People are afraid of dystopias and want a utopia. But in reality, they were originally the same thing. Twitter: / althistoryhub Facebook: / alternatehistoryhub Music by myuuji: "Into the Depths" • Into the Depths - Myuu
Its basically true. Utopia means extremism. To have long Peace you need a great and victorious war. To have liberty means that you are a slave mentality and aren't a threat to the establishment.
Derick Smith Really? A dystopia is a place that is undeniably shitty for any and all outside observers, but nobody on the inside realizes this or is able to speak out against it. The problem is, there are people in Sweden that speak out against its government. Take the Swedish Democrats for a prime example. So no, Sweden and the entire west are not and likely will not become a dystopia.
@@a.morphous66 your definition of dystopia is Orwellian, but there is another one of Huxley, in which people are so brainwashed they even incapable to think something bad about the society. Both options are valid Edit: forgot to add that your comment perfectly explains these kind of human society.
@@Nikola95inYT Yeah there's a reason we criticize foreign "totalitarian" governments. It's the brainwashing you talk about. Look how evil is! We are so lucky and so free over here... as long as you don't criticize the things we don't want you to.
Just look at North Korea. Their citizens all think that they live in utopia. We, of course know better, but the brainwashed citizens of North Korea and any other dystopian society would never even think to question their authority.
Actually, 1984 has a happy ending, though most people skim over it. The Appendix (the bit describing INGSOC in-universe) at the end of the book that details the world is written in Standard English, and talks about INGSOC in past-tense, as if scientists from after the fact are speaking about it. This means that the superpowers eventually fell, and individuality won over. Don't believe me? Read the appendix, 1984 is an excellent book.
In the Handmaid's Tale something similar happens. A journal is found and the dystopian world has fallen, it's inside a locker and later taught in a class.
I discovered that too, however I feel like it breaks the purpose of 1984. In my opinion, in the world of 1984 they have passed the "point of no return". There is no going back, there is no hope. if you read 1984 with the mind that "oh this is bad, but even here it all turns out alright in the end", it doesn't give the same experience as reading it as "this is really bad. we have to make sure we stop before we get this far".
Glen Edmondson It is not. When that Utopia was thought of it was better than dying due to black death or being crushed by medieval wars. Slavery was common and the fact that you could elect your leader and did not have to pay crushing taxes was a lot to look forward too.
Just because slavery was common doesn't make it any better. Dying from the disease or other ways couldn't be easily prevented back then. The "Utopia" has a few upsides, but the fact that you aren't really in control of anything and you don't own anything is an unsettling thought.
The ending of 1984 is ambiguous if you take into account the appendix on Newspeak, that is put at the end of the book. It talks about Newspeak in the past tense and in proper English which opens up the interpretation that the ''proles'', as they're called in the book, actually did manage to revolt against Big Brother.
That gives me hope. In the book, it made me feel really depressed that there is no way to rebel, or revolt. They will forever be stuck in that cold and clinical society.
My headcanon for 1984 is that the other nations (Eurasia, Eastasia) are not even real, and Oceania is just a completely isolated nation in an otherwise normal world. The war is just a lie to increase national unity. This is actually even hinted at in the book, since it is explicitly said that everything the reader knows about the world comes from the Party and we have no way of knowing what is true and what isn't.
Sara Lasswall It has the same idea; it looks like an anthro's utopia, but the main conflict is the government supplying crack-like drugs to gangs, a dystopia.
@@marshallgriffin57 could be right yes transdence mind uploading could make A.I very far more dangerous sentient entity smarter than human to solve everything and climate change
It's not the first utopia imagined. The concept of a perfect society and civilization, or utopia as Thomas More called it, has actually been a common idea throughout human society. There's Atlantis, Arcadia, the New Jerusalem, etc.
I would go even further. There is no difference between a utopia and a dystopia. 1. In order to have a utopia, you need a pure society. 2. In order to have a pure society, a way of enforcing that purity is required. 3. In order for society to maintain purity by force, a totalitarian state is established. 4. In order to establish a totalitarian state, all forms of opposition must be eradicated. 5. In order for opposition to be eradicated, the people must be oppressed. 6. In order for people to be content, they can't be oppressed. How can a society be perfect if it's people will inevitably end up discontent and incapable of doing anything about it?
