Goldsmith - 1

Andrew Goldsmith
Professor Decker
English 101| M03
November 30, 2015
Utopia or Bust
Utopian society is one in which all facets of society are designed and intertwined to
produce a civilization in which all the necessaries for life are readily available to all people.
Unfortunately, to reach such a state, a myriad of factors such as resource allocation and power
distribution must be evaluated and decided upon before any progress can be made. In the modern
world, two systems vie for utopian prospects; western capitalism seeks utopia through
competitive growth whereas Scandinavian socialism thrives on social equity. Due to inherent
flaws within these systems, utopia could not realistically be achieved without first adopting a
more goal-oriented approach focused on widespread human prosperity; an appreciation of
limited resources, a high value of human well-being, and a progressive leadership focused on
rapport are essential for such a civilization to thrive.
Though Capitalism has provided countless peoples with utopian-esque lives, this
outdated system could never account for a globalized economy; no amount of competitive
business can make up for worldwide resource limitations. On the eve of revolution, the newly
established United States saw the birth of two of their most influential written works: the
Declaration of Independence and The Wealth of Nations, written by Thomas Jefferson and Adam
Smith respectively. The former, a declaration of war against an oppressive government, the latter

Goldsmith - 2

eventually became known as the Capitalist Bible (White). Within his nine hundred and fifty
page work, Smith calls for an economic system left governed, not by a legislative organization,
but rather the laws of supply and demand. During a time of incredible governmental power, it
was Smiths belief that the invisible hand of the market would guide a countrys economy
towards success and protect the public from power hungry business moguls (White).
Competition amongst business owners would, in theory, allow for the consumer to control the
market. By allowing consumers to control what they buy, businesses would have to conform to
their standards or risk going out of business. However, this isnt necessarily true when applied to
real life. During the American Industrial Revolution, the Standard Oil Trust monopolized the oil
industry giving them the power to regulate prices as they saw fit, ignoring any public scrutiny
(Staff). The markets invisible hand was wrapped around its own throat; eventually the trust
was broken apart by Theodore Roosevelt, but not before Standard Oil created the standard
business model for years to come. The 20th century witnessed the birth of the technological
revolution, but with it came the problems of the earlier industrial age. The introduction of a new
market spurred on competition, but as the dust settled larger companies seemed to be in control.
The Bell System, better known as the AT&T conglomerate, monopolized the telecommunications
industry owning 85% of the telecom businesses (Adelmann). Again, a monopolized industry
allowed for price inflation, of which the power of the market couldnt control. This monopoly
too was later broken up by governmental legislation, however the business model still stands:
growth for the sake of growth. In a world with infinite resources, there would be no dilemma,
however such a world does not exist and humanity is forced to compensate as such. Uncontrolled
growth is the cancer of the Capitalistic market, and when left unchecked can, and will, corrupt
the market. As companies become too big to fail when the entire market depends on their

Goldsmith - 3

existence there is no more competition and thus true Capitalism cannot thrive. Market leaders
as such become high profit businesses that look to only further increase profit margins in hopes
of staying on top, rather than innovate and encourage healthy competition, such businesses seek
only to consume their respective market. To do so, companies export production to places with
minimal restrictions on workers wages and hours to decrease costs. In 2012, Apple Inc.,
cornering the market with their annual iPhone release, admitted to human rights violations
occurring in their supply chain. Workers were forced to stand ten or more hours given only a
single break, and the widespread untrained use of toxic cleaning agents resulted in 137 reported
injuries (Foley). With such little regard from Capitalistic market leaders towards the well-being
of their workers, the notion of western utopian living is left as a farce predicated upon a system
that lacks human cherishment. Capitalism is systemically unable to deal with limited resources
coupled with the necessity of human well-being in that, without a perfect governed system of
checks-and-balances, eventually results in fascist monopoly.
For the common worker, Socialism (and extreme cases, Communism) seems like an
obvious choice; publicized healthcare, cheap and/or free education, and a system of public works
designed for public betterment serve to enable an individuals growth at minimal cost, but
remains impossible for societies that lack the required initial resources. Whereas Capitalism uses
the laws of supply and demand to progress, giving power to the people, Socialism requires the
means of production to be controlled by the state and resources distributed equally amongst the
public (What is Socialism?). A point of contention for the application of such a system is the
immense power it gives to the government. By allowing the ruling entity to control what is
essentially the entire resource base, corruption within the state becomes a major issue. As such,
socialistic societies require leadership based around social equity and innovation with some form

