CHAPTER – VI
SHELLEY AS A SOCIALIST
6.1. Introduction
Shelley did not stop with his imagination for an idealistic society. More than that, he
played the role of a propagandist for a social change. He bubbled with optimism of a social
revolution as inevitable as the arrival of spring on the heels of winter. This is his thinking based
on dialectics of nature as well as society. In his ‘Song to the Men of England’, he gave a call to
‘sow seed but do not allow the tyrants reap,… forge arms in your defence to bear’ and his call to
‘rise like lions after slumber in unvanquishable number’. His understanding of surplus labour
‘exploitation’ and class struggle identify him as a socialist of the modern times.
In a letter to Elizabeth Hitchener, in August, 1811, Shelley had given his views on the
relationship of aristocratic dictatorship to commercial monopoly: both control wealth and use it
for exploitation. “Both are flagrant encroachments on liberty”; both must be eliminated before
progress is possible; “neither can be used as an antidote for the poison of the other.” 1 Having
treated the former in Canto IV, he proceeds to the latter in
Canto V: ‘Queen Mab’
“Hence commerce springs, the venal interchange
Of all that human art or nature yield” - V-38-40
The attack, which follows, on commercial wealth as the source of economic inequalities
and exploitation, imperialism and war and the psychological distortion of the individual is one of
the most powerful in the poem.
Vast wealth in the hands of a few, poverty of the many is the law of the existing system,
and its curse blights not only on the many but on the few also. Both are ‘poisoned body and soul’
the wealthy suffer from “full-fed disease (A Vindication of Natural Diet), the poor from “pining
famine” (a favourite theme in the Pratt’s ‘Cottage Pictures of the Poor’2. Pratt’s sentiments on
Famine as a goad to revolution may have blended with a similar sentiment in Coleridge;
78
Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.
Both are psychologically corrupted, and the whole given theoretical justification by the
prevailing Adam Smith doctrines of benign imperialism:
The harmony and happiness of man
Yields to the wealth of nations,
The weight that drags to earth his towering hopes,
Blighting as prospects but of selfish gain,
Withering all passion but of slavish fear.
(V – 79-83)
Shelley condemns that the middle class too suffers from this general corruption of society;
their sons too can be dragged off to war, their wives driven insane. But they do not see the full
horror of the system; they can be confused by the “cold sophistry” of the ruling class. The poor
man on the other hand does not suffer intermittently but continuously; the hunger of his children
is ever with him and their ‘pale mother’s uncomplaining gaze”; he “wakens but to fruitless toil”,
and the heartbreaking scene of thousands like himself”, poverty and misery akin to that which
Shelley had witnessed in Ireland and Wales, and doubtless, in Edinburgh and London also. The
worker, unlike the middle class “man of ease” is not deceived by “the vain and bitter mockery of
words”:
Feeling the horror of the tyrant’s deeds,
And unrestrained but by arm of power
That knows and dreads his enmity
-Queen Mab V 123-125
Earlier glimpses of Shelley as a rebel are seen in Queen Mab. He denounces statesmen,
priests and warriors, “War is the statesman’s game, a priest’s delight.” His righteous fury against
tyranny is seen in Queen Mab, “Power like a desolating pestilence” etc. He explodes on seeing
the crushed life of the poor:
“Whose life is mercy and fear and care
Who the man wakens to fruitless toil
Who hears his famished offspring’s scream” – Queen Mab
79
Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.
In ‘Prometheus Unbound’, Prometheus is a rebel like Shelley himself. His character is
embodiment of all that is good in suffering humanity. The poem is an allegory. Shelley sought to
reform the existing society in preparation for realizing his ideal. He wanted the world free from
all evils, free from domination of tyrants and exploiters.
Quote from ‘Prometheus Unbound’:
“A brighter morn awaits the human day -------Quote from ‘His Song to the Men of England’ – to eradicate exploitation
‘Sow seed but let no tyrant reap etc.
Stanza -6
Quote from ‘The Mask of Anarchy’:
‘Rise like lions after slumber’
(Ref. ‘Manifesto of the Communist Party’, ‘You have nothing to lose but your chains‘. l l 367372)
What Shelley sounded in ‘Queen Mab’, ‘The Mask of Anarchy’, ‘Song to the Men of
England’ has come as slogans for the reformers in the 19th century.
‘Queen Mab’ wass the bible for Chartist Movement and their battle cry to audience was
‘rise like lions after slumber.’
