Although V is the second proponent of anarchy we have encountered, his brand is quite dissimilar to that of Heinlein's Professor. V's purer brand is more idealistic as he not only believed in the power of the mob, but also in the people's ability to make decent choices. Prof did not see the masses as more than a mob to be controlled and manipulated, and while V did use manipulation, he did believe the people were capable of more, as evidenced by his last speech. This doesn't mean V believes that everyone will make the right' choice, but that some would choose it, and all would have the potential to. This differences between V and the Prof is how they view the mob: either as a hoard of people, or a mass of individuals.
Also intriguing is how V views the entire process of politics and even governance that lead up to the 20th century as a negative and hurtful process. this is not only true of his view of tyrannies, but rather of and form of governance which requires some trade offs between individual freedom with public wellbeing and cooperation
Interestingly, his view of anarchy is different then chaos. He seems to believe that although the last time chaos existed in his world, was when the Party took power. Evidently, V believes that the people able to self monitor themselves to a reasonable extent, so no space opens up for another group to take power, as some are already plotting to do. His believe is that since now the people are awake to the tyranny, they will exhibit the tendency to get along. His believe on the future seems dependent on a Rousseauian view of humanity, which might not be held by all the Vs that follow him.
2 comments:
"This differences between V and the Prof is how they view the mob: either as a hoard of people, or a mass of individuals."
This reminds me of Agent K's line from near the beginning of Men in Black when he's first recruiting J:
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."
I think that Prof, V, and K all have their points, personally.
Rinske brings up a interesting point in her post: That V does not feel that anarchy and chaos are one and the same. To him, anarchy is till a state of control because he believes that the people of London are still capable of making responsible decisions if the Party was not in power. It would seem that V would se chaos as closer to what is happening in London under the current regime, they claim to be the bearers of order in London, yet to V it would be the opposite. When people have no freedom there can't be order, there can only be chaos.
Post a Comment