At the moment, we live in a society that is largely absent of Utopian visions of the future. There are some exceptions, such as Elon Musk and Space X trying to go to Mars, but generally, there are few if any "positive" depictions of the future. We seem to be trapped in a downward spiral of believing the worst only for it to then be fulfilled and feel powerless to change course.
I think at least part of the problem is that in the course of the 20th century Utopianism became closely associated with Totalitarianism (both Communist, Fascist and Nazi). In order for society to progress, it must mean that the majority of people agree to move on. implicit in the concept of progressing towards a utopia therefore is the belief that "reactionary" view points die out and that people will chose "progress" as it is in their self-interest. Utopianism is particularly opposed to free markets and competitive capitalism which are often beyond the control of the state to "plan" and "engineer" into an ideal form. the anarchy of competition is not susceptible to "progress" and creates a great deal of uncertainty about the outcomes of various market transactions. In order to achieve utopia, there must be control and the source of that control is ussually the state.
In some ways the tension goes back to the French Revolution in which they tried to create an ideal society based on the "reign of virtue" but instead ended up producing the "reign of terror" by trying to control people and select out those traits they thought were undesirable. roughly the same principle was then adopted later on in the 20th century, with explicit references to class conflict and social Darwinist struggle for survival. If a brighter future was going to succeed, it has to destroy those reactionary forces that held us back and got in the way of progress.
Such Utopianism is totalitarian in that everyone must conform to the same concept of "progress" and moreover. it is not enough to build a good society, but also to populate it with "good" people who fulfil their obligations to realise the master plan to achieve the greater good. people must have the power to implement that utopia by social engineering certain behaviour or social states. The Nazis wanted a biological utopia in which they could "improve" the racial hygiene of the population by eugenics; the Communists wanted a technological and economic utopia in which there would be such abundance, that class conflict would no longer be necessary; Fascists idealised the state as the source of power to direct society, etc.
Now, the ideas of personal liberty and social progress are very much opposed. We may want to "progress" to a society without racism, sexism or homophobia, but risk loosing free speech, freedom of press and expression. We may want to progress to a secular society without religious motivated violence and terrorism where people are highly educated on the basis of science, but risk endangering freedom of religion. We may want to have the most advanced technology and scientific inventions, but are extremely pessimistic about the human ability to make decisions on its use, such as wide nuclear weapons, nuclear power, GM crops, etc. We may want to eliminate unemployment, poverty, hunger and economic crises, but only at the cost of sacrificing economic freedom in the marketplace. This contradiction between individual freedom and the "general welfare" makes it hard to sustain Democratic Socialism; it is difficult to be stay Socialist as a Democracy that gives people the freedom to chose whether or not to be Socialist. What happens if the people vote for Capitalists? It can be argued that one or the other must take presence, whether it is the freedom of the people to determine their own fate in a democracy, or the freedom of the planner to plan society according to their wishes to build a socialist utopia.
So, I wondered what other people's thoughts were on this. I voted "Yes, probably" in the Poll but I am wide open to suggestions and alternatives if you have one.
I think at least part of the problem is that in the course of the 20th century Utopianism became closely associated with Totalitarianism (both Communist, Fascist and Nazi). In order for society to progress, it must mean that the majority of people agree to move on. implicit in the concept of progressing towards a utopia therefore is the belief that "reactionary" view points die out and that people will chose "progress" as it is in their self-interest. Utopianism is particularly opposed to free markets and competitive capitalism which are often beyond the control of the state to "plan" and "engineer" into an ideal form. the anarchy of competition is not susceptible to "progress" and creates a great deal of uncertainty about the outcomes of various market transactions. In order to achieve utopia, there must be control and the source of that control is ussually the state.
In some ways the tension goes back to the French Revolution in which they tried to create an ideal society based on the "reign of virtue" but instead ended up producing the "reign of terror" by trying to control people and select out those traits they thought were undesirable. roughly the same principle was then adopted later on in the 20th century, with explicit references to class conflict and social Darwinist struggle for survival. If a brighter future was going to succeed, it has to destroy those reactionary forces that held us back and got in the way of progress.
Such Utopianism is totalitarian in that everyone must conform to the same concept of "progress" and moreover. it is not enough to build a good society, but also to populate it with "good" people who fulfil their obligations to realise the master plan to achieve the greater good. people must have the power to implement that utopia by social engineering certain behaviour or social states. The Nazis wanted a biological utopia in which they could "improve" the racial hygiene of the population by eugenics; the Communists wanted a technological and economic utopia in which there would be such abundance, that class conflict would no longer be necessary; Fascists idealised the state as the source of power to direct society, etc.
Now, the ideas of personal liberty and social progress are very much opposed. We may want to "progress" to a society without racism, sexism or homophobia, but risk loosing free speech, freedom of press and expression. We may want to progress to a secular society without religious motivated violence and terrorism where people are highly educated on the basis of science, but risk endangering freedom of religion. We may want to have the most advanced technology and scientific inventions, but are extremely pessimistic about the human ability to make decisions on its use, such as wide nuclear weapons, nuclear power, GM crops, etc. We may want to eliminate unemployment, poverty, hunger and economic crises, but only at the cost of sacrificing economic freedom in the marketplace. This contradiction between individual freedom and the "general welfare" makes it hard to sustain Democratic Socialism; it is difficult to be stay Socialist as a Democracy that gives people the freedom to chose whether or not to be Socialist. What happens if the people vote for Capitalists? It can be argued that one or the other must take presence, whether it is the freedom of the people to determine their own fate in a democracy, or the freedom of the planner to plan society according to their wishes to build a socialist utopia.
So, I wondered what other people's thoughts were on this. I voted "Yes, probably" in the Poll but I am wide open to suggestions and alternatives if you have one.
