Well, if those readings weren't comparable to falling down a rabbit hole, then I don't know what is. My brain is thrumming with confusion and ideas and I think I might have to read both these texts in their entirety to figure out what exactly is going on and if I like it. I feel like we have been dropped into two typical "dystopian" societies that we would find in a leisurely work of literature but instead of seeing that system fall or seeing that protagonist question the system or rebel, we are only getting the system's view. We are given two unreliable narrators who barely know who they are themselves and are figuring out what societies they've fallen into. Both in the future, with people from the past, these stories show immense changes in societies similar to the one we live in now. This makes it almost easier to grip as far as this being possible in the future, but also terrifying that we could one day slip into a coma or travel away and come back and see a whole different working of the world.
Both stories have a resounding totalitarian vibe no matter what their government actually goes by. And both are introduced to the characters in the same way.
Welcome to our Utopia. You look confused. Here's what you've missed. But on another note, they are both very modern and make me think more of angsty teen utopian fiction than the other works we have read so far. Neither seems ridiculous and field by robots or time machines either. They're completely plausible and have reasons for why everything is the way it now is.
I'm still mulling over what we've read and I think I need to think out loud this time around, but here are some ideas that stood out to me.
Bellamy:
"There was absolutely no violence. The change had been long foreseen." (31)
- I would think that any kind of change in our world would start with some kind of conflict that eventually led to war or destruction. I don't think we would ever come to a point of mutual understanding where we agreed that a change would need to come, but maybe it's just never gotten to that point. Our country comes together when tragedy strikes and maybe if the impact was that big, our togetherness would stay until we resolved out world.
"The nation, that is to say, organized as the one great business corporation in which all other corporations were absorbed; it became the one capitalist in the place of all other capitalists, the sole employer, the final monopoly in which all previous and lesser monopolies were swallowed up, a monopoly in the profits and economies of which all citizens shared." (30)
- We spent years of school learning that monopoly was terrible and that any big spender who monopolized something like the railroad system was a pompous jackass to be frowned upon. But here we have someone saying that we were only afraid of monopolies because we didn't see their value and that they're actually good and we should monopolize even the biggest monopolies to create one giant one. We apparently shouldn't fear being taken over by the big leagues, but instead succumb to them and encourage it to a higher more extreme level. "The absorption of business by ever larger monopolies" (29)
"To make a beginning somewhere, for the subject is doubtless a large one, what solution, if any, have you found for the labor question?"
"The solution came as the result of a process of industrial evolution which could not have terminated otherwise"
- This was interesting and was mentioned in Morris' text as well. Machinery and industrialization were able to tackle issues with labor. I would think this would take away job opportunities and increase poverty, but they see it as being better.
"We have no wars now, and our governments no war powers, but in order to protect every citizen against hunger, cold and nakedness, and provide for all his physical and mental needs, the function is assumed of directing his industry for a term of years." (32)
- I like that war does not exist or is at least quite rare and that the government cannot declare war. I also applaud the values and goals of the government. It is not power play, but rather making sure that everyone is comfortable and has the basic necessities for the basic rights to live.
Wrap-Up: I am also fascinated by the lack of political parties. Does this mean that everyone has similar values or that there is more chaos without labels? I understand requiring service from people for a few years, but from 21-45 seems like a ridiculous plan. No selling and buying of anything? Credit cards that are really debit cards with no spending freedom? Equal pay for work that is only determined when we say that everyone works equally? And labeling people as the Invalid Corps because they are the lowest class of contributors; is that kind or absolutely cruel and unusual?
Morris:
For Morris' read, you had to dig a little deeper to figure out the laws and customs. We see that there is some sort of required uniform from the phrase "work-a-day" clothes. We also see that money is different or not used when the protagonist pulls out coins as a tip and is met with confusion. It's interesting that money is always seen as dangerous in these societies. Many don't have it or control it so differently.
We hear that here have been no crimes like robbery in 150 years, which sounds great. There is no criminal law, no civil law courts and crime is treated like a "spasmodic disease". However, murder seems to be looked at with just a brief shrug. Sometimes people fight and sometimes it leads to killing each other, but no worries "remorse will certainly follow transgression". No punishment necessary. What the hell?
Work sounds way too Buddha and Hippie-like for my liking, but that could be my Myers Briggs personality that thrives on tangible rewards like grades and honors. The reward for labor is life. You should be thrilled to work because it means you're alive. Work is pleasure! Wealth is having your work complete! Who needs machines, they ruined all the fun of work. Let's get rid of them so we can love work again!
It's also interesting to see how this society came to be. It sounds like the rich were upset that they would have to financially support the poor which would eventually create a giant middle class. State Socialism starts and then there's the destruction of commerce. Then comes 'the lesson' or country-wide meetings with a new plan that sounds creepily like Hitler's 'Final Solution'. Massacre breaks out and turns to civil war and then the conservatives defeat the liberals. Chaos ensues. A massive strike starts and then the party of ORDER arrives.
I don't know how I feel. And I find it interesting how these stories both contradict and echo each other. The purpose for creating them sounds similar. But one started from peace and one from violence. One worships machines and one despises them. One decided change was necessary and one had to persuade a nation for change. I enjoyed both reads, but I'm still completely baffled. All I know is that these people have accepted their governments and worship them and think they are best. They do not question, they do not look back at the past and they would never try to cheat the system or work against it.