Today Shelley is considered a prophet and idealist. A man far in advance of his times in
reformative zeal
‘Heroic death is praised by all, martyrdom
by Christians; suicide by Stoics’.
Milton’s Paradise Lost (XI-549) says:
“nor love thy life nor hate”
80
Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.
6.2. Shelly’s Development as a Socialist
England was taking up the Whiteman's burden with profitable resignation...... (This refers
to the view of Rudyard Kipling’s Whiteman’s burden and the champion of imperialism, Adam
Smith’s poem on benign imperialism) The fierce hopes and fears engendered by the French
Revolution and its aftermath belonged to the closed chapter of human progress.
In this atmosphere, Shelley was one of the great English poets. Practically everyone
thought so now. Yet in everything that really mattered to him except purely personal emotions
and his fine art, he was dead wrong.
Karl Marx is reported to have said that, had Shelley lived, he would “always have been
one of the advance guards of Socialism”. But if he meant Marxian Socialism or Communism, he
was as badly mistaken as the later Browning in suggesting that Shelley would in the end have
turned Christian.3
Godwin’s Utopia is neither socialistic nor communistic. He did not, as did Owen, look to
state regulation of unified economic system, balancing production and consumption, nor as did
Marx to a communist society based on a high level of industrial production. In fact, he has little
conception of economic progress at all, least of all industrial progress.
While Paine's revolutionary tactics could – as the Amercian and French examples showed
– produce results, Godwin's genteel propaganda campaign would have provided nothing. In this
opposition to political organization, Shelley and Godwin parted ways. Shelley's letter to Hunt
from Oxford is based on the establishment of political organisation, although he had by then read
Godwin’s ‘Enquiry Concerning Political Justice’ and the following year he vigorously challenged
Godwin's views.
In spite of this weakness in Godwin, however, in many ways he penetrated deeper than did
the republicans. By emphasizing economic inequality, as they had not, he gained a deeper insight
into many aspects of the existing order... And his doctrine of necessity, despite its mechanistic
oversimplifications, provided a philosophical basis for radical theory.
81
Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.
Such, in brief, was the thinking that laid the foundations for Shelley's philosophy, what he
later learned from such political thinkers as Cobbet or Hunt or Bentham did not change his
fundamental pattern but was assimilated into it and his later experiences in England, Ireland and
Italy confirmed its correctness.
From his father and grandfather he had early imbibed the liberal creed of Whiggism:
Parliamentary reform, Catholic emancipation and the cause of Ireland, the folly of war against
France. At that time these ideas did not capture his imagination which was wrapped up in
fascination of science and occult (his earlier writings of novel 1809- 1810).
But many seeds were then laid, which later came to fruition. Without this early Whig
pattern, Shelley’s mind could not have become receptive to the more extreme radicalism of
Burdett and the republicans and these later ideas especially Condorcet’s perfectibilian visions,
gave new meanings to earlier ones.
His serious political thoughts blossomed gradually with ‘The Posthumous Fragments of
Margaret Nicholson’. In March, the letter to Hunt, the ‘votary of romance’ has become a reformer
and a republican; his believers in extra-parliamentary action for achieving the parliamentary
reform, allying himself with Burdett and Hunt. Also he believes that final solution to such evils as
war and exploitation lie in the establishment of a republic. To these rapidly developing views,
new beginning to grasp his imagination (and not his intellect only) with same force with a
thrilling perspective for political justice began to open out. All his previous political views began
to coalesce into the greater vision of Godwin and to receive new meaning in the process. One
could battle now for parliamentary reform, freedom of Ireland and abolition of monarchial system
with a new strengths for those things were not goals in themselves but a part of a vaster picture.
Then his clarion calls to those who labour, to rebel:
“Sow seed, but let not tyrant reap
Find wealth let not imposter heap
Weave robes – let not the idle wear
Forge arms – in your defence to bear”
(Song to Men of England)
82
Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.
Is not this call bearing close resemblance to the call of the social revolutionaries of 1848
Continental Revolution and pre-Marx socialist revolutionaries? Shelley repeats his disdain against
exploitation of labour and expropriation of the fruits of other’s labour.
“Whence thinkest thou, kings and parasites arose
Whence that unnatural line of drones, who heap
Toil and unvanquishable penury
On those who build their palaces and bring
Their daily bread? From vice, black and loathsome vice?”
(Queen Mab. .)
