanidad mira a lo lejos tierras mejores, siempre zarpa hacia ellas. El progreso es la realización de las utopías. - Oscar Wilde ( El Alma del Hombre Bajo el Socialismo, página 50)


Es un libro que no esconde su carácter panfletario, aunque no en el sentido militante, sino en espíritu. Es hermosamente transparente y, entre metáforas y diatribas provocadoras, ilustra con lucidez el lamentable estado del contexto que arrastró a su autor a la ruina pública y privada. En esta lectura no solo asistimos a una propuesta coherente de utopía, teñida con las obsesiones estéticas propias de Wilde, sino también a una clarividente llamada de auxilio por parte de quien acabaría convertido en náufrago de las —siempre lamentables e hipócritas, sin importar la época— mareas de la cultura de la cancelación. Especialmente de aquella más opresiva: la que cuenta con justificación popular, la que esconde su violencia en lo "democrático" de su escarnio, y que encuentra a menudo resonancia en leyes, tribunales e instituciones. El individuo como carne de cañón ante… ¿La buena moral? ¿La lealtad al partido? ¿La normatividad de género? ¿El "buen gusto"?, ¿La línea roja del "sentido común"? ¿El orgullo patrio? ¿El respeto a la religión mayoritaria? ¿La “violencia verbal"? ¿La empatía inclusiva?... ¿Importa realmente la excusa? Este señor lo tenía claro ya en el siglo XIX: NO.

Desde una defensa incorruptible del individuo y su realización como pináculo del progreso social —aquel que no puede concebirse sin la libertad de no vivir "en función de otros"—, Wilde planta cara a los excesos de su época: la era victoriana, una en la que la democracia estaba capturada por burgos podridos y una base electoral restringida a una élite identitaria profundamente reducida, un sistema con rezagos del Bloody code amparado por el miedo de la elite propietaria y la cómplice mentalidad punitiva del inglés de a pie. Un escenario fértil en innovaciones, con logros sociales relevantes como la alfabetización general y una naciente libertad de prensa, pero cuya aplicación práctica los nulificaba en utilidad. Wilde habla con hostilidad de la prensa, no pensando en los legendarios muckrakers incómodos para el poder que surgirían en el siglo XX, ni en figuras como David Burnham o Upton Sinclair, sino en ese periodismo moralista e inquisidor que monopolizaba la oferta informativa de su tiempo. Un periodismo cuya motivación era servir de atril desde el cual hacer partícipes a sus lectores en linchamientos públicos y cotilleos privados que hacían temblar a los parlamentarios. El mismo periodismo amarillista que tendría años después oportunidad de "cobrarse" estas palabras con su crucial participación en la decadencia pública de Wilde durante su juicio.


Wilde contempla con horror las decadencias —estéticas y materiales— de la mayoría de las personas de a pie: de los sin abolengo, de los sin futuro, de los sin yo; de quienes fueron despojados de toda posibilidad de realización y arrojados a las derivas más crudas de la incertidumbre en todas sus facetas: desde una crisis económica o los caprichos austeros de un monarca y sus socios lores, hasta un descuartizador en serie en los barrios pobres o las inclemencias del clima. Resulta, pues, paradójico que uno de sus mayores “peros” sea quizás ese inclemente elitismo y desprecio que parece mostrar hacia la "muchedumbre", llegando a afirmar literalmente: “La gente adinerada, como clase, es mejor que la gente pobre, más moral, más intelectual, con mejores maneras.”

Si bien puede interpretarse esa afirmación como una crítica exclusiva a las condiciones materiales que impiden que un chico de Whitechapel desarrolle su individualismo especulativo como Darwin, o el individualismo imaginativo como Victor Hugo, resulta difícil mantener ese beneficio de la sospecha cuando resume el pulso antiesclavista en Estados Unidos de la siguiente manera:

La esclavitud se abolió en Norteamérica, pero no como consecuencia de la acción de los propios esclavos, o por algún expreso deseo de su parte para que se los libere. El sistema fue abolido como resultado de la acción abiertamente ilegal de algunos agitadores, en Boston y en otras partes, que no eran esclavos, ni propietarios ellos mismos de esclavos, ni tenían realmente nada que ver con la cuestión. Fueron, indudablemente, los Abolicionistas los que encendieron la llama de la antorcha, los que comenzaron todo. Y es curioso notar que, de los mismos esclavos, no recibieron solamente muy poca colaboración sino ni siquiera alguna comprensión; y cuando, al terminar la guerra, los esclavos se vieron libres, se encontraron tan absolutamente libres que estaban libres para morir de hambre y muchos de ellos amargamente lamentaron el nuevo estado de cosas. (página 22)

