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?"
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.
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
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."
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.
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)
Genius! This interchange is fantastic! I might call it the “paradox of utopia” brought to light. R.G. sees a takedown as the first salvo is launched. Elle is making potential friends with the enemy as she holds the paradox up for display. This has rich literary angles and wonderful political undertones. I look forward to the unfolding discussion. Genius, I say!
How do we define utopia?
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. 🤓
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
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.
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
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."
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.
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.
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)
Oh wait now I get what these exchanges are like -- this is officially my favorite way of “cross-posting” on Substack! What serious fun!
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?"
Genius! This interchange is fantastic! I might call it the “paradox of utopia” brought to light. R.G. sees a takedown as the first salvo is launched. Elle is making potential friends with the enemy as she holds the paradox up for display. This has rich literary angles and wonderful political undertones. I look forward to the unfolding discussion. Genius, I say!