In Utopianism: A Very Short Introduction, L. T. Sargent (2010) defines utopianism as a “social dream”: an idealized vision of perfect societies meant to overcome human imperfection.
Yet, as Karl Popper argued in The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945), attempts to realize utopias through political engineering often lead to tyranny because they demand uniformity, suppress dissent, and justify coercion in pursuit of a “higher good.”
This article examines how utopian thinking shapes both left-wing and right-wing extremism. It covers:
-
Anarcho-capitalism — a right-wing utopia of markets without a state.
-
Neo-Marxism — a left-wing utopia of perfect equality through planning and control.
-
Support for Hamas — a utopia of “resistance” that ignores its theocratic and terrorist reality.
-
Far-right imperial presidencies (Trump, Putin, Orbán) — contemporary examples of authoritarian utopianism that threaten liberal open societies.
I. Anarcho-Capitalism: the Utopia of a “Non-Regulated Society”
Anarcho-capitalism abolishes the state, leaving law, justice, and security to private competition. This reflects what Popper would call utopian social engineering: the belief that one bold design can erase the imperfections of history.
-
Fallacy: assumes spontaneous order can substitute for institutional frameworks.
-
Result: power vacuums filled by mafias, militias, or monopolies.
-
Case Argentina: Milei’s radical deregulation and subsidy cuts in 2024 produced recession and mass poverty before stabilization gains, exemplifying Sargent’s point that utopian shortcuts often yield social harm.
II. Neo-Marxism: the Utopia of the “Perfect State”
Neo-Marxism extends Marx’s class analysis to identity and culture, promising equality across all dimensions. In Popper’s critique, this is historicist utopianism: the belief that history has a predetermined end (a classless or perfectly equal society).
-
Fallacy: presumes social conflict can be eliminated by abolishing inequality.
-
Result: states expand coercion, enforcing conformity in the name of justice.
-
Historical record: USSR, Cuba, and Venezuela demonstrate how utopias of equality degenerated into repression, corruption, and poverty.
III. Hamas: Revolutionary Utopia, Theocratic Dystopia
The radical left often portrays Hamas as a legitimate resistance force. Its 1988 charter, however, explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel through jihad, and even later documents do not revoke this premise.
-
Fallacy: idealizing the oppressed as inherently just.
-
Reality: Hamas enforces religious authoritarianism, represses women and minorities, and wages terror campaigns.
-
Dystopian outcome: internal oppression in Gaza and regional escalation.
IV. The Utopian Fallacy of a “Two-State Solution” Without Hamas’s Neutralization
Calls for a two-state solution are rational in theory, but utopian in practice if Hamas remains intact. Popper warned that utopian blueprints ignore the “piecemeal engineering” needed for workable institutions.
-
Problem: Hamas’s ideological foundation denies Israel’s legitimacy.
-
Risk: Creating a state alongside Israel that is run by an armed, authoritarian militia would institutionalize permanent conflict.
-
Lesson: peace requires dismantling or transforming Hamas first; otherwise, utopia becomes a recipe for endless war.
V. Far-Right Imperial Presidencies: Trump, Putin, Orbán
Popper’s Open Society warns that authoritarian leaders exploit utopian narratives to justify dismantling democratic institutions. This is visible in far-right “imperial presidencies” that concentrate power in the executive.
-
Donald Trump: promotes a utopia of national rebirth through “America First,” portraying himself as the sole savior who can restore greatness. In practice, this weakens checks and balances, undermines electoral trust, and fosters polarization.
-
Vladimir Putin: embodies a nationalist utopia of resurrecting Russian empire, justifying aggression against Ukraine. His regime combines repression, propaganda, and militarism in what Popper would classify as an anti-open-society project.
-
Viktor Orbán: advances “illiberal democracy” in Hungary, a utopia of cultural homogeneity and national sovereignty. Through media control and judicial capture, he erodes pluralism—the essence of the open society.
Common thread: these leaders frame themselves as infallible guardians of national destiny, a utopian fiction that authorizes the erosion of liberal institutions.
