Resident anti-capitalist reporting for duty

Bellamy’s view of socialism is such a different view than I was expecting him to take before I begun to read. Perhaps as a post-McCarthy era country it has been ingrained in us from an early age that everyone is supposed to believe socialism/communism to be evil, always-lurking-around-the-corner kind of threats. However, Bellamy seems to view it as a viable option. His main character is a little disturbed and frightened by the idea of socialism but from the excerpts we read, it is phrased and presented as a functioning and ideal society. The citizens who live in this world all seem to be happy with it and in turn, horrified by the society that the main character comes from. The year 2000 honestly sounds like a pretty nice place to live and it’s a shame that it isn’t the version of 2000 that we saw. (For transparency’s sake I should mention that I tend to lean a bit anti-capitalist in my political/economic views so I was bound to enjoy this society.)

One thing I loved about Bellamy’s 2000 was that people who cannot for medical reasons work are provided with money even if they can’t do a lot. This is a big problem that I have with capitalism where a lot of people with disabilities cannot work and because of this they end up homeless or very impoverished. The idea of providing them with an equal amount of money for the work they can do is wonderful to me.

I’ve seen a few posts that argue that this system is not a good one. However, I would ask how this is different from the other societies we’re studied so far? Of course some of the minor things are going to be different such as clothes but economically, these societies are the same. The only difference is that this is stated to be a socialist/communist society whereas for the other readings the ideas were there but the name was not. I think we’re too afraid as a society to entertain the thought of a society run by explicitly stated socialist/communist ideals because of the fact that we live in a country that teaches that those are evil.

However, there are some aspects of this society that mirror our own. The idea that what lead to a socialist conversion in our government were big businesses monopolizing the market and smaller businesses being reduced to nothing is something we are seeing now. This novel provides us with one possible option to stop this from happening.

Another similarity is the idea of credit cards. Bellamy’s prediction of this is so uncanny that I wonder if he could somehow see the future.

Perhaps the most important prediction Bellamy made however, was this one:

Socrates, Augustine, and St. Benedict walk into a bar...

...and there's no punchline but now that you're here, why don't you read my post?

One theme that is consistent throughout “The Rule of St. Benedict” is the theme of moderation and self-control. Obviously this isn’t unusual in a Christian text but I did think it was fascinating considering that moderation is one of Socrates’ four virtues. I decided to look through Chapter 4 (“What are the Instruments of Good Works”) to see how many lined up with Socrates’ virtues.

(Here are links to the rules so you can check out what number goes to what rule: Chapter 4 and Chapter 4 cont.)

What I found was that there a lot that loosely matched up and then some that didn’t fit in. The rules that I considered were about wisdom were: 3-9, 22-30, 48-52, 56-58, 60, 62, and 66-67. The rules that I considered were about courage were: 44-47. The rules that I considered were about moderation were 10-13, 34-40, 53-55, 59, and 65. The rule that I considered was about justice was 33.

There remains a group of rules that cannot fit in one of these four categories. Rules 1-2, 14-21, 31-32, 41-43, 61, 63-64, 68-69, and 70-72 belong in a separate category that I propose we call holiness. These rules are ones that involve the Christian virtues of loving your neighbor, forgiving your enemy, putting God first, etc. While some of the rules in the holiness can be also placed in the wisdom category and vice versa, I don’t think all of the holiness ones constitute good judgment. These rules are more like the ones Augustine gave in his “City of God” than anything that Socrates identified.

The virtue of wisdom contains the largest amount of the rules, closely followed by moderation. There are a few rules that speak on courage and one that mentions justice but does not define it: “33. To bear persecution for justice's sake.” However, if we look at Chapter 73, we can see that justice can be obtained not only by following the rules but by taking these rules as a bare minimum and moving further on the path to holiness. Chapter 73 tells us that “fulfill with the help of Christ / this minimum Rule which we have written for beginners; / and then at length under God's protection / you will attain to the loftier heights of doctrine and virtue.” St. Benedict is saying that following these rules will not immediately grant you eternal live but by only following these rules, you are lazy. Instead, after you have mastered all of these rules, you should move on to the Bible and writings of saints and other such writings. This mirrors Socrates’ idea that justice can be found when wisdom, moderation, and courage are implemented. In “The Rule of St. Benedict,” justice is found when Christians follow the virtues of wisdom, moderation, courage, and holiness and then continue from there onto the path of God.

“The Rule of St. Benedict” ultimately seems like a mixture of Plato’s “The Republic” and “City of God.” I would be surprised if St. Benedict was completely unaware of the two preceding works.

"I just wanted a trim..." St. Benedict says as he stares in horror at himself in the barber shop mirror.

