Log in

View Full Version : The Current Standard of Living Compared to a Utopian



Ultra-Imperialist
17th September 2013, 03:35
I am speaking of Thomas Moore's Utopia. Would not the standard of living for a person in the first world, on average, be considered much higher then the standard of living in Thomas Moore's Utopia?

Before answering, consider how people actually lived in that system:





Each city has 6000 households, consisting of between 10 to 16 adults. Thirty households are grouped together and elect a Syphograntus (whom More says is now called a phylarchus). Every ten Syphogranti have an elected Traniborus (more recently called a protophylarchus) ruling over them. The 200 Syphogranti of a city elect a Prince in a secret ballot. The Prince stays for life unless he is deposed or removed for suspicion of tyranny.


People are re-distributed around the households and towns to keep numbers even. If the island suffers from overpopulation, colonies are set up on the mainland. Alternatively, the natives of the mainland are invited to be part of these Utopian colonies, but if they dislike it and no longer wish to stay they may return. In the case of underpopulation the colonists are re-called.


There is no private property on Utopia, with goods being stored in warehouses and people requesting what they need. There are also no locks on the doors of the houses, which are rotated between the citizens every ten years. Agriculture is the most important job on the island. Every person is taught it and must live in the countryside, farming for two years at a time, with women doing the same work as men. Parallel to this, every citizen must learn at least one of the other essential trades: weaving (mainly done by the women), carpentry, metalsmithing and masonry. There is deliberate simplicity about these trades; for instance, all people wear the same types of simple clothes and there are no dressmakers making fine apparel. All able-bodied citizens must work; thus unemployment is eradicated, and the length of the working day can be minimised: the people only have to work six hours a day (although many willingly work for longer). More does allow scholars in his society to become the ruling officials or priests, people picked during their primary education for their ability to learn. All other citizens are however encouraged to apply themselves to learning in their leisure time.


Slavery is a feature of Utopian life and it is reported that every household has two slaves. The slaves are either from other countries or are the Utopian criminals. These criminals are weighed down with chains made out of gold. The gold is part of the community wealth of the country, and fettering criminals with it or using it for shameful things like chamber pots gives the citizens a healthy dislike of it. It also makes it difficult to steal as it is in plain view. The wealth, though, is of little importance and is only good for buying commodities from foreign nations or bribing these nations to fight each other. Slaves are periodically released for good behaviour. Jewels are worn by children, who finally give them up as they mature.


Other significant innovations of Utopia include: a welfare state with free hospitals, euthanasia permissible by the state, priests being allowed to marry, divorce permitted, premarital sex punished by a lifetime of enforced celibacy and adultery being punished by enslavement. Meals are taken in community dining halls and the job of feeding the population is given to a different household in turn. Although all are fed the same, Raphael explains that the old and the administrators are given the best of the food. Travel on the island is only permitted with an internal passport and any people found without a passport are, on a first occasion, returned in disgrace, but after a second offence they are placed in slavery. In addition, there are no lawyers and the law is made deliberately simple, as all should understand it and not leave people in any doubt of what is right and wrong.


There are several religions on the island: moon-worshippers, sun-worshippers, planet-worshippers, ancestor-worshippers and monotheists, but each is tolerant of the others. Only atheists are despised (but allowed) in Utopia, as they are seen as representing a danger to the state: since they do not believe in any punishment or reward after this life, they have no reason to share the communistic life of Utopia, and will break the laws for their own gain. They are not banished, but are encouraged to talk out their erroneous beliefs with the priests until they are convinced of their error. Raphael says that through his teachings Christianity was beginning to take hold in Utopia. The toleration of all other religious ideas is enshrined in a universal prayer all the Utopians recite.
“ ...but, if they are mistaken, and if there is either a better government, or a religion more acceptable to God, they implore His goodness to let them know it. ” Wives are subject to their husbands and husbands are subject to their wives although women are restricted to conducting household tasks for the most part. Only few widowed women become priests. While all are trained in military arts, women confess their sins to their husbands once a month. Gambling, hunting, makeup and astrology are all discouraged in Utopia. The role allocated to women in Utopia might, however, have been seen as being more liberal from a contemporary point of view.


Utopians do not like to engage in war. If they feel countries friendly to them have been wronged, they will send military aid. However they try to capture, rather than kill, enemies. They are upset if they achieve victory through bloodshed. The main purpose of war is to achieve that which if they had achieved already they would not have gone to war.


Privacy is not regarded as freedom in Utopia; taverns, ale-houses and places for private gatherings are non-existent for the effect of keeping all men in full view, so that they are obliged to behave well.Taken from the wiki. So there is slavery, religious intolerance, and a total lack of privacy, sexism, internal passports required for travel, etc.


What amazes me most is what they do not have. They do not have electricity, they do not have indoor plumbing, they do not have basic medicines we take for granted, electricity, cars, trains, the internet, lamps and light-bulbs, dvds, music pretty much on demand, cell phones, etc.


