Panopticon
Panopticon
Post rating:
+
In "Utopia", a 2013 conspiracy thriller TV series set in Britain, a secret organisation dedicated to population control through genetic modification and other biological experiments demonstrate just how thoroughly neo-liberal brainwashing has progressed in today's society.
The premise of the secret organisation ("The Network") is essentially that the only way to prevent a demographic disaster is to alter humans at the biological level. By sterilising 95% of humans using their deceptive vaccine against a new form of influenza, so their theory goes, the population of the world will age and die off precipitously, leaving a tiny portion who are unaffected (we aren't told how - presumably those involved will not be administered the vaccine and will "inherit the earth").
There are a number of oversights in the plot which are directly caused by the liberal mindset of the writer, Dennis Kelly.
Firstly, we have the philosophical quandary - by what right does any individual claim to have a greater claim on the world's resources than any other? The liberal will respond with appeals to private property as the basis of their claim, and indeed private property is the overriding concern of several of the characters, who are so wrapped up in acquiring a nest egg for the coming utopia that they fully shirk their responsibilities towards humanity in exposing the conspiracy. The Network are so thoroughly liberal that they are willing to commit genocide to protect the lineage of property. The communist realises the subjective nature of these claims to property, the circular logic involved in the supposed justness of the claims, and knows the true answer is that no individual has any greater claim to property than that he can produce with his own hands. Anything else he acquires only at the forbearance of society. Thus the future offspring of The Network being the only ones allowed to own property (by virtue of being born) is a gross injustice from a communist perspective (but not a liberal one).
Secondly, the picture Utopia presents is of incontrovertible market freedom in the future, a state of affairs straight out of the "end of history" reading of political trends. Rather than reducing the consumption of resources around the world with a sensible and sustainable planned economy, the utopia being brought about will clearly be a bourgeois dictatorship on the parliamentarian model. This outlines the possibility of further genocides once the earth is repopulated by The Network's descendent, of course, and the need to short-sightedly sterilise more people. The liberal has no conception of an alternative to market economies; as the saying goes, "it is easier to imagine the end of the world than it is to imagine the end of capitalism" (Jameson, 1994). The communist knows that consumption of resources is NOT a completely private matter. Society has a say, whether that say is heeded by the state (as in a revolutionary society) or not (as in a bourgeois dictatorship). This follows directly from my first point, since those resources are owned by all of humanity by virtue of no individual having produced them. The communist, contrary to the close mindedness of liberals, can thus imagine a world in which the bulk of humanity is not deprived of a reasonable living standard by the beneficiaries of the private accumulation of wealth.
Thirdly, the social programmes of the People's Republic of China demonstrate a clear alternative to genocide. A populace with sufficient class consciousness can understand and implement a plan of population control without the kind of deception and force involved in The Network's plan. The one-child policy has stabilised the growth of the urban population just as the literacy campaign has stabilised it in the countryside. Female literacy is the factor most correlated with decreasing family sizes across the world. This is believed to stem from the empowerment of the women in question, allowing them to know and decide when it is in their interests to have babies. The communist is a feminist by definition, and the empowerment of women (alongside the working class as a whole) is a very important factor factor in the communist's decisions and beliefs. The liberal, on the other hand, is willing to allow deprivation to occur, since he sees this deprivation as a result of an individual's actions - Ron Paul's "let him die" moment is a great example of this as it relates to public policy. It is none of his business if the women next door cannot read or make good decisions, or even make decisions at all. Only the containment of the ill effects of this laissez-faire policy concerns him. The liberal simply wants a police force large enough to prevent intrusions on his (unjustly acquired, as I've mentioned) property. So it goes in Utopia: The Network are fundamentally protecting their property (and the future property of their offspring) through the policing of the unwashed masses. The alternative to genocide breaches their world view.
Could Dennis Kelly be raising these questions on purpose? Does he realise the inefficacy of liberalism and hence produced these plot holes to demonstrate the inefficacy and thus promote ideological correctness? No, the counter-examples are never mentioned. The liberalism of the characters is never questioned. The injustice of the protection of private property is never raised, only the injustice of various bourgeois concerns, such as the liquidation of various enemies of The Network and their cruelty to animals. In ignoring the genuine solution to the problem of unrestrained private consumption of resources, he acts in the interests of the bourgeois dictatorship.
The premise of the secret organisation ("The Network") is essentially that the only way to prevent a demographic disaster is to alter humans at the biological level. By sterilising 95% of humans using their deceptive vaccine against a new form of influenza, so their theory goes, the population of the world will age and die off precipitously, leaving a tiny portion who are unaffected (we aren't told how - presumably those involved will not be administered the vaccine and will "inherit the earth").
There are a number of oversights in the plot which are directly caused by the liberal mindset of the writer, Dennis Kelly.
Firstly, we have the philosophical quandary - by what right does any individual claim to have a greater claim on the world's resources than any other? The liberal will respond with appeals to private property as the basis of their claim, and indeed private property is the overriding concern of several of the characters, who are so wrapped up in acquiring a nest egg for the coming utopia that they fully shirk their responsibilities towards humanity in exposing the conspiracy. The Network are so thoroughly liberal that they are willing to commit genocide to protect the lineage of property. The communist realises the subjective nature of these claims to property, the circular logic involved in the supposed justness of the claims, and knows the true answer is that no individual has any greater claim to property than that he can produce with his own hands. Anything else he acquires only at the forbearance of society. Thus the future offspring of The Network being the only ones allowed to own property (by virtue of being born) is a gross injustice from a communist perspective (but not a liberal one).