Censorship brings about a just society?

I believe that the idea of censorship is one that a few people have touched on in their posts already, but this is the point that struck me most about The Republic so far. As a society, I think most of our ideas of utopia before this class were that in a very simplified form, utopia = freedom. When we take Dr. MB’s definition into account, we can see the flaw in our thinking but most people aren’t as lucky as us to be taking this class (not sarcastic!!)

So why do we associate utopia and freedom? I think this starts from the misconception that utopia is a perfect place and so for us freedom is perfection and so utopia is a free place.

In addition to this, there is the misconception of utopias and dystopias being the direct opposite. Dystopias are where only the privileged are free to do as they like and everyone else is oppressed and must rise against the evil dictators.

Reading The Republic challenges our ideas of what a utopia is. Socrates begins his excruciatingly long metaphor with the statement that he will present a just city to his listeners: “Perhaps, then, there is more justice in the larger thing, and it will be easier to learn what it is. So, if you’re willing, let’s first find out what sort of thing justice is in the city and afterwards look for it in the individual, observing the ways in which the smaller is similar to the larger” (Book II, 369a.) So we know from the beginning that Socrates is thinking of this fictional city as a utopia.

Socrates begins to explain how they will censor their literature and their mythology so that the citizens of this city will only hear stories that uphold the values of their society. He says “Whenever anyone says such things about a god, we’ll be angry with him, refuse him a chorus, and not allow his poetry to be used in the education of the young, so that our guardians will be as god-fearing and godlike as human beings can be” (Book II, 383c.)

This is where we are faced with the contradiction (in our previous beliefs) that a utopia is not necessarily free or our idea of benevolent.

The act of censorship in our society is viewed as an attack; historically, literature has generally been censored because it was written by oppressed people, or because the subject matter makes people uncomfortable. Here neither seems to apply. Socrates may be uncomfortable with the subject matter if only because he believes it will bring about less than desirable traits in the soldiers guarding the utopia.

In the end, all of this is an extended metaphor for what makes up a just man. If the soldiers exist in the city, they exist in the man. What Socrates seems to be expressing is a desire for censorship of the education, information, and literature we consume, even when those may be as beautiful as Homer’s poetry.

I’m not sure about you but this doesn’t sound like a utopia I would want to live in. 

Let's talk about sex

When Dr. MB first asked the class what we would change about the world to make it a better place, what seemed like a thousand ideas unloaded into my brain. Of course, there were the obvious answers: equality for everyone, the dismantling of various oppressions, etc. Unfortunately, how easily doable are these? What is the likelihood that I would still be alive to see these be achieved in my lifetime? The “what” and “why” questions are easy but the “how” is more complex. “How” includes massive re-education and un-learning of oppressive ideas and thoughts, as well as a complete reworking of our political and economic systems. It seemed like aiming a bit too high for a class exercise.

Instead, I decided to tackle something that was a little more attainable in the near future. I think this world would be better with a more comprehensive sex education program that is available to all.

Many people do not have a proper sex education, whether this is because they were taught abstinence-only sex-ed (where the students are taught only to practice abstinence, instead of teaching them about safe sex, or STIs, or their own reproductive organs, or the fundamentals of how and what sex is) or if their sex-ed program is just not up to par. Many problems stem from these program failures, including, but not limited to: higher rates or teenage pregnancy, higher rates of STIs, guilt and shame surrounding sex, confusion about sexuality and in particular non-heterosexual sexualities, higher rates of sexual assault and rape due to mis-education of what consent is and isn’t, and confusion about gender.

To bring sex education up to a higher standard, we should begin by educating the sex educators. While there are some sex education teachers who are knowledgeable in this area, there are many schools and learning environments where this is untrue. If we want to teach our children better sex ed, we have to start by teaching the adults, especially those who will be passing this information on to our youth. Next we need to do away with abstinence only education. While abstinence should still be presented as an option to the students, it can’t be the only option. Lastly, we need to start instilling in children from a very young age the ideas of consent and respecting others’ bodies. By simply teaching children that no means no and that any kind of physical touch should be stopped when asked or when someone is expressing discomfort via body language will teach children the fundamentals of consent.

I think that these changes will greatly benefit our society and will be instrumental as a stepping stone towards the larger goals I mentioned at the beginning of this post. While things like equality and getting rid of oppression are very important, I don’t think these are goals that one can achieve on their own. It is through smaller goals put forth by individuals that will get us to that much better place. Which is not to say that people can’t or shouldn’t focus on several different causes at once, but that we need to take the smaller steps to achieve our goal of a better society.

And now that my post title has got this song in your head, here you go: