Problems arising from implementing Utopia into the 21st century

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

I've been writing some stuff on the problems that occur when you try to implement Thomas More's 14th century Utopia to our 21st century world.

I thought up a few issues. For example:
-mass-communication
-tourism
-new transportation
-large amount of different jobs (including some to be depricated under communism)
-etc.

Can you come up with some more?

[Yazman]

I think it's worth stating for others here that you're talking about implementing the scenario described in Thomas More's book published in 1516 named "Utopia".

It's also worth stating that we're not talking about a communist idea here, or even a society which is one that we would really be aiming for. I mean in the book women are subservient to men, slavery is an institution, religion is encouraged and enthusiastically spread, etc.

So this is an interesting thought experiment but just remember that it isn't a society we as communists would want.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

I think it's worth stating for others here that you're talking about implementing the scenario described in Thomas More's book published in 1516 named "Utopia".

It's also worth stating that we're not talking about a communist idea here, or even a society which is one that we would really be aiming for. I mean in the book women are subservient to men, slavery is an institution, religion is encouraged and enthusiastically spread, etc.

So this is an interesting thought experiment but just remember that it isn't a society we as communists would want.


You are completely right in stating those things.
Those are the problems arising from the book.
Equality for all, slavery will become penal-work (for convicts, and not by definition for life), and a world with free religion, but no implementation of it within the law.
Problems like that.

Thanks for clearing that up, i was to hasty i see.

[Yazman]

Interestingly, I believe the political system More wrote about in his book has a passing resemblance to that of the Cuban system, particularly in regards to how elections are set up.

Remember though, that More was a British politician who had ties to nobility, not to mention he was a catholic saint. This is not somebody who we would consider to be on our side politically, and his works were written before capitalism even existed. Not really somebody whose works are really something we should be aspiring towards. I think the one thing that's relevant to us in that book is the common ownership & distribution of goods. Much of the rest, not so much, even if it is a fascinating read.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

I actually do not know a thing about cuban politics.

But if you consider the Utopian elective system wrong, how then would you sugest a communist system without rules or law?
And why do you consider his elective system wrong?
It sounds fair enough, especially if there are no leaders, but only spokespersons/representatives, and elected boards (as i would like to plea).

[Yazman]

I didn't really say I consider it to be wrong, particularly as I am fairly supportive of the Cuban government as far as states go (although I am still critical in ways).

I actually don't agree with "representative" systems though as I think with modern technology they are unnecessary, of course this hasn't really been the case until the advent of modern networking technology which has only really been around for a good 20 years or so as we know it. So such systems up until relatively recently were of course a reasonable option, but I think with modern technology that direct democracy on a mass scale would not be significantly difficult to implement although it would still come with its own problems.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

How then would you sugest to hold up rules and laws.
How can we do that with the help of tech?

[Yazman]

Are you opposed to direct democracy? Just asking for the sake of clarity.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

I'm not (not even a bit) opposed to democracy.

But what do you mean by direct democracy?
There is always a need for a spokesperson or a council/board.
How else do you supose to organise the democracy?
You could, for example, say that everybody comes together to decide what is going to be done (as i see direct democracy; correct me if i'm wrong) every fridaynight.
Who then will organise the coming-together? Who will make sure that everyone gets his turn to do his say? Who will make sure that all is done according to last fridays meeting?

That's the sort of stuff i come up with right now and i supose i can think of more problems.

...yes i always see lots of trouble up ahead...

[Yazman]

I'm not (not even a bit) opposed to democracy.

But what do you mean by direct democracy?
There is always a need for a spokesperson or a council/board.
How else do you supose to organise the democracy?
You could, for example, say that everybody comes together to decide what is going to be done (as i see direct democracy; correct me if i'm wrong) every fridaynight.
Who then will organise the coming-together? Who will make sure that everyone gets his turn to do his say? Who will make sure that all is done according to last fridays meeting?

That's the sort of stuff i come up with right now and i supose i can think of more problems.

