David Leopold

Socialism and (the rejection of) utopia

A study of some of the many connections (both conceptual and historical) between socialism and utopia, this article examines the socialist rejection of utopia using the examples of Marxism (Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels) and early Fabianism (Sidney Webb and H.G. Wells). Once the concept of utopia is unpacked (as intentional community, a vision of an ideal society, a detailed description of an ideal society, and a literary genre), the socialist rejection of utopia turns out to be (at most) partial, and not always persuasive.

Education and Utopia: Robert Owen and Charles Fourier

The aims of education, and the appropriate means of realising them, are a recurring preoccupation of utopian authors. The utopian socialists Robert Owen (1771–1858) and Charles Fourier (1772–1837) both place human nature at the core of their educational views, and both see education as central to their wider objective of social and political transformation. The greatest philosophical difference between them concerns human nature: whereas Owen saw character as plastic and open to creation, Fourier saw it as God-given and liable to discovery. The most striking practical difference concerns their institutional recommendations: whereas Owen saw schooling as taking place in largely conventional spaces, Fourier sought to integrate education into the community—his ideal society contains no schools and no teachers. Both authors had some (limited and often indirect) practical influence on educational practice, despite the failure of their wider ambitions for social reform.

A Solitary Life

Der Einzige und sein Eigentum is an unusual and intriguing text.1 It is perhaps the unconventional character of both the substantive content and literary form of the book that leads so many readers to wonder about its author, Max Stirner (1806–1856), and about the kind of life that he might have lived. In this chapter, I provide some biographical information about Stirner, and, rather more tentatively, broach some questions about the relationship between his life and work — in particular, the relationship between his life and the singular book with which he is closely identified.