Dystopia

Recently, I have read some dystopian” novels, including the first, Iron Heel by Jack London (1908), Animal farm by George Orwell (1945), and Daemon (2009)and Freedom (2010)by Daniel Suarez. “”Dystopian” is the antonym for “utopian:” a view of a future society in which all is not well. In each of these novels, a small elite controls the vast majority of humankind through manipulation, monetary control, repression and distraction. Each novel is told from the perspective of the downtrodden and portrays the cause of the masses as a noble, sacred cause. In each, through superior wit, ingenuity, determination and sheer numbers, the downtrodden Overcome, at least for a while. In each, extreme conflict between and sometimes within the classes results in great human and sacrifice and bloodshed. The poor are slaughtered by the rich and in their uprising they return the favor. The author’s solution, in each case, is a revolt of the working class against the rich. Violence and destruction are seen as the only means by which the under classes can overcome. The spilling of blood is viewed as an inevitable means to a worthwhile goal; the sacrifice of the few for the benefit of the many. Among the ranks of those who believe in “the cause” are many who are nobly willing to die for the cause, so it’s not just a manipulation or coercion of the many by the few. For me, two issues stand out whether the revolution is fictional as in these books, or real, as in the American colonies, France, Russia, China, Vietnam or Cambodia: Inevitably, someone within the altruistic ranks takes control and in George Orwell’s words, becomes “more equal” and therefore deserving of more benefits than the rest. Thee second issue is related to the first and is the one I choose to address in this essay. That is, the means of revolution. Is the expenditure of lives worth the outcome? Is there a balance between the benefit of a successful revolution equal or greater than the sum of the lives sacrificed? More importantly, is there another way? My premise is: 1. No, the sacrifice of one human for the many is not balanced, even for freedom and 2. There is another way. The “other way” has been pointed to in many cultures and in many sacred texts. The wording is eerily similar. The speakers are often themselves from the downtrodden class or become one in the course of their quiet non-violent revolution. They are usually sacrificed on the altar of the rulers and are often abandoned by their own followers. But, still, down through the ages, their words ring clear and true to the listening heart: Do to the other what is in your own heart as an ideal for yourself. Impractical, impossible utopian dream? Yes and no. Yes, because we are selfish, self-centered beings and it is so very unlikely that enough of us will consider this rule of life to make a difference. No, because even one person who views the world in this way is a tiny spore, a single seed with the potential of leavening the whole lump of dough or growing into a tree which is the progenitor of the forest. It is the power of one. It is the life lived in a way that gives more than it receives; takes less than it gives; seeks the uplifting of those with whom it comes in contact and slowly, subtly spreads its anarchic message and method to those around it. It is a life worth living, this giving and blessing rather than taking and destroying. Perhaps, as we continue to see the destruction of life for doubtful goals; as we look within our own hearts, we will be drawn to this simple, profound message which all the wise men of all time have espoused: It is more blessed to give than to receive; do is your desire to the other; bless your enemy. Give without counting the cost, Love your enemies. Could we not conquer class, hoarding of resources, slavery, oppression with this gentle, destroying force? Would not the infection spread not only to peers but to oppressors as well? May it be so. 10.6.12