Money is the governing factor so the wealthy banks control the government, that's not a partnership. The government is its enforcement thug and a buffer (blame depository) between them and the people. Physical cash yes, like the Greenbacks, a debt-free permanently circulating asset. Precious metal systems have caused more depressions that any other system. Commodity money is not good because the commodity is controlled by private wealth, same as credit is today. We need a real money system, money used as money, not a commodity, not credit used as money. greensformonetaryreform.org
Wow! A fun idea for a post, and it's prompted quite the discussion in comments -- it seems like it provides an open space for people to think about what Utopia means to them.
I too want to use this as an opportunity to pull together a couple of thoughts. I've asked occasionally about how you would define an utopia (and made my own attempt here: https://substack.com/profile/5904720-nicks-wa/note/c-21525964 ) but I think that might be asking the wrong question.
Perhaps a better way to frame it would be to ask, what is the relationship between utopian thinking and our current reality? Do we look to utopian visions for a plan of something achievable, or is it just a thought experiment ("what if?")?
We can see a range in the utopias that you've written about. _Half Earth Socialism_ is presented as a plan, whereas William Morris is more of a "what if" (particularly for a contemporary audience).
Similarly, this post raises the question of how we should feel about the gap between reality and our goals for the future -- how do we balance being motivated for change, saddened by the gap, or just intrigued or curious to inhabit a shared dream for a while.
I don't think we have to pick one (and everybody will inevitably have a different set of assumptions about utopia) but I think it is helpful to occasionally be precise about, "why do I call this vision utopian and what does that mean. Do I intend it to fill a purpose?"
You're right, maybe defining utopia isn't the right question. Because it's different for everyone! (And for every utopian model we've studied so far!)
I think bettering the future is achievable, but it's worth playing out "what if" thought experiments to decide what that better future could look like, or what we want to achieve, as well as how we could get there. Those things all go together and I love exploring all of them. (As well as exploring philosophically what would make our lives better on an individual level!)
I thought it was interesting, for example, when in my post on what a future economy could look like, Peter Clayborne commented that it was a future he would love to achieve, but that he would prefer to get there with anarchism rather than capitalism. Isn't that interesting that we could have the same vision for the future, but a different path of getting there? https://www.elysian.press/p/the-ideal-economy-in-2100
Overtime, I am probably developing a manifesto of sorts, a sort of "here are the ways I would better the world if I could—my own utopia," but I don't think it matters that people have the same vision that I do. I think it's more important that we get people to think about what a better future could look like and how we could achieve it. That's enough of an alignment.
In the 1900s-1930s every country was going through the same thing: figuring out how to standardize the workweek, adding a minimum wage, adding a pension or social security, setting up unemployment systems—even though we all did it slightly differently. That's because there was this communal sense at the time that workers needed to be treated better, and then once some countries figured out a working model, every other one followed suit, albeit slightly differently from one another.
I think that's what we'll do now. But we need that communal spirit again. We need to have some kind of communal vision that we want to achieve, even if every country will get there slightly differently. I think we already have some of those visions: universal healthcare, figuring out how to tax wealth, etc. We all seem to be turning those leafs at the same time. But the more we can continue to do that the better! The more we can have these ideas people get behind en masse, the more they happen.
Is that a utopian vision? Not really. It's just a bunch of people having a bunch of ideas. But those ideas eventually take hold and become something that we make happen!
I will slowly be more precise about my ideas as I figure them out. But again, it's just one set of ideas!
When I read the original post I thought, "I am not a nemesis, I am the most boring of types, a liberal incrementalist."
I sometimes struggle with the term "utopia" or "utopian" because I do think of that as being in contrast to an incrementalist vision of ("try to solve problems; have some successes and some failures; continue trying.") and it's taken me a while of reading The Elysian to realize that you find the idea of utopia inspiring but (I think) in many ways your practical impulses are often liberal incrementalist.
at this point, i'm very envious of the humble liberal incrementalists, let alone the utopian visionaries... while Elle has managed to stay admirably ecumenical on this point, i can't imagine a definition of "utopia" that doesn't require some form of central governance—and i think the coming century is going to be brutal for governments of all stripes. the idea that any political or ideological modeling can anticipate the roiling destabilization that the future portends seems to require ironclad optimism. but, like i've said to Elle, i wouldn't dream of trying to talk anyone out of hoping.
