Well of course it was intentional. H.G. Wells was a member of the Fabian Society, an organization founded in the 19th century (and still in existence today, though much toned down) that had romanticized, somewhat goofy and vaguely socialistic ideas about organizing society for the betterment of mankind. They were pacifists and like many of that era had an unbounded faith in material progress as a solution to man's ills. This type of mindset was quite common, in different forms and philosophies, throughout the western world at that time. Wells never really outgrew it, and it still exists today in various forms.
I think most people today object to the world of 2036 as depicted here less for ideological reasons than because of its sterility. For all its shiny bits this is not an attractive world to most people -- and in fact, even in 1936 it was criticized on this account. I wouldn't care to live in it either...though it's preferable to the ruined world of 1970 that we see. But no question, it's all a bit soulless and empty.
That said, I'd be careful about flinging around terms like "Communism" and "New World Order", especially as the latter was appropriated by Fascism, or getting too ideological about it. That's a simplistic interpretation and not altogether accurate. Certainly there are aspects of socialism in the Everytown of 2036 -- it is basically a communal society, with elements of collectivism in it. But there also is private property (people have their own places to live, their own things and can follow their own chosen pursuits) and freedom of speech -- the sculptor Theotocopulos is free to address the populace over TV and even incite them to civil disobedience, and his right to do so is defended by Cabal. This is something no dictatorial society would ever allow or tolerate. Cabal even tells Theo and his followers that they have everything they want and are free to pursue their own lives as they wish, so they should allow the leaders to do what they want -- shoot a rocket around the moon. (Using a cannon that would instantly reduce the occupants to jelly and get them nowhere near the moon, something that was known by actual scientists even in 1936, but Wells hadn't gotten past his 19th-century ideas of "science".)
So again, simplistically calling this communistic or fascistic is not accurate. It's kind of an odd amalgam -- a collective society that at the same time places no restrictions on its citizens' rights to say and do what they please. The leaders aren't dictatorial but rather something more like condescendingly benevolent. But they have no wish to coerce people -- again, something unheard of in a Communist or Fascist regime. On the contrary, it's the protestors who are plainly trying to impose their will upon others and curtail freedom.
The protestors' grievance centers on their objection to the rush of progress -- of mankind never stopping its push toward future developments. The fact that this doesn't affect them (certainly not in the sense of their being forced to do anything against their wishes) is irrelevant to them. It's less an ideological reaction than something deeply felt, in its way similar to the present-day global reaction to social change by forces of the religious and social right, who want to push society back to a time they feel more comfortable in. Whether this is the American domestic right, arguing against gay marriage, abortion and the like, or the even more intolerant and deadly Islamic right, which wants to kill all non-believers and send the world back to a 9th-century religious dictatorship, the underlying principle of trying to impose and coercively enforce their views by turning back the clock is the same; it's different only in degree and kind.
So it is with the protesters of 2036: they want to turn back the clock and "do away with progress" as Theotocopulos puts it. It's a common thread throughout mankind's history: when the present becomes uncomfortable, hark back to the supposedly safe precincts of the past. But you can't ever do it. Reality will always intrude, and the world will move on. Hopefully, it will result in a more "user-friendly" future than the one depicted here.
reply
share