In the 1880's, there was a blockbuster book that I have heard mentioned only once when talking to others: Looking Backward.
Here's what Wikipedia says about it:
Looking Backward: 2000–1887 is a utopian novel by Edward Bellamy, a journalist and writer from Chicopee Falls, Massachusetts; it was first published in 1888. It was the third largest bestseller of its time, after Uncle Tom's Cabin and Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ.
It's a Utopian novel, where a guy from the 1880's falls asleep and wakes up in the year 2000, where society has solved the issues of greed, corporations, war, poverty, crime, and starvation.
I read this book in my 20's, and it made an impact. It was logical. It was comprehensive. It discussed how society could function. I also liked a few things it predicted. That music would be available to anyone at the flip of a switch. That food preparation would mostly be outside the home. How to equalize the attractiveness of labor by adjusting hours worked per week rather than wages. It dealt with oversupply of some things, undersupply in others. A wholly reasonable work.
I'm halfway through treading it again at 40. A lot still rings true. There is enough productivity in 1/10th of America to give adequate food, housing, shelter and safety to every person on earth. Maybe add another 1/10th of America to give everyone basic health care and education. The elimination of crime and conflict would cover that 20% needed to provide it. And, since everyone is conscripted to be a general laborer for 3 years, everyone knows and understands what it's like to be in other people's shoes.
I love that the book has put choices and individual choice central to how society functions. Also, there are objective standards (Confuscianistic) and competency tests to get out of general laboring. One assumes they are fair.
However, there are some shortcomings. So far, there isn't much mention of race and gender relations. It doesn't touch on modern conflicts like the 2nd amendment or Abortion. It kinda assumes away tribalism and tribal conflict, tracing nine-tenths of crime to poverty or inequality or lust for money. They conveniently got rid of lust for money and replaced it with lust/competition for prizes.
From the Buddhism perspective, there isn't too much given to greed, anger, or wishful thinking. Equality gets rid of it in the book, but I have never known equality to solve much on an elementary school playfield, let alone in the arenas of adult competition. Even people who play baseball cheat and self-delude. Such is the rapacious nature of desire that two gold mountains could not satisfy.
I'm interested in finishing the book, but my memory so far tells me why I liked it before and am more skeptical now. It is true that things could work this way if people worked together. But such an equilibrium is unstable and rife for a demagogue of the Octavia Butler or Margaret Atwood dreamed of variety to take over the reigns of power. Manifest destiny shines brightly to those who see it least clearly. Or, there is the phrase, "this is why we can't have nice things".... something always messes it up.
There are also the problems of the left or of liberals. I've met many lefties who write eloquently and fight for justice. But then you find out their idea of justice is sometimes filled with alternate injustices. From the buddhism perspective, an example is that they want to get rid of racism but are okay with non-racist greed, anger, and delusion.
In any case, I do recommend the book. It's good reading and free to read (Project Gutenberg). UUDR.
No comments:
Post a Comment