Well yes, as you know I agree with you. But not because I can't imagine a utopia that doesn't require some form of central governance. But because I can't imagine a community (period) that doesn't require some form of central governance. Whether utopian or dystopian.
i know, this gets a little pedantic, but i think it's an important question: is there a meaningful distinction between leadership and governance? (this would be a good one for any political scientists in our audience!) in my mind, for most of human history, communities have coalesced around central leadership, which is dynamic, organic, immediate, and situational. i would contrast that with governance, which connotes a more rigid, self-perpetuating, bureaucratic, impersonal structure. again—a pedantic distinction, but i think there's something there.
Hmmmmm that feels like a bias to me (that leadership gets all the good words and government gets all the bad ones). A leader can be dynamic or rigid, bureaucratic or not. So can governance.
If you want to make a distinction between leading a small group vs. leading a very large group, maybe then you could say there are those kinds of distinctions??
Oh well yes, that describes me perfectly! And I don't think that's antihtetical to a utopian vision—just because how else would you get to a better future apart from trying things, figuring out what works and what doesn't, and incrementally improving as you go?
I am beside myself with this post. First: I am so jealous that you have a nemesis. Second, your rival posits a very interesting premise about the utopian genre that I’m drawn to. Third: I have found my Esteemed Sovereign. /s
I would tend to agree with R. G. My brain cannot conceive of a paradise without the struggle to create it. What moves me is how we get to that more optimal place and that it can be done. There are only pieces of a better future formed by each of us, using our wit or even channeling our grief. My sci fi series set in the same universe (which needs a damn title), explores some of those tough moments and conflict that are part of creating better. I love the idea of feeling like we peel off the layers of strife. It’s more satisfying in the end.
Bahahahaha! It is rather fun to have a nemesis, I must admit.
I personally believe that utopia is an evolution, not an end goal, and we talk more about that in the series, but I very much agree that there is a community element and a personal responsibility to find utopia as well. Have you published any chapters from your sci fi series yet?
A couple short fiction pieces I’ve released since Ithaka has been in the same universe, including the most recent under “Always Remaining a Student of History”, though I’d like to write proper prequels and tag them as such.
Agreed on personal and community facets to utopia. Someone can’t know peace if they aren’t at peace.
The main story is Ithaka which is in the podcast section. A couple other stories are in the same universe at different times. I’ll have to get them all in one place.
Interesting, Ellie, this could be a very productive collaboration. I can’t imagine a top-down society that isn’t a dystopia rather than a utopia it is just the nature of top-down. I think we are living in a top-down dystopia. A vision of a world that restores the wild, where top-down control does not exist, or only in small concerns, and people manage to live well appeals to me. I do think it is important to have a positive (utopian) vision of the future but one that includes a realistic path for getting there.
Thomas Moore’s Utopia I’m told presented themes such as wealth, power, slavery, and causes of injustice. The overarching theme throughout the book is the ideal nature of a Utopian society. In Utopia, there is no greed, corruption, or power struggles because there is no money or private property. Some utopian writers like Ursula Le Guin and Robert Heinlein and probably others, sought a different kind of money rather that eliminating it. Money is an ancient human innovation older than the wheel. The fact that the money system has been privatized for power and profit is the reason it must be changed.
A society with no greed and no corruption are critical elements of a utopian society, however I think eliminating money and all private property could lead to endless power struggles. If “private property” refers only to the land then I agree totally, the land should be freed from private ownership, but the wealth that an individual creates for themselves should be his private property.
I also understand those who want to get rid of money. The money used as our exchange medium in society world-around today is a 300+ year old system but money plays two roles. Money is also an instrument of power, and that power has been brutally abused by those who control the creation and allocation of our money. Such a private for-profit monetary system is institutionalized usury: the abuse of monetary authority for personal gain. All our money is issued as interest-bearing debt for private profit which drives destructive economic growth. This system is an outgrowth of patriarchy.
I think any viable initiative for change will include changing the money from a private for-profit system to a public for-care system. I think the merchant economist Silvio Gesell had a practical though wild vision of utopia. Here is a paper that summarizes what he wrote on his book The Natural Economic Order which to me describes a utopia. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/werner-onken-a-market-economy-without-capitalism
How fascinating. I think there are lots of utopian governments currently in existence (and I'll be studying them this fall!) So I do believe that it's possible to have a top-down utopia. Though I also think democracy is the best kind of top-down utopia we have thus far managed just because it is still at least influenced by the bottom-up. Maybe there's a better iteration of that coming though.....
Love this! It's a very interesting way to share both your views. I loved the phrase:"People aren't suffering from a lack of brave new worlds to imagine but from a glut of them."
Of course there is, but that would be just a beautiful life for you. A Utopia is a state, so we are all subjected to it. The very goal of creating a Utopia is why idealistic approaches fail. Far better to live and let live, and let people discover their private world that suits them. That would feel utopian to the individual, but would not in fact be a Utopian state.
Utopian narratives are fine. We have been writing them for thousands of years and they help inspire people, or at least make them think about what could be. So I am all for that. I am just against an authority imposing one on me 😜
Yes, that is true that we are all subjected to our states. But the state can assure that we have utopian or dystopian lives at baseline, so that we have the freedom to live and let live. No?
No. A state can only ever create a dystopia. A Utopia is impossible because we all have our own ideas as to what it would look like.
Therefore striving for Utopia itself is dystopian, lol. Someone is bound to find your Utopia a living hell.
In practice all that works is a basic set of rules, like a constitution, then enough freedom for the maximum number to find their own private Nirvana. In a meta sense that level of freedom to pursue your own thing would be a kind of Utopia, just to add the confusion 😜
So are there no utopian states then? No countries that are nice to live in and allow us the freedom to live good lives?
(I agree that someone is "bound to find your utopia a living hell" but I'm not sure I would agree that that means everything is dystopian. By that logic you could just as easily say someone is "bound to find your dystopia paradise" and determine that everything is utopian!)
Nothing is so binary, utopian or dystopian. But no, no one has ever created a Utopia. It is impossible. There are just places that suit you. Some westerners for example find Tokyo appealing, even though most would find it challenging. Most women would find Afghanistan impossible.
Remember, I was originally commenting on the notion of creating a Utopia.
Elle and I definitely get into this territory later in our exchange, although i prefer not to think of it as zero-sum. there are wider possibilities both within and outside the State—although, as you'll see further on in this series, we miss them if we think of it as a simple binary.
I am sure, and I would be interested to read. I just thought I would blunder in and give my view.
I am wary of Utopias, and we know how Utopian schemes went in the last century. As a thing in fiction, creating a world, that is fine. But in the real world, rather less so.
That’s an interesting idea. Who gets to say what is utopian? I would suggest that there is definitely a ways to go from our current state and while not defined as an individualized vision of utopia, we can certainly try removing certain barriers that are very well agreed upon as detrimental.
Well, this looks like an interesting exchange to watch. As someone who likes to write dystopic fiction (think 1984 or Animal Farm, only not so well written, much more fictional, and sometimes much lighter) I definitely have a dog in this fight. My inclination, too, is to believe that a utopia must, almost by definition, have some sort of powerful government. Indeed my critique of Libertarianism is that I think it would only work in a dictatorship. The book 'Freehold', for example, brings up some of these conflicts.
Yes, I agree that there is some level of utopia or dystopia thrust upon us by our governments. But why must that government be a dictatorship? There are certainly democratic utopias no?
Let's suppose that it was decided to have a 'naturist' utopia. The way to peace and freedom and all good things was for us all to run around naked all of the time.
Let us further suppose that this was decided by a democratic vote. 51% of the people (after a very active campaign) won the vote.
That would still leave the 49%. And either the 51% would have to force their will on that 49%, or we wouldn't have our naturist utopia. They would have to *dictate* to the 49% (or 30% or 10%).
Take health care in Britain. Suppose that a religious group were to get together and decide that they didn't believe in certain aspects of the NHS. So they were going to set up their own health care system, with their own doctors, nurses, hospitals, credentialling, allowed and unallowed procedures, etc. They would (indeed have) found out that the government will NOT allow them to do that. The democratic government would 'dictate' to them regarding their healthcare.
That is what I mean by 'dictatorship'. The powers that be dictating what dissenters have to do or not do. I don't believe you can propose a utopia where that doesn't, in some sense, happen.
