easy. If you want to, you can leave Zion anytime you want. With Bellamy, there’s nowhere else to go (except maybe an insane asylum, or exile to a desert reservation – I always wondered if Huxley was alluding to Bellamy).

Also, with Zion, individual needs and circumstances would be taken into consideration. With Bellamy’s ideals, everyone is treated exactly the same, no matter what.

There will be a lot more freedom in Zion. Zion is not fascist. Bellamy was well-intentioned, but his ideas lead to Orwell’s 1984, in the end. So, you tell me – what’s the difference between what Orwell described and Zion?

I guess I’m not sure I understand where you are coming from. Of course that is fascist, but my argument is that Bellamy didn’t realize it and figured that the government would be more of a manager than an outright dictator.

“Unintentionally fascist” is still fascist – the unintentionally refers to the motivations, not the end result. I guess I’m not sure what your complaint is.

no, I disagree. Of course they’re unworkable and undesirable, but when I say “unintentionally fascist” – well, reading Bellamy’s essays and personal correspondence indicates he had no fascist tendencies. He just figured no one could possibly complain about such a perfect system. His government had no police or military because no one would ever step out of line. There was no central, controlling authority in Bellamy’s realm – everyone just went along with it because it was such a great idea.

It makes Bellamy clueless about human nature and unable to think outside his particular box, but he was hardly a fascist.

Of course, any attempt to implement his ideas would likely quickly turn fascist, but since Bellamy had no fascist intentions, I said “unintentionally fascist.”

That clear enough?

well, I have no specific lines of discussion in mind, so it’s not all that off topic.

My initial answer would be to say that Bellamy (at least) would say no, we are not anywhere near utopia. For example, Bellamy’s utopia had the following aims:

1. Everyone, except the severely disabled, would be guaranteed a bachelor’s degree and a paying job. Even 4 percent unemployment would be unacceptable.

2. Income is that same across the board, regardless of the job you perform. Even though much of our poor have disposable income, Bellamy would be very upset by people having larger incomes.

3. The government runs the entire economy. There is no such thing as competition.

4. There is no need for any sort of fighting military, since the entire world is peaceful, what with everyone guaranteed a job and the exact same income.

Of course, I personally find Bellamy’s ideas unworkable and unintentionally fascist, but that’s likely what he would say. He would probably find the current situation even more intolerable. But I can’t be sure. I know his widow and children lobbied pretty hard for the New Deal.

We have no idea how good we have it compared to past times. I recently sat next to a married couple, the “working poor” by U.S. standards, a garbage man and a teacher who were going on vacation to Brazil. Keep in mind that this trip cost them at least $5000. The idea that a Latin American garbage collector and a teacher could take two weeks and travel from a Latin American country to the United States is laughable, yet here our working poor have so much disposable income that they can travel internationally, and in style.

Bellamy would certainly decry the continuing income disparities between the Bill Gates’ and workers today. But I wonder if he would, in the end, marvel and applaud all of the advances that have taken place. Has Utopia been achieved?