Through his brilliant poetical works, Shelley came nearer to socialist thinking as early as
in the second decade of the 19th century. Edward Aveling and Eleanor Marx Aveling excellently
described Shelley's perception of class struggle, “More than anything else that makes us claim
Shelley as a socialist in his singular understanding of the facts that today tyranny resolves into the
tyranny of the possessing class over the producing and that this tyranny in the ultimate analysis is
traceable almost all evil and misery”4
Shelley’s father and grandfather were political dependents of Duke of Norfolk, a radical
Whig who supported American Revolution, opposed the war with France and championed Irish
Independence. The radical Whigs were at times – especially when out of office – were fiery and
Shelley imbibed some of their fire. Even as a school boy at Eton he was opposed to war with
France. By his last year at Eton, he had begun to move beyond the Whig’s first republicanism and
then to Godwinian egalitarianism.
The span of Shelley’s life saw the rise of the first Industrial civilization, first great national
revolutions – American and French – the first modern type war – Napoleonic wars, the first major
development of both a city middle class and industrial working class. Shelley was influenced by
Rousseau and Bahoef, British materialist philosophers and also by Thomas Paine, Godwin,
Diderot, Holbach and Voltaire. After his expulsion from Oxford for his ‘The Necessity of
Atheism’, he took active part in the movement for freedom of Ireland and was close to the leaders
of the United Ireland Party.
83
Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.
6.3. Shelley’s vision of Socialism
The briefest statement on socialism is:
1) The existence of social inequality and misery
2) The social inequality and misery of masses with the happiness of a few are the outcome of
the social conditions
3) The mass of the people, that is the working people produce commodities by their labour
and distribute them while a minority of the people- the middle and upper classes possess
these commodities.
4) The initial tyranny of the possessing class over the producing class is based on the present
wage system and now maintaining all other forms of oppression.
5) This tyranny of the few over the many is possible because the few have obtained the land,
new raw materials, the machineries, the banks, the railways – means of production and
this class obtained these means by either force or fraud.
6) The approaching change in civilized society will be a revolution or in the words of
Shelley, “the system human society as it exists at present must be overthrown from the
foundations”. (In the letter written to Leigh Hunt on May 1st, 1820).
7) The two classes at present existing will be replaced by a single class consisting of the
whole of the healthy and sane members of the community in common and working
common for the production and distribution of commodities.
Shelley was a great teacher as well as a poet. He was guided by the teachings of Baboeuf
and the Rousseau of the social contract theory. As goes the saying a wise child knows his own
father, Karl Marx who understood the poets as well as he understood the philosophers and
economists. Marx had said ‘the real difference between Byron and Shelley is this: those who
understand them and live them rejoice that Byron died at thirty six because, if he had lived he
would have become a reactionary bourgeoisie; they grieve that Shelley died at twenty nine
because he was essentially a revolutionist and he would always have been one of the advanced
guard of socialism.
84
Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.
His understanding of the real meaning of terms is indicative of his working class
approach. For example the word anarchy was seen by Shelley as God, King and Law and also
Capitalism. The word freedom was non-existent in England. He wrote
“The white shore of Albion free no more....The abortion with which she travaileth is Liberty,
smitten to death”.
He described the cruelty of the governing class. He said that the tyrannical class would not
hesitate any means be it unofficial use of forces or twisting of Laws or judicial murders etc. just to
maintain its position of supremacy.
Regarding the term crime – Shelley recognized it as a natural result of social conditions.
The criminal was to him as much a creature of the society in which he lived as the capitalist or the
monarch. “Society”, he said, “grinds down poor wretches into the dust of abject poverty, till they
are scarcely recognizable as human beings”. In his literal discussions with Miss. Hitchener,
Shelley more than once asks whether with a juster distribution of happiness, of toil and leisure,
crime and the temptation to crime would not almost cease to exist. And much that is called crime
was to Shelley, only crime by convention. (Preface to ‘Laon and Cythna’).
6.4. On Property
The following quotation from Shelley’s work (D II 295) explains Shelley’s opinion on
property as to what could be a person’s own property and what is enjoyed by any person.
“Labour, Industry, economy, skill, genius or any similar powers honourably or innocently
exerted are the foundation of property. All true political institutions ought to defend every man in
the exercise of his discretion with respect to property, so acquired….But there is another species
of property which has its foundation in usurpation, or imposture or violence without which by
nature of things, immense aggregations of property could never have been accumulated (D ii
295).