Ahhhhh I see what you mean here. And yes, your argument is sound. I agree that one person's utopia is not another's, and that in pursuing the greatest good for all, you inherently constrict someone else's good. I still think it's worth pursuing the greatest good—I'd rather protect the many than the few! (And in your example the religious group is still covered!) But yes, it's a democracy, and yes, there is ultimately some decision made that won't be preferable to others!!!
Just to clarify... What one person *thinks is the greatest good* another person will see as *an active evil*. What one person sees as *protecting the many* another person will see as *hurting the many*. And it is possible that both groups are wrong!
Star Trek famously played with this. There is at least one episode where Kirk comes upon a group who are all happy, safe, healthy, etc. And yet they aren't free. And he decides to destroy their happy, safe, healthy civilisation to produce freedom.
“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” Ronald Reagan
There you get at one of the most dictatorial aspects of modern life. You aren't allowed to choose your utopia. The powers that be (the World Bank, the IMF, etc) will actively work to shut down nations which do not follow their standards. They will allow penny ante dictatorships all day... but try one of them being a tax haven and you will find out if you can choose your utopia :)
Well done. Nice re-introduction to the the utopia question. What I love about your stuff, Elle, is that you seriously think through everything and this is evidence again by considering R. G. Miga 'challenge.' I too am a skeptic. Not about utopia (we all should desire this), but about the striving to achieve it. The individual is the first casualty in the creation of others dreams. (not bad... you can quote me. lol)
In my reading of history and life experience, striving for a 'utopian outcome' always involves the crushing of individuals. (sometimes one person, like the widow happily living in her single family home but in the way of a societally superior multi-family complex and other times many persons are thrown over for the common good, like people trying to work a job to learn skills, but are coerced into government mandates from wages to injections and then taxed for the effort.) I am not against dreams, but when others dreams collide with mine... it is not utopia, it is conformity.
If striving for a "utopian outcome" always crushes individuals, then I wouldn't call that utopian? I agree that some people don't get their way in the pursuit of the "common good," but the idea of the common good is that it is what is best for *most* people. (I do believe though that open borders would make it more likely that you could find the ideal utopia for you....)
You are right. I am finding it more helpful these days to inquire what a particular word means to the person I'm speaking with. It is becoming more frequent that my definitions have not evolved with others. Perhaps the word "utopia" is such a concept. I also agree with open boarders and think 'my utopia' would have to look rather decentralized, but in my old brain it is a collective ideal with little room for live and let live ideals that operate outside the norm. Am I wrong?
I think I see what you mean here. As in, we need to be able to self-govern our local communities, but that still requires some form of governance to be successful?
Order and respect are essential for good governance and I'm a fan, but maybe this is closer to my utopia (and truthy in a funny way): “With my family, I’m a communist. With my close friends, I’m a socialist. At the state level of politics, I’m a Democrat. At higher levels, I’m a Republican, and at the federal levels, I’m a libertarian”
Ha!!! We are definitely friends not enemies, and I knew that immediately from his P.S. His email was just the creative framing of his argument, which I loved.
Totally agree with your response! And from what you've said in it we think you might like our substack post "Protopia or Utopia? Which is more solarpunk?" https://solarpunkstories.substack.com/p/protopia-or-utopia-which-is-more
So good! I actually wrote about why I don't use the word protopia in the latter part of this letter writing series if you're interested!! https://www.elysian.press/p/can-we-reach-utopia
Looking forward to checking it out :)
I love modern-day correspondence! Thanks for sharing.
It appears we have a modern Tolkien / C.S. Lewis style literary friendship in the making. Iron sharpens iron. 🤓
Oooooh I like that comparison 😍
Money is the governing factor so the wealthy banks control the government, that's not a partnership. The government is its enforcement thug and a buffer (blame depository) between them and the people. Physical cash yes, like the Greenbacks, a debt-free permanently circulating asset. Precious metal systems have caused more depressions that any other system. Commodity money is not good because the commodity is controlled by private wealth, same as credit is today. We need a real money system, money used as money, not a commodity, not credit used as money. greensformonetaryreform.org
Wow! A fun idea for a post, and it's prompted quite the discussion in comments -- it seems like it provides an open space for people to think about what Utopia means to them.