Compared to how Moore dreamed of people living in a far-flung fantasy, couldn't you say we in the developed world live in a super-utopia that is ten times more progressive then what Thomas Moore imagined?


And if so, is it really so bad that we really have to risk what we have built with a violent revolution and claims that our government is somehow the most evil thing that ever existed?


I know we tend to glorify the past, but given how we live, is it really that bad? Compared to even the Utopian one it is extremely democratic, it for the most part lives people live their lives how they want, most people with a job can get luxuries that Utopians and Moore could not even imagine. We get to vote, we get a large degree of free speech rights. Nobody compels us to join a church or ideological group, we get to eat at restaurants almost every day if we choose.

This is not to say we are without problems or we must give up on Progressive Legislation, but to argue that we have somehow entered into some sort of dark age and live under a totalitarian government or a super-evil tyranny sounds a bit far fetched.

Jimmie Higgins
17th September 2013, 09:09
One of the basic ideas of Marxism is "scientific socialism" and Marx strongly criticized what are called "utopian socialists". Moore, was not even as progressive as them; dreaming up ideal societies goes back before Plato's Republic (also a slave society) and Moore's traddition of utopianism has been linked to so-called the Christian utopian vision.

Revolutionaries don't desire some ideal pre-planned society, it's about changing the existing relationships of things: overthrowing monarchical or dictatorial systems; ending the exploitation and monopoly of economic power that characterizes capitalism; ending oppression. So really the only real overlap between idealist utopia and materialist revolutionaries is a desire for an end to present injustices as we see them, but almost any worldview offers something like that.

At any rate, is there more material wealth in capitalism than in the 1500s... definately. It seems like a strange criticism of revolution to say that a non-revolutionary who wrote a satire about an ideal society in the 1500 couldn't imagine electricity hundreds of years before it was reguarly applied for technological use. But the marxist criticism of capitalism is not lack of abundance but the dictatorial control of that amazing abundance to both increase the power of a small number of the rich but more importantly to ensure that most of the population has no real means of supporting themselves other than selling their labor. The contradiction of capitalism is that we produce more in working than we can really personally consume and yet all that abundance is held by a few over the rest of society. It's the contradictions of the system which make it unstable, you seem to think that we see capitalism as stagnent and ridged, but actually we see it as incredibly dynamic and ever-changing... but these developments only make things better for workers when people actually fight for their own power and demands as workers.

So as workers our lives are inherently chaotic and insecure because we don't own our own ways to make a living but are dependant on wages. When this tension has been eased, it has not been through increases in capitalist production and wealth, but from reforms and demands on governments and employers for things like healthcare, job stability, minimum wages, etc. So that some people can have a relativly comfortable life is despite capitalism and due to challenges to the power of the rich.

Popular Front of Judea
17th September 2013, 15:10
And if so, is it really so bad that we really have to risk what we have built with a violent revolution and claims that our government is somehow the most evil thing that ever existed?

Ever read the Declaration of Independence? You sound exactly like a Loyalist from that time. You do realize that everything that you listed was not granted by a beneficent elite but fought for by agitation from below?

Classic Marxism was liberatory, fighting to add economic freedom to the existing bourgeois freedoms that had been won after long struggle

Ceallach_the_Witch
17th September 2013, 15:29
So because the modern world is nicer to live in than an imagined future set out by a 16th century catholic statesman with a habit of having people who didn't follow his religion tortured and executed we shouldn't try and liberate ourselves?


You're a funny guy.

The Garbage Disposal Unit
17th September 2013, 17:23
Yeah, I'd also like to see this problem turned on its head. How is it that Utopia could be envisioned (albeit, not one that has any appeal to me) on the basis of 1500 levels of material wealth, and yet, in 2013, all of our "development" produces "wealth" in the abstract, but an excess of garbage of practice? It's a funny set of social relations that let's you watch people starve to death and die from diarrhea via orbiting satellite while drinking Coca Cola.

TheCultofAbeLincoln
23rd September 2013, 13:13
This thread is the inverse of the more common questions brought up after someone reads a work about a dystopian future.

"Well, seeing as we don't have thought police yet, are we sure we would want to change anything too quickly?"

Lowtech
24th September 2013, 20:49
I know we tend to glorify the past, but given how we live, is it really that bad?

^this assertion is a contradiction to the reality of economic inequality.


Compared to even the Utopian one it is extremely democratic, it for the most part lives people live their lives how they want

we have the illusion of free choice.


most people with a job can get luxuries that Utopians and Moore could not even imagine.

they aren't luxuries when the value we produce satisfies their production cost plus a fictitious thing called profit.


We get to vote, we get a large degree of free speech rights. Nobody compels us to join a church or ideological group, we get to eat at restaurants almost every day if we choose.

you ignore that everything is sold at a profit in capitalism. you're describing again, the illusion of free choice.


This is not to say we are without problems or we must give up on Progressive Legislation, but to argue that we have somehow entered into some sort of dark age and live under a totalitarian government or a super-evil tyranny sounds a bit far fetched. don't hurt yourself contemplating things outside your cable TV line up.