...yes i always see lots of trouble up ahead...

I think it's anachronistic and a bit archaic to expect actual physical meetings to be commonplace. Like I said, modern technology enables referenda to be conducted via networks. I don't think there's a need for a so-called "representative" system when people can represent themselves directly via technology, i.e. polls & referenda conducted online.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

But who will give "command" (can't find the right word) for an online referendum?
Who will make the referendum?

I think humans need someone to lead them or at least give them direction.

And what about national representation...or do you think that would be obsolete?

[soso17]

Although I am fairly authoritarian and not very anarchistic, I just had a couple thoughts...

Having a rotating council (just a word, people, replace it with whatever you like) that organizes the direct democracy. Not a decision making body, but just a team to streamline the system of direct democracy via online voting, etc. I mean, this online system would be so quick and efficient that any and all decisions could be made though it, even when the next voting session would be.

The council could rotate like a jury-duty system, i.e., a central computer would pick who would be the current council for a pre-determined amount of time. Since this system would be the sole means of decision making, it would be of central importance, so problems like hacking, double voting, etc., would be prevented, since preserving the security of the system would be of utmost importance.

Of course, I haven't answered every problem in this short post, such as, who takes care of the software/hardware, etc. Just had some ideas to interject.

-soso

[Rafiq]

:laugh:

Are you a troll? If you're not, I'm sorry for being a dick.

However, I think you're a bit confused here (assuming you're not a troll). Communism isn't some idea which we superimpose upon capitalism, it is a direct result of conditions intrinsic to the capitalist mode of production, i.e. It is the offspring of one of capitalism's many destructive seeds. It isn't about formulating a new society, i.e. "I have an Idea, blueprints, if you will, that I will adjust society as a whole to because it's more moral or 'efficient'". Mode(s) of production do not arise as a reflection or an expression of the will of someone, but a direct result of the final most exemplification of a class interest. All of these questions you are asking, "Well, who will give command" or "how will X be organised" are questions no living human can answer you, as we are constrained by capitalist relations. How then, is proletarian revolution possible? Firstly, such a question pressuposes capitalism as some harmonious, balanced system in which we communists bring chaos and insurrection to. Capitalism is a chaotic, unstable system which in itself carries the seeds of it's own destruction, i.e. Intrinsically carries several systemic contradictions. One of those contradictions takes the form of class contradiction, and thus, we have Communism, the ideological embodiment of the interests of the proletarian class, not the embodiment of imaginative doodles of Utopian fools. In truth, Communism was never about "creating something new" in such an abstract sense, or creating something new at all. Communism is merely a weapon, an ideological weapon of the proletarian class, whose interest is to abolish itself, and pursue it's conquest for state dictatorship (to suppress the class enemy and furtherly abolish itself). There is no Communism without capitalism, i.e. Communism as an ideology is a product of capitalist relations, as is proletarian struggle. Capitalist relations carry several contradictions and therefore cannot eternally sustain themselves.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

:laugh:

Are you a troll? If you're not, I'm sorry for being a dick.

However, I think you're a bit confused here (assuming you're not a troll). Communism isn't some idea which we superimpose upon capitalism, it is a direct result of conditions intrinsic to the capitalist mode of production, i.e. It is the offspring of one of capitalism's many destructive seeds. It isn't about formulating a new society, i.e. "I have an Idea, blueprints, if you will, that I will adjust society as a whole to because it's more moral or 'efficient'". Mode(s) of production do not arise as a reflection or an expression of the will of someone, but a direct result of the final most exemplification of a class interest. All of these questions you are asking, "Well, who will give command" or "how will X be organised" are questions no living human can answer you, as we are constrained by capitalist relations. How then, is proletarian revolution possible? Firstly, such a question pressuposes capitalism as some harmonious, balanced system in which we communists bring chaos and insurrection to. Capitalism is a chaotic, unstable system which in itself carries the seeds of it's own destruction, i.e. Intrinsically carries several systemic contradictions. One of those contradictions takes the form of class contradiction, and thus, we have Communism, the ideological embodiment of the interests of the proletarian class, not the embodiment of imaginative doodles of Utopian fools. In truth, Communism was never about "creating something new" in such an abstract sense, or creating something new at all. Communism is merely a weapon, an ideological weapon of the proletarian class, whose interest is to abolish itself, and pursue it's conquest for state dictatorship (to suppress the class enemy and furtherly abolish itself). There is no Communism without capitalism, i.e. Communism as an ideology is a product of capitalist relations, as is proletarian struggle. Capitalist relations carry several contradictions and therefore cannot eternally sustain themselves.