Harrison Shone the idea behind an Utopia is that it is a perfect society without having to be enforced. It just shapes naturally. Of course this is completely unrealistic. An Utopia is a goal which we will never reach, but we have to keep trying to improve society. That is the idea that Moore had with the idea Utopia. It isn't a realistic goal but a guideline. So you are right. If people are trying/forcebly enforcing to get an Utopia, you'll a dystopia.
4:51 both are the same square. Yet,in different colors. A Utopia for some is a Dystopia for others, since the values that make good or bad change depending on the society.
Pretty much the closest thing we could get to a Utopia would be a sort of pseudo capitalist society. Anyone ever watched "The Expanse"? In that series, Earth is a Utopia, but is also despised by other systems. Mars is a pretty shitty place, but the people are strong, idealistic and have dreams for the future. They despise how Earthlings rely on their governments for so much. They have a collective dream as a society for a terraformed mars. Belters are the lowest class, and are constantly changing ownership between Martian or U.N. control. Their bones are brittle and so they can't survive on Earth, they live in darkness, underground on Dwarf Planets, moons and asteroids. The most valuable resources for them are Air and Water. They are a breeding ground for terrorism and crime is huge. Water is rationed, and mostly gained from ice miners who haul ice from the ringed planets. The point is, a Utopia cannot exist without a dystopia supporting it. In the Expanse, the Utopia (Earth) is only able to exist because of the resources the belters supply, but the belters live in Dystopia. It is not a 'bad' utopia on Earth, as people are still mostly free to do what they want, but the government has a lot of power.
A Utopia is not possible for us humans, because it would require us to all have the same wants, beliefs, ideas, etc. We would need a hive mind, or otherwise a total clone of just one, with a center, kind of like ants.
Not necessarily. Technology could always fill that gap. For example, who is to say technology will not become so advanced that we could literally forever live in our perfect reality, all by plugging ourselves into a computer? Who is to say we could not ultimately shape entire worlds around us in reality to suit each individual person? The potential with technology could always lead to a viable solution, given enough effort and resources.
Even then, you still wouldn't have a Utopia, as now everyone wants the same thing, and that will of course led to fighting on the basis of resources having limited availability.
I taped up posters around my high school saying “big brothers always watching, feel safe yet (my high schools name)” and was questioned for an hour by our resource officer and compared to Charles Manson and Hitler in one breath. I did this because they were putting in cameras infront of the bathrooms, and I wasn’t for that so I tried to peacefully protest and was taken down and put up for expulsion.
Couples and neighbors fight over the smallest things - this is definitely true. You could however create a series of utopic societies globally whose leaders only touch macro-scale issues and nothing less, leaving people to sort out the minor details. That's sustainable.
Minor correction: the most dystopias are just dystopias for the 99.9%. The top 0.1% are living a comfortable utopia. That’s why the dystopian sci-fi movies don’t work as a warning, they’re more of an advance notice you can’t escape.
Video synopsis: Think of the perfect utopian world. Now think of what it would take to create and uphold it. Is it still a utopia? No. They are the same, and no one can change that.
The problem I feel is that this can too easily be weaponised to defend a given status quo. Rather it is more useful to try and quantify these sorts of things rather than saying "ah, sounds like a Utopia, which is a Dystopia, so actually the current system is the only way" which just sorta ignores that radical transformations have happened previously
i don't believe in utopia (as something good) i think there is no perfect society. the least compulsively structured the better for individuals. the best goal would be to have less competition in society though because it would enable more compassion. maybe we should stop thinking about costructed societies and collectively start to look behind us instead of in front of us. children and poor people, and the planet with all it's other life that is not human should be given more care and compassion. but you cannot force feelings, they instead come through less force only. that's why individual freedom is important. it wouldn't be perfect, but we would be able to make the best out of everything.
jpc1918 You forgot: -Cis -Heterosexual -White -1st Worlder -Male -Job-having -Oppressive -Ableist -Christian -Right wing (Or alt-right) -Trump supporter -Litterally/worse than hitler And a whole lot more! Welcome to the regressive left (or as i like to call it: The alt-left)
Paolo Castro Actually, we've had 4 presidents who were formerly teachers. James Garfield, Chester Arthur, Grover Cleveland, and most recently, Lyndon Johnson.
