On Utopia and Totalitarianism
Ruben Nagesparan Chandrakumar, BS
A common flaw of utopian thinking is the imposition of a single doctrine of belief onto everyone else. These doctrines of paradise often take dark turns into totalitarianism, dictatorships, and tyranny. This is best exemplified by the communist regimes of the Soviet Union and Maoist China. Both governments failed to consider the harsh consequences that would follow their centralized planning. Without the input of the masses, the systems collapsed as the social hierarchy which formed was tilted towards those who wielded political power. Thus, the democratic and egalitarian ideals propounded by the revolutionaries quickly vanished as new political systems materialized. The complex problems which the revolutionaries faced necessitated competence which the leaders simply did not possess. As a result, the actions of the centralized authorities were inefficient, corrupt, and inhumane.
In archetypal terms, these regimes suffered from an excess of order. The dogmatic nature of belief that was required to maintain the political frameworks crafted by the communists left little room for dissent and civil discourse. These failures reveal several significant factors to maintaining a stable and free society. The first factor revealed is that the imposition of any single doctrine should be avoided and instead replaced with a nuanced perspective that considers the multitude of individual desires and skills. The second factor revealed that complex problems require a decision-making apparatus that integrates the “wisdom of crowds” and the “invisible hand.” The third factor revealed is the primacy of free speech. While often overlooked, it is clear that this freedom is fundamental in steering away tyranny, an eternal threat to civilization. This is perhaps best illustrated by the works of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, a Soviet dissident who was a harsh critic of communism and the gulag system. Through bringing the atrocities of the regime to light, he was able to raise global awareness and has been credited for being a massive influence in bringing down the Soviet empire.
Through examining the flaws of totalitarian regimes, one can discover a conception of an ideal society. Totalitarian thinking is often a derivation of the desire to cement perfect national unity, or globalism, at the expense of individualism. However, the costs of repressing individualism and decentralized networks are far too great to maintain a functioning society. While this can be redressed with an emphasis on individualism, individual sovereignty, and individual autonomy, caution must be exercised to ensure that anarchy does not emerge. While totalitarian states privilege social planning over all else, anarchists privilege individualism over everything—including social stability. Whereas totalitarian states can be described as having excess order, anarchist societies are plagued by excess chaos. An ideal society would exist between these two extremes, creating a balance between the two viewpoints through protecting individualism while maintaining social order. This society would seek to maximize equality of opportunity, within a shared set of values and rules, to produce a “just inequality.” The decision-making of the society would reflect the competence of the most-qualified individuals and would consist of constant negotiation. The people would be free to criticize the actions of those in power and to pursue their self-interest. Finally, the use of force would be minimized to the greatest extent possible—to ensure that the powers of the state do not threaten individualism.