Ah, because Americans are innately superior to those foreign brown people, right?
This is just American exceptionalism.
You honestly see no difference between the USA, a prosperous country that has almost 250 years of democratic rule behind it, and Afghanistan, a small country that has been is a state of perpetual war since 1980 and whose citizens live on $600-$1000 a year?
Exactly. That is what makes Brave New World arguably scarier than 1984. It only looks bad to an outside observer. Inside the system seems pretty good. It’s only when you step back when you realize how their society is exploitive, empty, stagnant and sad.
I didn’t say anything like that. They are both the same however in that both are composed of human beings with the same flaws and tendencies. And for most of its history American “democracy” has been a joke. “Rule by rich white guys” is not “democracy”.
A general comment to all those who think It Could Happen Here.
Modern history is replete with societies being subjugated by totalitarian rule. There’s a remarkable variety of them, seemingly so large a spectrum that the spectre of dystopia might befall anyone, anywhere. We can never know what wild set of circumstances might occur in the future, but we can look to history and see if there are any commonalities whatsoever.
There is. An absolutely enormous one. No country with a long history of stable democratic government has ever fallen into that abyss.
This sounds wrong, I know. But look at the individual histories of the countries that are high on the dystopian scale. Germany. Germany was a relatively young country in 1933. It had formed as a nation as recently as 1871. It was ruled by a monarch overseeing 27 provinces, each with a petty ruler. Wilhelm hated the British style of monarchy and took back as much power as he could. The monarchy was overturned only by the devastation of WWI and a series of woefully week governments ensured. Russia. Total authoritarian monarchy with limited parliamentary powers after 1905. Italy. Another new nation with a series of kings. China. Dominated by foreign powers after the Opium Wars, and with virtually no internal democratic institutions at any point. Japan. Ruled by a long-standing dynasty and controlled by the military. Spain. A series of weak kings. And those are the most westernized examples.
But France never went this route. The Scandinavian countries never went this route. The UK never went this route. Most of the countries in their Commonwealth never went this route. True, the Middle Eastern countries they dominated went to hereditary kingships and absolutist rule, but those always were nominal monarchies. South Africa had apartheid, but that is a much truer representative of Der Trihs’ rule by oligarchy, just as the slave/JimCrow system in the American South was.
The U.S. as a whole has its faults and its historical atrocities, but when put in the context of world governments of the past 150 years it shines pretty brightly. Things were much, much worse than today during the Depression and we didn’t slide. Things were much worse during Vietnam and we didn’t slide. We are not 90% of the way there. We aren’t 2% of the way there.
And that’s all in addition to the sheer physical impossibility of the problem. Most, if not all, of the countries that were taken over were small or highly centralized or both. How do you take over the U.S. without a disaster on a scale that makes the notion of a “united states” to take over an oxymoron? If a million people riot in places like Egypt or Brazil to demand freedoms and good governance, how do you prevent that in a country where those are taken for granted?
I’m not an optimist by nature. The future is unknowable. Weird things will happen, guaranteed. Bad things will happen, guaranteed. I repeat, nonetheless, there is no foreseeable pathway from here to totalitarian dystopia in the U.S. If it happens, it’s something completely off the charts. I can’t deny that possibility but by the same token you can’t predict it as a reality. Stable democracy really does matter, and always has.
But … but … they’re PLUCKY!
Guys, for the record, we are living in the middle of a takeover of US society by a wealthy oligopoly. One percent of the people own 65 percent of the country’s wealth. Despite the massive fraud and illegal acts that were undertaken in the lead up to the crash of 2008, none of the big bankers have been prosecuted. In fact, quite recently, our Justice Department found itself unable to prosecute a large bank (HSBC) that ADMITTED to laundering billions of dollars for the Mexican drug cartels and our sworn enemy Al-Qaeda.
Corporations are people. Money is speech.
Whassamatter froggies, water not hot enough for you yet?
I would love to have more money. However, that does not make me part of the put-upon masses in your basic dystopia scenario.
True. And I think I could make a fair case for it happening in an extremely left-leaning society as easily as the extremely right wing society.
The key factors are human nature and the principles of behavior modification combined with extremism.
My bolding. Not to pick nits here, but the U.S. is also nearly always at war. Not with Eurasia, though!
So, the water is not hot enough for you yet. Got it.
Right on the Stalinism, but otherwise wrong. If it did happen once, it can happen again.
Yep, Offred and the other Handmaids were all convicted of various crimes and being fertile were allowed to “volunteer” as Handmaids (the alternatives being death, exile to the Colonies, or forced prostitution). It’s possible some women might have been fanatical enough to voluteer as Handmaids of their own free will though. As for waiting to be wed; girls were married off at very young ages (mid to late teens) to men over twice their ages. Marriage was a reward to men with a proven track record of dutifily serving the Gileadean state; usually in the military.
I think fertile girls would be much more likely to be snatched up by Commanders as Wives (not all of whom are barren). Being a Wife or Econowife (or even an Aunt) seems like a much better deal than being a Handmaid. Of course it’s also implied that male sterility is an even bigger problem than female, but the Gileadean leadership is unable to admit it.
What will it look like when the takeover is completed?
That’s basically what happened in the backstory of The Hunger Games. To the best of my recollection there’s no suggestion in the books that the current US government was overthrown. I don’t think this is ever more than hinted at, but some sort of disaster apparently led to the collapse of the United States and Panem is the new nation that the descendants of the survivors eventually formed.
Handmaid’s Tale is set after the overthrow of the US government, but this rebellion occurred after the US was already suffering from far more serious public health and environmental problems than really existed in the '80s (or now).
Feudalism basically. A small powerful rich class that owns almost everything. An extremely tiny and powerless middle class and a huge population of working poor that are effectively serfs.
How did I not refute what you said? For example you used Weimar as an example and I pointed how Weimar and the current situation in the US are different.
Which made it freer than virtually any other country at the time. For example the United States was one of the first countries to have universal white male suffrage.
:rolleyes: yourself.
None of those states you list had ever been democracies prior. They just went from one absolute form of government to another. (The Weimar Republic was pretty much a joke)
The Handmaid’s Tale was written before the fall of Soviet-style communism. It it set in a command economy where a ruling oligarchy monopolizes a rare, desireable commodity and doles it out to members under a set of complex rules.
In a market economy, that commodity would be allocated by the market. Fertile women would choose among competing bidders for their child-bearing ability. A wife who is satisfied with the deal she has made is going to be a better proposition than one who has been coerced and dealt out without any consideration of her preferences.
Historically speaking, the “marriage market” model is common. Prospective wives with inheritances, political connections, beauty, skills useful in the husband’s occupation, etc, could expect to find husbands offering good value in return.
Lesser candidates would have to settle for lesser matches, but everybody gets something – much stabler than the constant internal struggle of your average dystopia.