I too want to use this as an opportunity to pull together a couple of thoughts. I've asked occasionally about how you would define an utopia (and made my own attempt here: https://substack.com/profile/5904720-nicks-wa/note/c-21525964 ) but I think that might be asking the wrong question.
Perhaps a better way to frame it would be to ask, what is the relationship between utopian thinking and our current reality? Do we look to utopian visions for a plan of something achievable, or is it just a thought experiment ("what if?")?
We can see a range in the utopias that you've written about. _Half Earth Socialism_ is presented as a plan, whereas William Morris is more of a "what if" (particularly for a contemporary audience).
Similarly, this post raises the question of how we should feel about the gap between reality and our goals for the future -- how do we balance being motivated for change, saddened by the gap, or just intrigued or curious to inhabit a shared dream for a while.
I don't think we have to pick one (and everybody will inevitably have a different set of assumptions about utopia) but I think it is helpful to occasionally be precise about, "why do I call this vision utopian and what does that mean. Do I intend it to fill a purpose?"
There is
You're right, maybe defining utopia isn't the right question. Because it's different for everyone! (And for every utopian model we've studied so far!)
I think bettering the future is achievable, but it's worth playing out "what if" thought experiments to decide what that better future could look like, or what we want to achieve, as well as how we could get there. Those things all go together and I love exploring all of them. (As well as exploring philosophically what would make our lives better on an individual level!)
I thought it was interesting, for example, when in my post on what a future economy could look like, Peter Clayborne commented that it was a future he would love to achieve, but that he would prefer to get there with anarchism rather than capitalism. Isn't that interesting that we could have the same vision for the future, but a different path of getting there? https://www.elysian.press/p/the-ideal-economy-in-2100
Overtime, I am probably developing a manifesto of sorts, a sort of "here are the ways I would better the world if I could—my own utopia," but I don't think it matters that people have the same vision that I do. I think it's more important that we get people to think about what a better future could look like and how we could achieve it. That's enough of an alignment.
In the 1900s-1930s every country was going through the same thing: figuring out how to standardize the workweek, adding a minimum wage, adding a pension or social security, setting up unemployment systems—even though we all did it slightly differently. That's because there was this communal sense at the time that workers needed to be treated better, and then once some countries figured out a working model, every other one followed suit, albeit slightly differently from one another.
I think that's what we'll do now. But we need that communal spirit again. We need to have some kind of communal vision that we want to achieve, even if every country will get there slightly differently. I think we already have some of those visions: universal healthcare, figuring out how to tax wealth, etc. We all seem to be turning those leafs at the same time. But the more we can continue to do that the better! The more we can have these ideas people get behind en masse, the more they happen.
Is that a utopian vision? Not really. It's just a bunch of people having a bunch of ideas. But those ideas eventually take hold and become something that we make happen!
I will slowly be more precise about my ideas as I figure them out. But again, it's just one set of ideas!
When I read the original post I thought, "I am not a nemesis, I am the most boring of types, a liberal incrementalist."
I sometimes struggle with the term "utopia" or "utopian" because I do think of that as being in contrast to an incrementalist vision of ("try to solve problems; have some successes and some failures; continue trying.") and it's taken me a while of reading The Elysian to realize that you find the idea of utopia inspiring but (I think) in many ways your practical impulses are often liberal incrementalist.
at this point, i'm very envious of the humble liberal incrementalists, let alone the utopian visionaries... while Elle has managed to stay admirably ecumenical on this point, i can't imagine a definition of "utopia" that doesn't require some form of central governance—and i think the coming century is going to be brutal for governments of all stripes. the idea that any political or ideological modeling can anticipate the roiling destabilization that the future portends seems to require ironclad optimism. but, like i've said to Elle, i wouldn't dream of trying to talk anyone out of hoping.
Well yes, as you know I agree with you. But not because I can't imagine a utopia that doesn't require some form of central governance. But because I can't imagine a community (period) that doesn't require some form of central governance. Whether utopian or dystopian.
i know, this gets a little pedantic, but i think it's an important question: is there a meaningful distinction between leadership and governance? (this would be a good one for any political scientists in our audience!) in my mind, for most of human history, communities have coalesced around central leadership, which is dynamic, organic, immediate, and situational. i would contrast that with governance, which connotes a more rigid, self-perpetuating, bureaucratic, impersonal structure. again—a pedantic distinction, but i think there's something there.