Just for the record, i'm not nor have i ever been a troll :lol:

But...are you actually saying that communism cannot exist without capitalism?
Therefor communism could never be sustained if capitalism would be eradicated completely (what my final goal would be).
Communism (read: life) without rules is chaos. In chaos criminality and mutiny will flourish and before you know it, people will be calling for it!
I do not plea for a "capitalism-plus"-world, i simply like to mply that communism (even anarcho-communism) can exsist holding a pure form of democracy! Not leaders, but people who can speak for it's surroundings (locally to regionally to national to international). Chosen and without hasitation expelled upon call of the people.

I mean, i don't believe communism is a 'weapon', i think it can be a way of life!
After all, communis is latin for community!

[Rafiq]

I am saying communism is a product of capitalism, not some abstract artificial society that amounts to the creative fantasies of bourgeois romanticists. Communism is an ideology, a movement, not an objectively existing truth.

[Marxaveli]

Just for the record, i'm not nor have i ever been a troll :lol:

But...are you actually saying that communism cannot exist without capitalism?
Therefor communism could never be sustained if capitalism would be eradicated completely (what my final goal would be).
Communism (read: life) without rules is chaos. In chaos criminality and mutiny will flourish and before you know it, people will be calling for it!
I do not plea for a "capitalism-plus"-world, i simply like to mply that communism (even anarcho-communism) can exsist holding a pure form of democracy! Not leaders, but people who can speak for it's surroundings (locally to regionally to national to international). Chosen and without hasitation expelled upon call of the people.

I mean, i don't believe communism is a 'weapon', i think it can be a way of life!
After all, communis is latin for community!

There would be rules in a Communist society, but there is a reason why Marx never described how such a society would be organized, and that is because he didn't have a crystal ball into what the material conditions of society would be - other than the fact it would be a CLASSLESS, STATELESS, international society. The rules, what is produced, and when, would be completely up to the workers to decide based on what is in their best interest. Rafiq really nailed it in his first post - that Communism would organically result from the ashes of Capitalism just as Capitalism did from Feudalism. But it is pretty safe to say that the Bourgeoise had little if any knowledge of how Capitalism would "work", or even what it would look like. We do know that Communism would be organized according to the interests of the Proletarian, but how it would "work", no one can say exactly for sure. The material conditions would be the determining factor in that. One thing is for sure, is that it would exist on its own merit (unlike Capitalism, which requires a very powerful central State to uphold ruling class interests), or it would fail to exist period.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

There would be rules in a Communist society, but there is a reason why Marx never described how such a society would be organized, and that is because he didn't have a crystal ball into what the material conditions of society would be - other than the fact it would be a CLASSLESS, STATELESS, international society. The rules, what is produced, and when, would be completely up to the workers to decide based on what is in their best interest. Rafiq really nailed it in his first post - that Communism would organically result from the ashes of Capitalism just as Capitalism did from Feudalism. But it is pretty safe to say that the Bourgeoise had little if any knowledge of how Capitalism would "work", or even what it would look like. We do know that Communism would be organized according to the interests of the Proletarian, but how it would "work", no one can say exactly for sure. The material conditions would be the determining factor in that. One thing is for sure, is that it would exist on its own merit (unlike Capitalism, which requires a very powerful central State to uphold ruling class interests), or it would fail to exist period.