Well, the years start coming and they don't stop coming. Fed to the rules and I hit the ground running. Didn't make sense not to live for fun. Your brain gets smart but your head gets dumb
Hey now, you're an all-star, get your game on, go play! Hey now, you're a rock star, get the show on, get paid! And all that glitters is gold, Only shooting stars break the mold.
It's a cool place, and they say it gets colder. You're bundled up now, wait 'till you get older! But the media men beg to differ, Judging by the hole in the satellite picture!
One important factor about any "dystopia" and "utopia" is that although it seems like the moment they appear means that they remain forever, this is NEVER the case. Because of human nature, even a society as dystopian as possible as 1984 will not last forever. Only two options are possible, it either gets better over time or it gets worse over time, the latter means that when it gets so bad it will collapse and "swing" in the other direction, therefore creating the entire opposite of the world we live in. A good example is Russia and the Soviet Union. When the situation in the Soviet Union got so out of hand, everything collapsed and it pretty much became a capitalist country (complete opposite of communism). (though I'm oversimplifying, obviously) When it feels that we're living at the edge of hell, it just means that there's just a little left before the whole world flips upside-down. And the opposite is true as well, when you work for a "perfect" world, it's only a matter of time before the world becomes everything opposite of your perfect world.
However, if the government creates an automated “Operation Insight” as was about to happen in Captain America: The Winter Soldier, with fusion run helicarriers and insanely high resolution spy satellites and a SkyNet like hacking system run by as devoted a group as Hydra, such a group, by greatly reducing the number of people necessary to rule and stopping any revolt long before it begins, can hypothetically rule forever (or until aliens with democratic ideals defeat them).
@@evannibbe9375 That should also be a comforting thought, that the only way such a dystopian hell is possible is through borderline impossible super-tech we won't have for likely our lifetimes. And, even if we did have the technology to make such a thing possible, technology also exists to counter it.
Let's rephrase the last sentence. "Fiction can give us a look into what can be unless it's a generic young adult fic with a love triangle and a mary sue
@Kota Ryorai George Orwell joined the Syndicalists in the Spanish Civil War - Anti-Authoritarian Leftists who were opposed to the Soviet Union and other Authoritarian Leftists
Dank Penut why don’t you shut the fuck up? He likes a something so that means his opinion is invalid? The mlp community isn’t even bad. It’s the loud minority that is shown to everyone.
Kevin M they say we live in a era of peace because we do... For the first time in decades major world powers haven't fought each other. Something that hasn't happened ever. Or at least not as long. Yes there are wars like the Iraq invasion or the Syrian civil war. They weren't fought on a massive scale and have lower death counts then wars prior
kind of the only possible way it could be. Atheists are Intolerant of religions by definition. Atheism is also self destructive and an illogical premise by default anyway. in the Utopia example, the politicians follow the prince, the prince needs a higher authority so you create a god and place him symbolically above the prince, and then who does god follow?, since in idea cannot exist without someone to believe in it, The People, specifically the Lower Class, "the meek shall inherit the earth" .. "its easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than a rich man to reach the kingdom of god" .. "no man cometh to the father except through me" .. the idea of a god is a way to give back power the the poor and disenfranchised, even if it is false power, by creating a religious authority as a bulwark against Kings and Tyrants. that way you have an unbroken contiguous hierarchical cycle going above the King and back to the people and up the social ladder again. if the dregs of society do not have an outlet for their frustration and jealousy, you end up with Communist style red revolutions, and mass murders of "the proletariat", humanity turns back 10,000 years to Apes beating each other over the head with rocks and sticks. Democracy and the Social Contract is literally the only thing that separates man from his inner animal instincts.
+nunya baznus Except that feudal monarchies (who supposedly answered to God) were some of the most brutal governmentes around. The idea of God acting in place of modern-day checks and balances is a flimsy and stupid concept, because God doesn't communicate. And when the guy who's supposed to stop you from being a tyrant doesn't even communicate with you, you can do whatever you want and still claim to have his backing.