Hmmmmm that feels like a bias to me (that leadership gets all the good words and government gets all the bad ones). A leader can be dynamic or rigid, bureaucratic or not. So can governance.
If you want to make a distinction between leading a small group vs. leading a very large group, maybe then you could say there are those kinds of distinctions??
Oh well yes, that describes me perfectly! And I don't think that's antihtetical to a utopian vision—just because how else would you get to a better future apart from trying things, figuring out what works and what doesn't, and incrementally improving as you go?
Respectful dialogue. Setting an example for the world on Substack.
I am beside myself with this post. First: I am so jealous that you have a nemesis. Second, your rival posits a very interesting premise about the utopian genre that I’m drawn to. Third: I have found my Esteemed Sovereign. /s
I would tend to agree with R. G. My brain cannot conceive of a paradise without the struggle to create it. What moves me is how we get to that more optimal place and that it can be done. There are only pieces of a better future formed by each of us, using our wit or even channeling our grief. My sci fi series set in the same universe (which needs a damn title), explores some of those tough moments and conflict that are part of creating better. I love the idea of feeling like we peel off the layers of strife. It’s more satisfying in the end.
Bahahahaha! It is rather fun to have a nemesis, I must admit.
I personally believe that utopia is an evolution, not an end goal, and we talk more about that in the series, but I very much agree that there is a community element and a personal responsibility to find utopia as well. Have you published any chapters from your sci fi series yet?
A couple short fiction pieces I’ve released since Ithaka has been in the same universe, including the most recent under “Always Remaining a Student of History”, though I’d like to write proper prequels and tag them as such.
Agreed on personal and community facets to utopia. Someone can’t know peace if they aren’t at peace.
Ahhhh ok so it's just the worldbuilding around it so far? I haven't missed the story itself?
The main story is Ithaka which is in the podcast section. A couple other stories are in the same universe at different times. I’ll have to get them all in one place.
Ahhhhhhhh ok. Thanks for clarifying that for me!
thanks Chevanne! i'm sure your nemesis is out there somewhere... they're probably concocting some mischief to thwart you with as we speak!
I can only hope. 🥰
https://substack.com/@iweothers/note/c-22335084?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=1eqrx1
Interesting, Ellie, this could be a very productive collaboration. I can’t imagine a top-down society that isn’t a dystopia rather than a utopia it is just the nature of top-down. I think we are living in a top-down dystopia. A vision of a world that restores the wild, where top-down control does not exist, or only in small concerns, and people manage to live well appeals to me. I do think it is important to have a positive (utopian) vision of the future but one that includes a realistic path for getting there.
Thomas Moore’s Utopia I’m told presented themes such as wealth, power, slavery, and causes of injustice. The overarching theme throughout the book is the ideal nature of a Utopian society. In Utopia, there is no greed, corruption, or power struggles because there is no money or private property. Some utopian writers like Ursula Le Guin and Robert Heinlein and probably others, sought a different kind of money rather that eliminating it. Money is an ancient human innovation older than the wheel. The fact that the money system has been privatized for power and profit is the reason it must be changed.
A society with no greed and no corruption are critical elements of a utopian society, however I think eliminating money and all private property could lead to endless power struggles. If “private property” refers only to the land then I agree totally, the land should be freed from private ownership, but the wealth that an individual creates for themselves should be his private property.
I also understand those who want to get rid of money. The money used as our exchange medium in society world-around today is a 300+ year old system but money plays two roles. Money is also an instrument of power, and that power has been brutally abused by those who control the creation and allocation of our money. Such a private for-profit monetary system is institutionalized usury: the abuse of monetary authority for personal gain. All our money is issued as interest-bearing debt for private profit which drives destructive economic growth. This system is an outgrowth of patriarchy.