Cosa demostrablemente falsa, tanto en figuras exesclavas como Frederick Douglas o Harriet Tubman, como en fugas e incluso con rebelión. Sin contar el genuino interés, incluso en esclavos sin educación formal, de los afroamericanos en los debates abolicionistas de la época y su participación en la guerra civil en el bando de la unión. Aquí hay un paternalismo simplista que Wilde retoma más adelante cuando le quita toda capacidad de agencia humana, y paradógicamente individualidad, a los pobres y concluye que sin miseria material nadie cometería delitos. No es mi intención desmeritar la tesis de wilde por completo, pues posteriormente sería recogida por sociólogos contemporáneos como Robert Merton y posee potencial explicativo, pero con muchos matices necesarios, ya que no contempla variables que por ejemplo explican a los países pobres relativamente, pero con tasas de criminalidad bajas al mismo tiempo como Rwanda o Vietnam (la teoría tampoco explica crímenes como de odio o vandalismo). Sin embargo, no ayuda a quitar la suspicacia sobre el autor.

En conclusión, no puede culparse a Wilde por no conocer lo que, en su tiempo, aún estaba por descubrirse, estudiarse o teorizarse con mayor rigor. Tampoco se le puede reprochar la ausencia de una hoja de ruta —ni siquiera tímida— hacia ese reino contemplativo donde expresiones como “ganarse la vida” o “el honor” se volverían anacronismos absolutos. Un paisaje de individuos plenamente emancipados, en el que el socialismo —y aquí conviene subrayar que Wilde habría aborrecido las tiranías rojas e industriales que algunos tankies hoy celebran bajo la etiqueta de “repúblicas populares” o ese socialismo tropical lleno de conservadurismo social y chovinismo bolivariano que por desgracia aun existe en America Latina— hubiese erradicado la pobreza, y la ciencia, la enfermedad.
Wilde evade esa responsabilidad de diseñar un programa concreto con una honestidad peculiar: reconoce que su escenario es impráctico, y precisamente por eso puede proponerlo. Porque todo esquema práctico requiere construir sobre lo ya existente —y eso implicaría aceptar condiciones que él, radicalmente, se niega a validar.

[Madelyn · Rating 2 out of 5]

2 stars because the doctrine is faulty, would be 5 if it were based on writing. Thoroughly enjoyed understanding socialism from Wilde’s point of view, despite the blatant misrepresentation of scripture and reality.

[Mark André · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting. Well written.

[Jessie ツ · Rating 5 out of 5]

RTC, giving a 1 on 🌶️ scale bc Wilde is so bbg coded

[Петър Стойков · Rating 1 out of 5]

Оскар Уайлд е бил нежна, романтична и драматична душа и освен това, милият, очевидно е бил абсолютно куха лейка що се отнася до политиката и живият живот. В което няма нищо кой знае колко чудно, много хора, особено по-образованите младежи в Западния свят са същите - дотолкова, че Георги Марков преди бая години е посветил цяло есе на тях, а те още са си такива.

Мечтите на О. Уайлд относно човека и душата му при социализма са точно такива, каквито са мечтите на всеки млад и глупав фен на социализма и са само и точно това: мечти. Че всички хора ще живеят братски, ще се трудят отдадено, ще делят насъщния и ще имат време, възможност и желание да израстват духовно, да летят на крилата на мечтите си и т.н. и т.н. детски приказки, които крепят и възраждат изсъхналата мумия на тая безчовечна идеология отново и отново с нов и нов грим.

[oscar wilde to nawet nie jest on · Rating 4 out of 5]

„Ze sztuki zrobiłem filozofię, z filozofii - sztukę”

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

Oscar Wilde is one of my favorite authors. This book is full of Wilde's humor and wit, but in a way that turns political science into political art. His arguments are well thought out--especially when it comes to the differences between socialist and capitalist systems, and the effects of each on the individual.

In this book, he constructs a view of government that favors individualism in such a way that makes me wonder whether Ayn Rand ever read this. Wilde's view of a collective that cares for itself so that the man can act as an individual without having to work for a living not only makes sense, but it makes me say "Who cares who John Galt is." Wilde's idea that the government should provide for necessities so that men can provide art flies in the face of Rand's idea of civilization progressing toward a society of privacy. He rejects the idea that we gain happiness and fulfillment by working for our own possessions, and favors creating a society served by machines where men can be free to pursue higher goals like art.

Wilde loses me a little when he starts talking about Christ. The picture he paints of Christian philosophy is not at all what I read in The Sermon on the Mount--although at times I get glimpses. Wilde seems to have forgotten his Christian theology, favoring a Christ that is more concerned with politics than with the perfecting of mankind. Be that as it may, the idea of man rejecting wealth in favor of perfecting himself seems in line with Christian thinking.