@Nerdsoft .. CITATION NEEDED. ... state your premise. what "feudal monarchies" are you referring to?, and are there statistically enough of them to conclude a general trend, or are they merely outliers or exceptions to the rule?. .. a Monarchy is neither bad or good by nature. you could say that the fact President Obama authorized drone strikes in the middle east that killed women and children proves Democracy is bad and the commander in chief of the military should not have that much power, but then point out the fact no president can pass new laws without congressional approval proves Democracy is superior because it limits the power of the state. the entire premise is oxymoronical. you can take the United Kingdom for example where a number of people find the British monarchy extremely offensive and distasteful to their sensibilities. But the fact of the matter is people being offended or not offended is not a measure of a country's success, and has nothing to do with the effectiveness of a political system..... "Cuckservatives" are offended by Hillary Clinton, and "Liberal Commie filth" are offended by Donald Trump. .. no matter who becomes the leader of a country, SOMEBODY, somewhere, will be offended. No, the measure of success is wealth, productivity, GDP, education, technological advancement, poverty levels, etc. And if you look at the world today, the most sucessful and prosperous countries or regions are UK, Japan, the Netherlands, Singapore, previously Hong Kong, all countries with a monarchy in place. and all extremely prosperous and free, because they had a monarchy in place. having a symbolic leader gives the people a sense National Pride, and unites all citizens under a common set of ideals and manifest destiny. you claim god doesn't speak to them, but thats a ridiculous oversimplification and misconception. generally speaking the religious leader would have held power over the decisions of the king. the Theocracy functions under the monarchy as a branch of the government. obviously in modern times we know that god does not actually exist, thats not the point, IDEAS exist, codes of ethics and morality exists, and scripture exists which can be interpreted by a high council of religious leaders. when the right to vote and the right to public protest doesn't exist, The collection plate becomes the ballot box, the religion tells people what they want to hear, the religion conforms to the will of the people, and the religious leader relays the voice of the people to the king.
I've always thought that all utopias are inherently dystopian, because there's no such thing as a "perfect" anything, and the idea of chasing perfection is heavily flawed.
Most utopia's are dystopias. But there are always better societies, and yes thinking you are in a perfect society is where a problem manifests. We definitely do not live in a perfect society, and we definitely could do better, but we can never reach perfection.
Chasing perfection isn't flawed, it's a task which we may never complete, but it will further our society. Socdems are revisionist traitors, but their doomed struggle to achieve a democratic _and_ capitalist society has lead to many good policies being enacted around the world.
Well said, i dont much care for socdems either, but even if i think them to be traitors i'd rather live in a social democracy than this neo-fascist plutocratic hellhole. The problem with america is that we believe we are the apex, even as we spend 600 billion - 1 trillion on military while people starve, we still think we are the model society. It's when we think we've got the best society possible that we stagnate, and honestly i think that's whats happening now.. And america is just one of these stagnating societies hellbent on resisting change, there are many. That's what troubles me the most.
The title of this video is just perfect, a good reference to the "Double Think" from 1984, where two radically different, radically opposed things, are the same: Freedom is Slavery, so that... A revolutionary wants to free you from slavery, but you refuse becaude *freedom is slavery* Big Brother tells you to become a slave (as if you weren't before) and you are happy because *slavery is freedom* The same logic is applied to every two contrary words, like Peace and War, Democracy and Dictatorship, Capitalism and Socialism, Bad and Good, Black and White, Wealth and Poverty, Power and Submission etc.
Indeed Friend. It is the same only from a different point of view The Good thing is that always there is Third Way or another option Black and White: The Middle is Grey Capitalism and Socialism:Well,Fascism isn’t exactly the “Option C” But it was portrayed like that back in the Middle of the XX Century Wealth and Poverty:The Bourgeis(Middle Class) will be the Middle Democracy and Dictatorship: I don’t know maybe Monarchy or an Authoritarian Democracy would be the Middle In most cases there it is another Option...Good that Society isn’t always radicalized
It has been argued that Utopia and Dystopia are not merely opposites, but rather two halves of The Human Experience. Utopian literature stimulates the intellectual part of the human brain, and much of the appeal is trying to intellectually figure out how such a society would function. While dystopian literature stimulates the emotional and visceral side. We don't need to think about how a dystopian Society functions, we simply feel and experience its horror. This may also be part of the reason why there are significantly more dystopian works of fiction than utopian. not everybody enjoys intellectually deconstructing and idea and frankly the very notion can come off as pompous. but everybody can feel and experience something on an emotional level.