This quotation can be paraphrased as, “A man has a right to anything his own labour has
produced and that he does not intend to employ for the purpose of injuring his fellows. But no
85
Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.
man can himself acquire a considerable aggregation of property except at the expense of his
fellows. He must either cheat a certain number out of the value of it or take it by force.”
This explanation runs similar to the explanation of “property” by modern socialist
language. Further his song to ‘Men of England’ cautions ‘the wealth ye find another keeps’ and
his writing that source of all wealth is human labour and that not the labour of the possessor of
that wealth.
These assertions amply confirm the nature of his perceptions as one similar to the
concepts of modern socialism.
Further in the poem, “Song to the Men of England”, Shelley writes
“People of England, ye who toil and groan
Who reap the harvests which are not your own
Who weave the clothes which your oppressors wear?
And for your own take the inclement air
Who build warm houses?
And are like Gods who give them all they have
And nurse them from the cradle to the grave…….”
Further while discussing the entailment of his estate, he had stated that he should entail
120000 pounds of command over labour, meaning the power to employ it for the beneficent
purposes. He had spoken this only with the knowledge of labour power, labour and value of
commodities. He saw that this value lay in the command over human labour. The socialist
believes that these means of production and distribution should be the property of the community.
The possessor of this property dictates the terms for employing the labour of the person in nonpossessing class and appropriates his surplus labour. This surplus value accumulates as wealth for
the possessing class.
The person who employs labour becomes richer not by his labour, but by the unpaid
labour of the unpossesssed labourer. This was the teaching of Shelley. This is in harmony with
the socialistic thought.
86
Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.
This is the teaching of socialism and Shelley’s perception and teaching are the same as
that of the socialists. So, the people with deeper understanding of his writings, claim him to be a
socialist.
In 1999, BBC had adjudged Marx as the greatest thinker of the Millennium. The critics of
Marx naively conceived the set back to Soviet Union as the end of Marxism and “the end point of
mankind’s ideological evolution” (e.g. Francis Fukuyama of Japan). The critics have been proved
terribly wrong! At the dawn of new millennium, Marx has returned with a vengeance, bigger,
more relevant than ever before.
Globalization and the new Shape of Capitalist economy – the phenomenon of big fish
swallowing the smaller fish reaching a climax- as Marx perceived, have come again now – The
present day great economic crises –The Sao Paola (Brazil) Declaration of Workers’ Parties (Nov.
2008) declaring Socialism as the alternative road to real and total independence of peoples and
only way to put an end to destructive crisis of capitalism and its call for struggles to establish a
new society free from exploitation and oppressions world over. Shelly gave voice to the aspiration
and yearnings to the voiceless nearly 200 years ago. But the ideals articulated by Shelley continue
to remain the perception of peoples’ struggles even today. It would remain so till the goal of the
peoples’ struggles for their alleviation from exploitation and oppression is achieved some day.
6.5. Conclusion
From his grandfather and father, Shelley imbibed the creed of Whiggism. They are
Parliamentary Reform, Catholic Emancipation and the cause of Ireland and the folly of war
against France. His serious political thoughts blossomed gradually with ‘Posthumous Fragments
of Margaret Nicholson’. His previous political views began to coalesce into greater vision of
Godwin and to receive new meaning in the process. He developed thinking with wider
perspective. With his ‘Song to the Men of England’ and earlier poem of Queen Mab, his thinking
came nearer to that of socialist thinking. What makes one to claim Shelley for a socialist was his
understanding that the tyranny of possessing class was responsible for almost all evil and misery.
He contended that source of wealth was human labour and not the labour of the possessor of
87
Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.
wealth. The surplus value of labour accumulates as wealth for possessing class. His teachings are
nearer to thinking of modern socialists. His socialistic thoughts and perception of mass struggles
are yet inspiring the new generations of thinkers.
Notes
1) Cameron, Kenneth Neil, ‘The young Shelley – Genesis of a Radical’-The Macmillan
Company, New York, 1950, P.P. 252 -254
2) Pratt, Samuel Jackson, ‘Cottage Pictures of the Poor’ London 1805
3) Cameron, Kenneth Neil, ‘The young Shelley – Genesis of a Radical’- The Macmillan
Company, New York, 1950, P. 66
4) Aveling Edward and Eleanor Marx Aveling’s lecture on ‘Shelley’s Socialism’
88
Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.