Perhaps my favorite idea from this book is the idea that in capitalist society, man is what he owns. In a socialist society, man is what he is. Wilde states that people are punished more severely for taking a man's property than for violating a man's person--and in America, this seems correct when we apply the idea that it is okay to shoot someone who is trying to take your property. This seems upside down to me. Property is always replaceable; human life isn't. So, if a man's life becomes less important than a man's property, this is a flaw in capitalist thinking. Of course, John Locke's theories along these lines provided fodder for arguing that American colonists take up arms against the British in the 1770s--so it is probably unAmerican for me to even state these thoughts. I'll be watching for the unmanned drones flying over my house tonight . . .

Anyway, read this book--even if, and perhaps especially if, you are a conservative. Wilde's insights might help you understand the socialist point of view--if for no other reason, so that you can refute it more with more knowledge . . .

[The Nutmeg · Rating 1 out of 5]

Since this is technically an essay, I wasn't planning on using it for my reading challenge, but it was LONG and kinda PAINFUL and I need some kind of recompense for reading it.

Please note that I do not regret reading it, not one jot. It was intensely interesting. I had a lot of fun with the annotations. And it reminded me how very much I want to read Marx's Manifesto, and also that I should really revisit Rerum Novarum at some point, and basically brush up on my economic argument skills...

Anywho. The one star is because I disagreed with pretty much everything Wilde says here. Like his claim that hard work is degrading rather than dignified. And his progressive fervor for an earthly utopia. And his snobbery towards the poor and the public alike.

And my heart, he entirely missed the point of the Gospels. It HURTS how much that man missed the point. Somehow he interprets Jesus as telling us "You do you" instead of "Come, follow Me." And it...HURTS. I haven't known Oscar Wilde very long, but I feel like he could have deeply appreciated the relational aspects of Christianity, you know? Just cuz...he's so emotional and everything hinges on beauty and passion, and Christ's love for us is the most poignant form of that, and...

Oscar Fingal O'Flahertie Wills Wilde, dear, you're breaking my heart.

[سیاووش · Rating 4 out of 5]

عجب چیزی بود کاپیتان. اولاً من تا همین اواخر نمی‌دونستم اسکار وایلد راجع به سوسیالیسم نوشته و وقتی فهمیدم خیلی تعجب کردم؛ مردک اصلاً بهش نمی‌آد کوچک‌ترین دانش سیاسی‌ای داشته باشه این‌قدر که غرقه توی ایده‌هاش از هنر و فردیت و قس علی هذا. یعنی حتی وقتی با سیستم حاکم درمی‌افته – که زیاد این کارو می‌کنه – باز به نظر من هیچ وقت چیز سیاسی استخون‌داری نمی‌اومد، صرفاً تلاش برای نجات دادن کون خودش بود. ولی از قرار معلوم واقعاً یه چیزایی حالیشه. راجع به سوسیالیسم (به قول خودش یا کمونیسم؛ هرچی که تصمیم بگیریم اسمش رو بذاریم) به عنوان راه رسیدن به فردیت واقعی نگاه می‌کنه و کل مسئله‌ش دقیقاً همین فردیته، که توی دوره‌ای که سوسیالیسم توسط کسایی که فقط ازش شنیده‌ن و چیزی ازش نخونده‌ن در تضاد با فردیت درک می‌شه خوندنش خیلی جالبه. البته که اون وسط سراغ هنر هم می‌ره و طی صفحات طولانی راجع به رابطه‌ی هنر و قدرت بحث می‌کنه؛ که ربطشون به سوسیالیسم با این که وجود داشت خیلی مستقیم نبود ولی از دیدگاه جامعه‌شناسی هنر واقعاً جالب و درخور تفکر به نظر می‌آن. امیدوارم فرصتش پیش بیاد ترم بعد برای جامعه‌شناسی هنر این رو ارائه بدم. ضمناً یه تحلیل پیشابوردیویی از جورنالیسم هم داره که در نوع خودش خیلی جالبه. امیدوارم برم واقعاً بوردیو بخونم و مقایسه کنم حرفاشون رو. و اون وسط انگار می‌گه مسیح سوسیالیست بوده؟! نفهمیدم راجع به مسیح دقیقاً چی گفت ولی خیلی بامزه بود هرچی بود نثخزحسکمیخ.

[Tomasz]

„W oczach każdego, kto zna historię, nieposłuszeństwo jest podstawową cnotą człowieczą. To poprzez nieposłuszeństwo dokonywał się postęp, przez nieposłuszeństwo i bunt.”
Nie jestem w stanie ocenić eseju pod względem merytorycznym. Koncepcje ciekawe i faktycznie mocno utopijne, momentami sprzeczne, ale bardzo zgrabnie uporządkowane przez Cezarego Błaszczyka w drugiej części książki. Polecam głównie osobom zainteresowanym myślą anarchistyczną.

[Ivva Tadiashvili · Rating 5 out of 5]

ის ქვევითა ძველი რევიუა ეხლა ახალს დავუწერ. კიდევ ერთხელ წავიკითხე.
მოკლედ დილემის წინაშე ვარ შოპენჰაუერის მხარე დავიჭირო თუ ოსკარ უაილდის. მქონდეს ადამიანების იმედი თუ არა. ეს კითხვა სულ თან დამყვება და ორივე პოზაში ვარ ხოლმე. ოსკარა მშვენიერი პოეტია და ეს პატარა წიგნი მშვენიერი პოეტის მშვენიერი ფანტაზიაა. დიდი ხანია ძალიან არაემპათიური ვარ ადამიანების მიმართ. მათი ტრაგედიების და პრობლემების მიმართ ვარ არაემპათიური, და ეს რაღაცნაირად მაწუხებდა, როგორ ნუთუ საერთოდ არ თანავუგრძნობ ადამიანებს თქო. ეს წიგნი დამეხმარა იმ რამის პოვნაში რაშიც თანაგრძნობა შემიძლია და რაშიც მინდა მეც თანამიგრძნობდნენ. ეს არის აზროვნება, აზროვნებაში თანაგრძნობაა რთული თორე უფეხო ადამიანზე თანაგრძნობა უფრო ადვილია. ხოდა მეც მაგას მივხვდი, რომ არაემპათიური კი არ ვარ, პირიქით ძალიან ემპათიური ვარ როცა საქმე აზროვნებას ეხება და სხვებისგანაც თანაგრძნობას ზუსტად მაშინ ველი როცა მათ ჩემს აზრებს ვუზიარებ.
აქვე პატარა რამეს გაგიზიარებთ:
"მე კი უნდა მოგახსენოთ, რომ არა ჯანყი, არამედ სიმშვიდეა სისრულის ნიშანი. ო, რა მშვენიერი იქნება ნამდვილი ადამიანი, როცა ვიხილავთ მას! ის იყვავილებს ბუნებრივად და უბრალოდ, ვითარცა ყვავილი, ან ხე. განხეთქილება უცხო ხილი იქნება მისთვის. არასოდეს შეეცდება იგი კამათსა და დარწმუნებას, არ მოჰყვება დასაბუთებას, ყველაფერი ეცოდინება რაკი.
და მაინც: არაფერში დასჭირდება მას ცოდნა, სიბრძნე ეყვარება ოდენ. ის არ გაიზომება ნივთიერი დოვლათით. არაფერი ექნება და მაინც ყველაფერი ექნება მას. ხოლო თუკი წაართმევენ რაიმეს, მაინც ბევრი დარჩება, იმდენად მდიდარი იქნება იგი.
სხვებს დაანებებს თავს და არ მოითხოვს რომ სხვები ჰგავდნენ მას. ყველა ეყვარება, რაღაი ყველანი სხვადასხვანაირნი იქნებიან. თავს კი დაანებებს მეთქი სხვებს, მაგრამ ყველას დაეხმარება. აკი ყოველივე მშვენიერი გვშველის ხოლმე. უბრალოდ, იმიტომ, რომ ის ასეთია. მშვენიერი იქნება ადამიანი, ბავშვივით მშვენიერი!"
მშვენიერია ოსკარ უაილდი, ბავშვივით მშვენიერი <3


ოსკარ უაილდი ძალიან მიყვარს. მ���სი ზღაპრები და დორიანი. ძალიან კარგია რომ თარგმნეს ეს საოცარი წიგნიც. მგონი ეს დიდი წიგნის პატარა ნაწილია სოციალიზმის შესახებ, როგორც ვიცი ციხეში დაწერა ძალიან დიდი ნაშრომი. ოკსარ უაილდი მეოცნებე ტიპია, ასეთ სამყაროზე მეც მიოცნებია როგორიც მას უნდა რომ იყოს. კარგად მსჯელობს ბიბლიურ იგავებსაც საინტერესოდ ინტერპრეტირებს. მშვენიერი იქნებოდა სულ მოცალეობის ჟამი და სულ შემოქმედებითობა. თარგმანი მშვენიერია, ბონუსად პუშკინის საოცარი ლექსიც მოყვა. კომენტარებიც არც ისე ვრცელი მაგრამ მაინც საკმაოდ ინფორმაციული ქონდა.

[Iuliana · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is mentally and morally injurious to man to do anything in which he does not find pleasure, and many forms of labour are quite pleasureless activities, and should be regarded as such. To sweep a slushy crossing for eight hours, on a day when the east wind is blowing is a disgusting occupation. To sweep it with mental, moral, or physical dignity seems to me to be impossible. To sweep it with joy would be appalling. Man is made for something better than disturbing dirt. All work of that kind should be done by a machine.

Reading this essay while commuting to my 9-to-5 job feels like committing the gravest sin. Mr. Wilde must be rolling in his grave.