@ wo ai ni! xD lol, I was grinding my teeth reading that garbage. He could have at least argued for people's tendencies toward pessimism, but no... almost 100 upvotes for utter high-falutin, incongruous nonsense. "It has been argued" that Bob Walsh loves the smell of his own farts.
the thing about 1984 is that it really specifies that we will never know when we are in a dystopia the dystopia will be normal to all those born after its formation
Well its more like "what is a Utopia to one is not a Utopia for many other and *might* even be a Dystopia for very few". That sentence is used way too often considering how it oversimplifies to problem.
Like you said, "Utopia" is very very much a product of its time. Communal living where you can move freely across you living space? An anti-thesis to the earlier feudal system with peasants largely bound to their land. Same goes for the "Everyone needs to farm for two years" rule; this is means this is a class/caste less society. Same goes for everyone wearing the same clothes. This doesn't mean a totalitarian regime that makes everyone the same (that hasn't been invented yet), it means no one distinguishes himself by his clothing to be above someone else (think swords, crowns ore purple capes). Kings/princes that got elected weren't as novel in 1500 as you might think, although the voting members were high aristocracy in the middle ages. Although many guild and free-cities, especially Hanse cities, had limited forms of democracy as well - Thomas More just thought that idea to its very end. Inclusion of slavery seems to me a neo-classical approach - The renaissance thought highly of the Ancients, after all. End in case of criminals better than capital punishment such as hacking off body parts or public execution which were favored at the time, at least for the common masses. Public storage facilities instead of private ownership is a message that the government is incredibly efficient and takes care of its citizens. The first central governments in Egypt and Mesopotania came into being to make grain storage and food distribution better. Same goes for the first written systems. Same goes for having a passport, which I imagine would have been a rather novel idea - at least to issue them to everyone, not just official function holders. Atheism being evil is very common accross all cultures and religions - especially when philisophical thought and religious though were intertwined. Seperation of the two was relatively recent in Western society, and the notion is still present in the belief that atheists are unethical because they don't have a moral compass bestowed them from a higher being. All religions living freely was truly liberal at a time of Reformation and the clash of western and mid-eastern culture, altough I belive the Ottmoman advancements towards Europe came after More. The idea of not killing but detaining an enemy likely meant a different thing back than, as you would kill a peasant in war, but hold a noble for ransom. Which implies that More's Utoptians held all live as noble. Modern Dystopia/Utopia fiction is similiary a product of its time. Think mind control, humanity going to the stars, totaliarism, influence of/over the media, the ideologies and politics involved, genetic manipulation, Total War and so on.
Ottoman advances towards Europe, one can say, started right after the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Thomas More's Utopia was written in 1516, so the clash of western and mid-eastern culture must have been well under way. Liked your analysis BTW. Edit: Let's not forget the Muslim occupied Spain (711-1492).
More's Utopia? ..... Join the Army!!! Everyone lives in a bunk room with their squad and they all wear green. Equipment is locked up until needed and food is distributed in the mess hall. The privates get to do all the slave labour and the Sergeants shout at them for doing it wrong.
Only if you are a grunt. My father is in the cavalry, so he gets a fancy dress uniform, a stetson hat, sabre, and flies around in a plane. he and my mother also own two houses. My uncle is even higher ranked, but works in the army bureaucracy. So yeah, once you get into officers, that comparison fails.
I guess in a way that is true. When you accomplish all your dreams… now what? Wait to die? They always said the journey is greater than the destination.
Most people in this world live in poverty and even people in first world countries have lifetime debt they can't pay and have to live in subpar conditions (Of course third world shitholes are worse but still) so just because we can tell that we live in a dystopia it doesn't mean we don't.