Secondly, the picture Utopia presents is of incontrovertible market freedom in the future, a state of affairs straight out of the "end of history" reading of political trends. Rather than reducing the consumption of resources around the world with a sensible and sustainable planned economy, the utopia being brought about will clearly be a bourgeois dictatorship on the parliamentarian model. This outlines the possibility of further genocides once the earth is repopulated by The Network's descendent, of course, and the need to short-sightedly sterilise more people. The liberal has no conception of an alternative to market economies; as the saying goes, "it is easier to imagine the end of the world than it is to imagine the end of capitalism" (Jameson, 1994). The communist knows that consumption of resources is NOT a completely private matter. Society has a say, whether that say is heeded by the state (as in a revolutionary society) or not (as in a bourgeois dictatorship). This follows directly from my first point, since those resources are owned by all of humanity by virtue of no individual having produced them. The communist, contrary to the close mindedness of liberals, can thus imagine a world in which the bulk of humanity is not deprived of a reasonable living standard by the beneficiaries of the private accumulation of wealth.
Thirdly, the social programmes of the People's Republic of China demonstrate a clear alternative to genocide. A populace with sufficient class consciousness can understand and implement a plan of population control without the kind of deception and force involved in The Network's plan. The one-child policy has stabilised the growth of the urban population just as the literacy campaign has stabilised it in the countryside. Female literacy is the factor most correlated with decreasing family sizes across the world. This is believed to stem from the empowerment of the women in question, allowing them to know and decide when it is in their interests to have babies. The communist is a feminist by definition, and the empowerment of women (alongside the working class as a whole) is a very important factor factor in the communist's decisions and beliefs. The liberal, on the other hand, is willing to allow deprivation to occur, since he sees this deprivation as a result of an individual's actions - Ron Paul's "let him die" moment is a great example of this as it relates to public policy. It is none of his business if the women next door cannot read or make good decisions, or even make decisions at all. Only the containment of the ill effects of this laissez-faire policy concerns him. The liberal simply wants a police force large enough to prevent intrusions on his (unjustly acquired, as I've mentioned) property. So it goes in Utopia: The Network are fundamentally protecting their property (and the future property of their offspring) through the policing of the unwashed masses. The alternative to genocide breaches their world view.
Could Dennis Kelly be raising these questions on purpose? Does he realise the inefficacy of liberalism and hence produced these plot holes to demonstrate the inefficacy and thus promote ideological correctness? No, the counter-examples are never mentioned. The liberalism of the characters is never questioned. The injustice of the protection of private property is never raised, only the injustice of various bourgeois concerns, such as the liquidation of various enemies of The Network and their cruelty to animals. In ignoring the genuine solution to the problem of unrestrained private consumption of resources, he acts in the interests of the bourgeois dictatorship.
Edited by Panopticon ()
Ironicwarcriminal
Ironicwarcriminal
Post rating:
~
Hyding?
Ironicwarcriminal
Ironicwarcriminal
Post rating:
~
But yeah Terra Nova was hilariously like this too.
[account deactivated]
mustang19
mustang19
Post rating:
~
I hope Americans all die to make room for British TV series.
Crow
Crow
Post rating:
+
Check this shit out
Cheers
Cheers
swampman
swampman
Dont Mess With Sucess
Post rating:
+
Panopticon posted:Could Dennis Kelly be raising these questions on purpose? Does he realise the inefficacy of liberalism and hence produced these plot holes to demonstrate the inefficacy and thus promote ideological correctness? No
good literary device
Squalid
Squalid
D.C.
Post rating:
+
I don't know why the global elite would ever want to enact world wide population control, it's not like it costs them anything when excess proles starve
mustang19
mustang19
Post rating:
~
I don't know why the global elite would ever want to enact world wide population control, it's not like it costs them anything when excess proles starve
Smaller population = more organically sustainable hippie communes = trotskyism = capitalist victory.
Superabound
Superabound
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating:
~
Western media's use of population control as an antagonistic plot device is designed solely to reinforce the public's indoctrinated revulsion towards Communism
aerdil
aerdil
Post rating:
+
my political philosophy teacher trotted out stalin today as an example of a drawback to socialism. had 2 bite my tongue so i wouldnt out myself
mustang19
mustang19
Post rating:
+
[account deactivated]
ilmdge
ilmdge
Online
Post rating:
+
gyrofry
gyrofry
Kurdt
Post rating:
+
every fucking day. every single fucking day
deadken
deadken
penitent
Post rating:
+
the fact that utopia is tthe best british drama in ages says more about british drama than it does about utopia, imo,
Ironicwarcriminal
Ironicwarcriminal
Post rating:
~
um you're forgetting the Midsomer murders, the only show left on that dessicated island which dares to honour it's actual indigenous culture.
Ironicwarcriminal
Ironicwarcriminal
Post rating:
~
and question time when nick griffin is on