Now there's something i can get. Indeed it is hard (if not impossible) to see the future.
Keeping that in mind, it's is also hard to say if communism will arise out of capitalisms ashes. I think it is something we must actively persue.
For now (until i've read even more, which i think is smart now) i'll stop being a pain in the ass.
The most important now are what we all want: a classless society, without currency an markets.

[the last donut of the night]

meh, more's utopia is, at least to me, just one of the various utopian plans created in the wake of early modern heretic movements and the early enlightenment

[Yazman]

meh, more's utopia is, at least to me, just one of the various utopian plans created in the wake of early modern heretic movements and the early enlightenment

Despite how odd it sounds to say it, if you actually read More's story, the society that he proposes is not even remotely "utopian" in terms of what we mean when we say the word in 2012.

It's a pretty authoritarian society where religion is part of daily life & politics. It has a representative system which is set up in a manner not too unlike how cuba is constructed politically, although one could probably make comparisons to the USSR as well.

Economically there's no private ownership of goods or production, and people are given rations. Slavery is part of society. It has free education and healthcare. They aren't allowed to move around without the right papers, even in their own country, and they have to move around and swap jobs periodically (every 5-10 years or so I believe).

It isn't utopian at all, and I think in many ways it's very similar to what you see from Marxist-Leninist systems, with the exceptions of slavery and religion being common in More's nation.

It is a system quite easily established and there is nothing about it that hasn't been done on a large, nation-wide scale before. Except, perhaps, the whole "move house every decade" part. The rest of it has all been done before.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Hmmm...okay, you do have a point there.
Though i do have a couple of remarks:



It's a pretty authoritarian society where religion is part of daily life & politics. It has a representative system which is set up in a manner not too unlike how cuba is constructed politically, although one could probably make comparisons to the USSR as well.

I don't know about Cuban or Soviet political-systems, but the religion-part is what bummed me out. I just took it as the spirit of the time (i guess the gross part of 16th century Britain was christian) and was absolutely about abolishing it out of the judicial and political systems.



Economically there's no private ownership of goods or production, and people are given rations.

No private ownership == good!
No personal belongings == bad...
Though they weren't really rations, but there were a central eating-facilities, where women (damn prejudices) cooked.



Slavery is part of society. It has free education and healthcare. They aren't allowed to move around without the right papers, even in their own country

I'm am all against slavery, especially in the circumstances More had drawn out. I think for people convicted of crimes to do work for the community they commited it against is pretty good. It's the 'for life'-part i have trouble with.



and they have to move around and swap jobs periodically (every 5-10 years or so I believe).

The didn't have to move around, they all (everyone, including women; pretty revolutionary back then) are oblidged to do two years of manditory work on one of the farms. Furthermore they all had one job, and they are permitted to take up another after learning for it, though i believe that was only once.


Anyway, this discusion was very useful to me.
It really opened my eyes a bit further.
Coming to think about it now...Utopia wasn't all that great...

Didn't change my mind though. Well...a bit more towards communism (the real deal this time).

Thanks guys!

[Yazman]

I don't know about Cuban or Soviet political-systems, but the religion-part is what bummed me out. I just took it as the spirit of the time (i guess the gross part of 16th century Britain was christian) and was absolutely about abolishing it out of the judicial and political systems.

Well I guess you'll have to do a bit of research & discussion to learn when it comes to my comparisons to the Cuban & Soviet systems.

As far as your explanation of the religious part - yes, you're right. Religion was still exceedingly important in Britain back then and I dare say that the radical part in regards to religious matters in Utopia is that, I believe it says atheism is accepted (but not encouraged). Given the incredibly important and omnipresent nature of religion in More's society it isn't at all unusual to see him stating that religion is an important part of life in Utopia. So I think we can just put that aspect down to More's social and cultural background. While doing so however we still need to remember not to cherrypick and remember that religion is a major part of Utopian life & society. But you're correct that it's due to socio-cultural factors that it's in there.