A true utopia would ban religion, and I am not even joking. (Well, actually... In a true utopia, people would be smart enough to stay away from religion on their own.)
@@wasserruebenvergilbungsvirus A true Utopia gives people the tools to make their choice themselves. Coming from an atheist myself, a world where anyone that questions atheism immediately being given disgust and distrust would be very, very bad.
@Wasserrübenvergilbungsvirus If you think that banning religion will create a utopia, I've got some bad news for you. You clearly don't understand the crucial role that religion plays in holding societies together. Humans are born with a spiritual need, and they will fill that with religion or they will act like modern humans and worship corporations, idols, movies, and other things. Personally, I would rather see people worship a deity that has morals that followers are supposed to abide by rather than risk society worshiping McDonalds and Marvel movies. In the latter situation, morality is inconsistent and spiritually deficient. I say all of this as a former Agnostic Atheist who has returned to Christianity. I thought that religion was stupid, and that society did not need it. After witnessing the offensive decadence of many people in my country and seeing this as a result of a society absent of God, I quickly understood the importance of religion and went on a spiritual journey to reconnect with Jesus Christ.
You should read the book "The Giver" By Lois Lowry which is about a boy that lives in a utopia with no freedom but it turns out to be a dystopia. It is a great book!
I love how you expect anyone to read this book after you've divulged (what seem like) key details of the entire synopsis. Really feels like there's no point once I know that.
Stephen Bakasa Read the book. It's very good, and that isn't really a spoiler, you can pretty much derive everything stated in the comment in the first few chapters.
So now I've read the book, I've given my self a few days to digest, and no. Personally I don't think it was a good book at all. It was enjoyable through the beginning and middle, but everything after that invalidated the rest of its merits, IMO. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone reading this thread.
@@stephenbakasa2310 serious props for reading the book. I respectfully disagree with your opinion, but it's certainly a valid one. In regard to the original comment, do you still believe it's a spoiler?
_We._ _Brave New World._ _Nineteen-Eighty Four._ (Forgot to mention _The Iron Heel_ !) True classics, right here. Each of them have the same dystopian-like society, but have different means of bringing it about and keeping it.
Edward Collier Ayn Rand was a disgusting woman of horrifyingly narcissistic and selfish beliefs. Her whole basis of philosophy is that humans evolved to be naturally only self focused. This is not true, as survival in numbers dominated our evolutionary path. She calls altruism the root of all evil, but that's where all good sprouts. Humanity needs to care about humanity. Anthem is well written and the propaganda is extravagantly done, but it is too absolutely drenched in hatred.
Kendall Moore You make a good point, but there's one thing. She once wrote a philosophical essay literally titled "The Virtue of Selfishness." The title is completely not ironic in the slightest, as that is exactly what the essay was about. She did see selfishness as a virtue.
All these jokes and off-color comments instead of discussing the content.... RU-vid in a nutshell. On topic: I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness. Everything I remember from childhood and my teenage years is about the promise of a Utopian paradise, a paradise without death doing Jehovah's work and ONLY Jehovah's work. Like a Utopia, everyone would have a role that they could not deviate from, else they would be sent to the eternal lake of fire (not Hell, since per the JW's there is no Hell, only the eternal lake of fire where you go if you don't qualify for Paradise). To me, Utopia has always sounded like Hell. I prefer freedom.
Oh no, there is no hell, only a void. Until Paradise arrives, then you burn in a lake of fire. But there's no hell, only a void of non-existence. Except for when you exist for that lake of fire. Make sense?
Hey! A fellow ex-dub. Third generation born in, I'm currently stuck in right now, and just got back from the lame after-memorial Sunday talk. Hope you're doing well friend. How's life outside the cult?
Absolutely great. When you turn 18 get out as soon as you can. College is expensive but it's the way I got out, moved to a dorm far from where my old congregation would be able to reach me and just stopped going. Hopefully your parents can respect your decisions like mine did and not pressure you to go back in.
One thing with the slavery in Utopia is that it wasn't like we think of slavery. It wasn't hard labor. If you were a criminal the you were working towards your freedom and depending on what you did you might not even be chained. And the people from other countries willingly came to Utopia to become slaves in order to escape their home country. These people often weren't even chained they just did work like anyone else would. So while there was slavery it wasn't as bad as we think of slavery as being.