I think any viable initiative for change will include changing the money from a private for-profit system to a public for-care system. I think the merchant economist Silvio Gesell had a practical though wild vision of utopia. Here is a paper that summarizes what he wrote on his book The Natural Economic Order which to me describes a utopia. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/werner-onken-a-market-economy-without-capitalism
How fascinating. I think there are lots of utopian governments currently in existence (and I'll be studying them this fall!) So I do believe that it's possible to have a top-down utopia. Though I also think democracy is the best kind of top-down utopia we have thus far managed just because it is still at least influenced by the bottom-up. Maybe there's a better iteration of that coming though.....
Love this! It's a very interesting way to share both your views. I loved the phrase:"People aren't suffering from a lack of brave new worlds to imagine but from a glut of them."
thanks Mo!
This is the quintessence of productive and creative Substack exchanges.
My definition of Utopia is that it is just someone else's idea of Utopia imposed upon you.
So there is no possible way for you to live a beautiful life? Unless it is imposed upon you?
Of course there is, but that would be just a beautiful life for you. A Utopia is a state, so we are all subjected to it. The very goal of creating a Utopia is why idealistic approaches fail. Far better to live and let live, and let people discover their private world that suits them. That would feel utopian to the individual, but would not in fact be a Utopian state.
Utopian narratives are not about the future but about controlling the present.
The price must be paid by the present generation, mortgaging the future of the next ones.
Its monetary value is aesthetic.
Your inflation is dystopia.
Its disinflation is beauty.
Utopian narratives are fine. We have been writing them for thousands of years and they help inspire people, or at least make them think about what could be. So I am all for that. I am just against an authority imposing one on me 😜
Yes, that is true that we are all subjected to our states. But the state can assure that we have utopian or dystopian lives at baseline, so that we have the freedom to live and let live. No?
No. A state can only ever create a dystopia. A Utopia is impossible because we all have our own ideas as to what it would look like.
Therefore striving for Utopia itself is dystopian, lol. Someone is bound to find your Utopia a living hell.
In practice all that works is a basic set of rules, like a constitution, then enough freedom for the maximum number to find their own private Nirvana. In a meta sense that level of freedom to pursue your own thing would be a kind of Utopia, just to add the confusion 😜
So are there no utopian states then? No countries that are nice to live in and allow us the freedom to live good lives?
(I agree that someone is "bound to find your utopia a living hell" but I'm not sure I would agree that that means everything is dystopian. By that logic you could just as easily say someone is "bound to find your dystopia paradise" and determine that everything is utopian!)
Nothing is so binary, utopian or dystopian. But no, no one has ever created a Utopia. It is impossible. There are just places that suit you. Some westerners for example find Tokyo appealing, even though most would find it challenging. Most women would find Afghanistan impossible.
Remember, I was originally commenting on the notion of creating a Utopia.
Elle and I definitely get into this territory later in our exchange, although i prefer not to think of it as zero-sum. there are wider possibilities both within and outside the State—although, as you'll see further on in this series, we miss them if we think of it as a simple binary.
I am sure, and I would be interested to read. I just thought I would blunder in and give my view.
I am wary of Utopias, and we know how Utopian schemes went in the last century. As a thing in fiction, creating a world, that is fine. But in the real world, rather less so.
That’s an interesting idea. Who gets to say what is utopian? I would suggest that there is definitely a ways to go from our current state and while not defined as an individualized vision of utopia, we can certainly try removing certain barriers that are very well agreed upon as detrimental.
The best way is still an agreed set of rules, like a constitution. The rest is really just freedom to work on your own little utopia.
Well, this looks like an interesting exchange to watch. As someone who likes to write dystopic fiction (think 1984 or Animal Farm, only not so well written, much more fictional, and sometimes much lighter) I definitely have a dog in this fight. My inclination, too, is to believe that a utopia must, almost by definition, have some sort of powerful government. Indeed my critique of Libertarianism is that I think it would only work in a dictatorship. The book 'Freehold', for example, brings up some of these conflicts.
Yes, I agree that there is some level of utopia or dystopia thrust upon us by our governments. But why must that government be a dictatorship? There are certainly democratic utopias no?
Let's suppose that it was decided to have a 'naturist' utopia. The way to peace and freedom and all good things was for us all to run around naked all of the time.
Let us further suppose that this was decided by a democratic vote. 51% of the people (after a very active campaign) won the vote.
That would still leave the 49%. And either the 51% would have to force their will on that 49%, or we wouldn't have our naturist utopia. They would have to *dictate* to the 49% (or 30% or 10%).