No private ownership == good!
No personal belongings == bad...
Though they weren't really rations, but there were a central eating-facilities, where women (damn prejudices) cooked.

Well, I didn't get the impression there were no personal belongings, moreso that things weren't owned privately, which is actually a good thing, but there's nothing particularly special or unique about that as communal ownership of goods or production has been done before and isn't (in the modern sense) "utopian" at all.

As far as rations go, I wasn't referring to food, I was referring to supplies & goods being rationed, i.e. people don't just take what they want, different enterprises, farms etc get given measured amounts on a regular basis. I didn't mean that in a negative light either.


I'm am all against slavery, especially in the circumstances More had drawn out. I think for people convicted of crimes to do work for the community they commited it against is pretty good. It's the 'for life'-part i have trouble with.

I think we both agree that slavery is a bad thing. As far as convict labour goes though, I don't support it at all. Community service in lieu of a prison sentence for misdemeanors I'm ok with, but for actual convictions I do not think prisoners should be forced to do labour. They are already a very vulnerable group in society and their mistreatment is a real danger. I don't think that having committed a crime means somebody gets to be stripped of their rights or humanity, though, others may disagree.


The didn't have to move around, they all (everyone, including women; pretty revolutionary back then) are oblidged to do two years of manditory work on one of the farms. Furthermore they all had one job, and they are permitted to take up another after learning for it, though i believe that was only once.

Right, thanks for correcting me. It's been a little while since i read it so easy mistake I guess.


Anyway, this discusion was very useful to me.
It really opened my eyes a bit further.
Coming to think about it now...Utopia wasn't all that great...

I think this type of analysis of this work is important, particularly as I do not accept the usage of the term "utopian" in the modern, adjectival sense as it just gets used as a catchall to describe anything anybody disagrees with. Instead of merely saying "oh well that's utopian" people should be thinking critically and actually looking at things in-depth rather than just dismissing an ideology or proposal off-hand as they do when they call something "utopian".

When you actually look at the society and political system More wrote about, as you said it really wasn't all that great. The fact is in the modern sense of the word, not even Utopia was utopian.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

As far as rations go, I wasn't referring to food, I was referring to supplies & goods being rationed, i.e. people don't just take what they want, different enterprises, farms etc get given measured amounts on a regular basis. I didn't mean that in a negative light either.

Ah, was that what you meant with rations...sorry 'bout that.
You were right indeed.



I think we both agree that slavery is a bad thing. As far as convict labour goes though, I don't support it at all. Community service in lieu of a prison sentence for misdemeanors I'm ok with, but for actual convictions I do not think prisoners should be forced to do labour. They are already a very vulnerable group in society and their mistreatment is a real danger. I don't think that having committed a crime means somebody gets to be stripped of their rights or humanity, though, others may disagree.

I couldn't agree with you more. What i would suggest is that the criminals (a word that i already find a bit degrading) stay in their community, with their families (!! family is important, we don't want the kids to grow up without their parents) and get the chance to repent. Though there should be a punishment for the crime, so i think they should be unable to travel outside their district and probably work longer hours. Don't get me wrong; crimes are to be punished, i just don't believe in capital-punishment or imprisonment for a long time.




Right, thanks for correcting me. It's been a little while since i read it so easy mistake I guess.

I actually kinda feel bad for correcting you
Hell, i can't even remember a single line of the books i've read lately (except for one part from Milton's Paradise Lost)



I think this type of analysis of this work is important, particularly as I do not accept the usage of the term "utopian" in the modern, adjectival sense as it just gets used as a catchall to describe anything anybody disagrees with. Instead of merely saying "oh well that's utopian" people should be thinking critically and actually looking at things in-depth rather than just dismissing an ideology or proposal off-hand as they do when they call something "utopian".

And thanks for the opportunity to discuss. It was a pleasure discussing and i like it when people are able to open my eyes and change my mind (doesn't happen very often.)