Miyamoto Musashi That was what I was thinking I just couldn't remember what it was called. It does kind of make sense though because instead of locking them up you can have them work to better the country.
I just wrote a research paper on Orwell's impact on politics. Couldn't have made this video a week earlier, huh Cody? Well, I've always liked your brother Zach better
we live in a Utopia... (An alternate one at that) if it was exact I would be killed or thrown into slavery.. But a few things still live on. (And humanity will be destroyed due to) A lack of a "long term goul" (sorry but.. Your priorities.. Don't matter) we can't make ourselves.. To Individualised.. If we do.. Then we are as good as destroyed.. That is why all of this bad stuff in the world is happening.. "Sometimes, when the great fall comes, we may shut our eyes, and think that the long fall, is only a bad dream.. But it's isn't. And we must realise that.. (Not in those exact words) -Carl Sagan
Because there is no real Utopia. There is no perfect system. Every person has a different opinion, the government is to liberal, to constraint, a to elite dynasties, a house of morons, it helps the poor to less, it taxes the rich to much. And if you write a dystopia/utopia you go one of many paths down, just till the end. Then you see how a really free or all knowing word works. So the only difference between a dystopia and an utopia is. In a dystopia the author knows from the beginning, that such a world couldn't exist and in an utopia the author learns it while writing his story.
@@uignireddngfiurdsgfiurdse "dictatorship of the proletariat". Marx WANTED a group of working class revolutionaries to create an authoritarian "temporary vanguard" to crush the bourgeoisie from being able to regain lost power. Marx wanted a dictatorship that would just...voluntarily give up limitless power once they'd killed all the rich people and stuff (lol)
@@markyhar2241 That's actually not correct. The "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" is the idea of excluding the Bourgeoisie from political power in order to achieve communism, thus the proletariat will have absolute control over them. The formation of this would be socialism, while the end goal would be a stateless, classless, and money-less society; Or in other words, communism.
@@spookyanarchist4167 but what did he want this dictatorship of proles to do again? Find the most scientific Marxists within and give them all the mechanisms of the state till the bourgeois were all gone? I live for commies telling me that "hurr durr the dictatorship of proletariat isn't an aksual dictatorship silly it's a philosophy" because it means they didn't even read that page properly in the manifesto.
@Luke Okopski which type of democracy?, absolute/restricted/parliamentary/direct/pure/patriarchal/elitist etc. Because, quick hint...Marx hated democracy because of the illusion of choice and illusions of progress...
Based off of the ideas set forth in this video, I define dystopia as an environment that can't be changed. Doesn't matter if the ideals that crafted the society were sound to the majority, there will always be those who find discomfort, and if society always refuses to modify itself to accommodate those who are in discontent, that discontentment will spread to the majority. If nothing changes until the end of time, eventually everyone will accept that they're in the worst possible scenario government wise, no matter what ideologies that government revolves around.
Michael Renatus That is a very good way of putting it. The reason why monarchy was replaced with democracy is because people decided they wanted the majority to have the ability to make changes, rather than just one person. Although whether this change was a good thing or not depends on who you ask.
Hi there - I'm a secondary English teacher and I use this video in class every year when introducing the genre of dystopia. It's the only one I've found that so clearly and succinctly describes Sir Thomas More's original utopia and the ways in which it's actually dystopian - thank you! However, the only subtitles available are the auto-generated ones, which are often completely inaccurate. Subtitles really help many of my students understand auditory input. Would you please consider adding subtitles to the video? I know many others would benefit as well.
It's a little disingenuous to say Karl Marx's idea were More's Utopianism + healthcare. Marx and Engels spent a lot of writing space to critique the Utopians of their past in order to build a theory of socialism that was based on a scientific analysis of history and political-economy. The best example of this is Frederick Engels own work "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific"
Communism is a science. It's a mad mix of philosophy, politics, economy, social studies that all create a solid materialist basis. Those that you call "uToPiAs" are anarchists' ideals.