Take health care in Britain. Suppose that a religious group were to get together and decide that they didn't believe in certain aspects of the NHS. So they were going to set up their own health care system, with their own doctors, nurses, hospitals, credentialling, allowed and unallowed procedures, etc. They would (indeed have) found out that the government will NOT allow them to do that. The democratic government would 'dictate' to them regarding their healthcare.
That is what I mean by 'dictatorship'. The powers that be dictating what dissenters have to do or not do. I don't believe you can propose a utopia where that doesn't, in some sense, happen.
Ahhhhh I see what you mean here. And yes, your argument is sound. I agree that one person's utopia is not another's, and that in pursuing the greatest good for all, you inherently constrict someone else's good. I still think it's worth pursuing the greatest good—I'd rather protect the many than the few! (And in your example the religious group is still covered!) But yes, it's a democracy, and yes, there is ultimately some decision made that won't be preferable to others!!!
Just to clarify... What one person *thinks is the greatest good* another person will see as *an active evil*. What one person sees as *protecting the many* another person will see as *hurting the many*. And it is possible that both groups are wrong!
Star Trek famously played with this. There is at least one episode where Kirk comes upon a group who are all happy, safe, healthy, etc. And yet they aren't free. And he decides to destroy their happy, safe, healthy civilisation to produce freedom.
“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” Ronald Reagan
Hahahaha, well you are right about that. And this is where open borders I think are very important. Choose your utopia!
Open borders would be extremely important. I don't know of much utopian literature that has addressed it.
There you get at one of the most dictatorial aspects of modern life. You aren't allowed to choose your utopia. The powers that be (the World Bank, the IMF, etc) will actively work to shut down nations which do not follow their standards. They will allow penny ante dictatorships all day... but try one of them being a tax haven and you will find out if you can choose your utopia :)
Well done. Nice re-introduction to the the utopia question. What I love about your stuff, Elle, is that you seriously think through everything and this is evidence again by considering R. G. Miga 'challenge.' I too am a skeptic. Not about utopia (we all should desire this), but about the striving to achieve it. The individual is the first casualty in the creation of others dreams. (not bad... you can quote me. lol)
What is your skepticism about striving to achieve it? You are skeptical that we can make life better?
As to "The individual is the first casualty in the creation of others dreams." Why can't the individual dream???
In my reading of history and life experience, striving for a 'utopian outcome' always involves the crushing of individuals. (sometimes one person, like the widow happily living in her single family home but in the way of a societally superior multi-family complex and other times many persons are thrown over for the common good, like people trying to work a job to learn skills, but are coerced into government mandates from wages to injections and then taxed for the effort.) I am not against dreams, but when others dreams collide with mine... it is not utopia, it is conformity.
If striving for a "utopian outcome" always crushes individuals, then I wouldn't call that utopian? I agree that some people don't get their way in the pursuit of the "common good," but the idea of the common good is that it is what is best for *most* people. (I do believe though that open borders would make it more likely that you could find the ideal utopia for you....)
You are right. I am finding it more helpful these days to inquire what a particular word means to the person I'm speaking with. It is becoming more frequent that my definitions have not evolved with others. Perhaps the word "utopia" is such a concept. I also agree with open boarders and think 'my utopia' would have to look rather decentralized, but in my old brain it is a collective ideal with little room for live and let live ideals that operate outside the norm. Am I wrong?
I think I see what you mean here. As in, we need to be able to self-govern our local communities, but that still requires some form of governance to be successful?
Order and respect are essential for good governance and I'm a fan, but maybe this is closer to my utopia (and truthy in a funny way): “With my family, I’m a communist. With my close friends, I’m a socialist. At the state level of politics, I’m a Democrat. At higher levels, I’m a Republican, and at the federal levels, I’m a libertarian”
Nasim Taleb
Oh wait now I get what these exchanges are like -- this is officially my favorite way of “cross-posting” on Substack! What serious fun!
Right??? I've got a response coming to you shortly!
I can't love this enough! It reminds me of that famous Lincoln quip - "Do I not defeat my enemies by making them my friends?"
Ha!!! We are definitely friends not enemies, and I knew that immediately from his P.S. His email was just the creative framing of his argument, which I loved.