Goldsmith - 4

of separation between the ruling authority and resource allocation. With equal resource
distribution comes the issue of work incentive; if everything is given to the individual, there is no
motivation to work and when no one works, no new resources can be obtained. Where growth
punishes Capitalism, a lack of growth punishes Socialism. To combat this, Scandinavian
countries (i.e. Denmark, Norway, and Sweden) had to incorporate a free market, Capitalist
system, effectively forfeiting their Socialist status in exchange for Social-Capitalism, merging
Socialist values with a Capitalist market (McWhinney). Already, the failures of applicable
Socialism deny the prospects of utopia wherein a complete lack of authentic examples insinuates
its inability to perform. Assuming a society finds an answer to the problems of corruption and
incentive to work, none of it matters if there arent enough resources to initially establish the
system.
Successful utopian society, though theoretically possible, becomes realistically
implausible when restricted by the necessities of human well-being and limited technological
faculties in conjunction with ideological beliefs. To counteract the human rights violations
prescribed by the Capitalist market and the corruption of the Socialist state, the means of
production must be left out of human hands and left to the autonomy of machines under the
direct guidance of a multitude of governing bodies as to discourage unearned personal gain.
However, like Socialism, a utopian society would require enormous starting expenditures to kick
start largescale production though this becomes moot if applied towards a global society wherein
wealth and monetary value would be suspended as to allow for economically safe introduction
into the utopian system. However, such an act will not be accepted by a percentage of the people,
where now the ideologies of utopia come into conflict with the individuals ideological right of
ownership. More accurately, once a Capitalist mindset it formed where private ownership is

Goldsmith - 5

paramount, the transition towards utopia becomes near impossible. As such, utopia no longer
becomes utopian, but rather totalitarian in design, though benevolent by nature. To fulfill the
requirements of utopia, a society must fully agree to a distinguished goal; there must be
something to work towards for progress to be made. However, in creating a specific purpose,
individual deviation becomes an issue whereas the right of the individual comes into question
against the rights of utopian society. On a purely ideological basis, the concept of utopia is
flawed by subjectivity; where utopia is found for one, dystopia is found for another. Though
theoretically possible, real-life factors and subjective reasoning make utopia an intrinsic
impossibility for modern humanity.
Utopia, being the be all end all of societies, is, as currently stands, not only impossible,
but does not concretely exist via the laws of subjectivity. By comparable thinking, where merely
aspects of utopia may be achieved, Capitalism offers the closest replacement; though certain
rights are violated, humanity has seen the most growth from the free market than any other
system. However, in terms of widespread prosperity, Socialism begets equality unheard of by
Capitalists and offers systemic equity in exchange for a minimally lower standard of living.
Utopia will most likely never be achieved, but the unification of Capitalist and Socialist values
will serve to progress society towards a balance of growth and equality so that the most possible
people may prosper.

Goldsmith - 6

Works Cited
Adelmann, Bob. "The Breakup of Ma Bell." The Breakup of Ma Bell. New American, 12 May
2010. Web. 26 Nov. 2015.
Foley, Stephen. "Apple Admits It Has a Human Rights Problem." The Independent. Independent
Digital News and Media, 14 Feb. 2012. Web. 24 Nov. 2015.
McWhinney, James. "The Nordic Model: Pros and Cons." Investopedia. Investopedia, 7 Oct.
2014. Web. 25 Nov. 2015.
Staff, History.com. "John D. Rockefeller." History.com. History.com, 2010. Web. 26 Nov. 2015.
"What Is Socialism?" World Socialist Movement. Web. 24 Nov. 2015.
White, Craig. "LITR 5737 Utopias UHCL Selections from Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations."
Craig White's Literature Course. University of Houston Clear Lake. Web. 24 Nov. 2015.