@@user-gm3wr9dc9m earth imperial is being threathen people knowing brainwashed propaganda future advanced technology cool,luxury,fancy thing their and want join alien military multigalactic and start attacking the truth real enemy
GTA5Player1 Well, seeing as that is completely subjective as there can never truly be a perfect society, then by some standards it would still be considered a dystopia.
Sure, it can be a little subjective, but there has to be something that's a "real" Utopia. I mean, slavery and people basically being assigned housing? Ya, that's not Utopia in any way. Maybe in the 1400s or whenever they said it's from. To be honest, I don't get why OP used the original "Utopia" considering it's kind of outdated.
utopia means "no place" for a reason. Its not supposed to be realistic or achievable. Its supposed to be a thought exercise to determine what would be best for society.
Recommended reading: News from Nowhere, Herland. Written by people who think their societies are utopias, but anyone can see how dystopian they would be.
In 1984, it is heavily implied that at some point after the 2050s, INGSOC collapsed. The Appendix (newspeak dictionary), states that newspeak became the primary in the 2050s, which means it was written sometime after. They also speak of INGSOC like a relic, so either the proles rose up (which is unlikely given their full indoctrination into newspeak) or Oceania finally fell due to Eurasia or East Asia gaining the upper hand. Personally I think that it was the areas that were hard to control which lead to INGSOC's downfall, as their production always seemed to be in decline, which makes it even more surprising that they managed to stay in power for so long.
The thing is, that a Utopia is a perfect representation of the perfect Dystopia. The theme of perfection that a Utopia conveys is often corrupting, or a facade to hide a darker aspect. There is no such thing as an Utopia.
Thank you for your information! I'm using this as research for my english class which was given an article about Twin Oaks (a so-called _utopian_ society in Virginia). This research will help with my Socratic Seminar group talk. This brings a lot of help for me, and I hope these details will help me in my reasoning that is partially against this concept.
He did criticized that the media caused the mass shootings in the US by encouraging those shooters to do such acts all in the name of making them "famous" and attracting views
@@fulcrum2951 in a way, yeah, they made it a bigger problem. But it is a problem that must be addressed, or is mourning for a new mass shooting every 2 months or so the new normal here in America? We are not perfect, but are the deaths of innocent supposed to be normal? I believed it's an issue that must be addressed and sacrifices must be made, even conceding on certain rights. The 13th Amendment took away the rights of slavers to enslave, and yet people are fine with those rights being taken away from them. Law enforcement in any country prevented people from the right of killing and stealing each other. They are restricted by some dumb man-made from doing so. Yet that stupid little law protected people's right to live and their property rights as well. Or is there a movement that says murderers demand the right to murder that I haven't heard of?
Probably, because any thoughts against it would be considered a threat, no matter how small it is. Even agnostic-Christians would be considered a threat.
Yes, do you know the meaning of agnostic? An agnostic is someone who does not claim to know the truth about God. You can be an agnostic but still believe in God, but not be 100% sure.
They are not mutually exclusive and I'd make an argument to say that agnosticism is a non-stance if you leave it at that. I'd say I'm an atheist however also agnostic because logically you can't prove or disprove the existence of a "God."
isn't every type of society good as long as the people living in it love and embrace it? i mean, many Americans are proud of their "freedom" with no healthcare and social security while the riches EU countries have the opposite, and both their citizen embrace the basic views on the subject (in general) they aren't trying to overthrow their government.. there are of course within these countries different political views. i think even a communist state would work if everybody agreed to the rules..
Just because the people love it doesn't mean it's right. The people of north korea don't know that there are countries woth freedom out there, so they think what they have is the best
yes i agree, a state wouldn't necessarily be good. but it could function very well. still, i think. the best states are places where you don't have to agree with the state to live a normal and healthy life.
No because Utopia is the perfect place. The best imaginable place. There is a reason it literally translates to "no place". Thats because its not supposed to be reachable. Its just a method of though to develop goals for our society and see things that could be better. Very similar to the role of dystopias in that sense with the difference being that Utopias are constructive critique and dystopias focus on the criticism. Also Dystopias make for a much better story which is why you don´t see Utopias often outside of political essays.