VI. Two Extremes, One Pattern
Despite ideological differences, anarcho-capitalism, neo-Marxism, pro-Hamas utopianism, and far-right authoritarian presidencies share three traits:
-
Naïve perfectionism — belief in a flawless order.
-
Suppression of pluralism — silencing dissent in the name of unity.
-
Justification of harm — presenting suffering as a necessary sacrifice for a promised paradise.
Popper’s warning is clear: utopian engineering is dangerous not only in theory but in practice. It justifies tyranny on both extremes.
Conclusion
Utopian thought, whether on the radical left or the far right, is the common root of extremism. From markets without states to states without markets, from revolutionary movements to imperial presidencies, utopias deny human imperfection and institutional limits. The consequence is violence, repression, or systemic breakdown.
The liberal alternative—what Popper called the open society—is more modest but more sustainable: piecemeal reform, pluralism, and institutional checks. It does not promise paradise. It offers gradual improvement within the bounds of human imperfection—and that realism is its greatest strength.
References (APA)
-
Popper, K. (1945). The Open Society and Its Enemies. London: Routledge.
-
Sargent, L. T. (2010). Utopianism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
-
Reuters. (2024, Sept. 26). Milei’s austerity seen pushing half of Argentina into poverty.
-
Reuters. (2025, Mar. 31). Poverty-hit Argentines rummage for food even as economic outlook improves.
-
Avalon Project. (1988). The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas Charter). Yale Law School.
-
Wilson Center. (2017). The Doctrine of Hamas: New Charter vs. Old Charter.
-
AP News. (2025). Argentina poverty levels slide as Milei tames inflation.
Recent Data and Sources
1. The Hamas Charter and Its Content
Published on August 18, 1988, the Hamas Charter explicitly declares that Israel must disappear, and that Palestine is “an indivisible Islamic unity” that cannot cede any part of its territory, since doing so would amount to treason.
-
Article 2 of the original statute affirms that the struggle against the Zionists is so grave that it admits no negotiation; it demands the “liberation of Palestine” through jihad and rejects any political solution that implies recognizing Israel.
-
Although in 2017 Hamas published new statutes that soften some terms and state acceptance of the 1967 borders, there is no explicit retraction of the fundamental articles of the original charter, nor of the goal of armed resistance.
Relevant interpretation: These texts confirm that Hamas is not only militarily and politically active, but that its ideology does not contemplate recognized coexistence with the State of Israel as it currently exists. This makes a two-state solution unviable unless Hamas first renounces its objective of destruction. That ideological foundation underpins the critique: supporting a two-state solution without requiring the transformation or disarmament of Hamas is to uphold a utopia without regard for the reality of ideology and power structures.
2. Recent Social Indicators in Argentina: Poverty, Indigence, and Childhood
These data reveal the social costs of statist or extreme economic policies and reflect what Sargent warns: abstract utopianisms often produce real suffering.
-
Total poverty: in the second half of 2024, poverty in Argentina stood at 38.1% of the population. This represents a decrease from 52.9% in the first half of 2024.
-
Indigence: in that same period, indigence reached 8.2% of the population (~2.5 million people).
-
Childhood: children under 14 were the most affected—around 51.9% in poverty and 11.5% in indigence.
-
Recent monetary poverty: a UNICEF report for the second half of 2024 placed child monetary poverty at 52.7%, with extreme poverty at around 9.3% according to institutional projections for the first half of 2025.
Relevant interpretation: Although under Milei, there was a notable drop in poverty from the extremes of 2024, the levels remain very high. This shows that economic utopias—whether statist ones that promise universal welfare or hard libertarian ones that promise to improve everything through free markets—face a costly and slow reality that makes transformation difficult, with significant social consequences if changes are abrupt.
3. Victims and Effects of the Israel–Hamas Conflict
To understand what supporting movements like Hamas imply without considering humanitarian consequences, it is essential to look at recent figures:
-
Civilian victims reported in Gaza after Israeli offensives aimed at Hamas military structures: a report cited by Huffington Post (April 2025) indicates more than 52,243 deaths and over 117,639 injured since the major events of October 2023. More than 65% of the victims were women, children, and the elderly.
-
Gaza authorities denounce the deaths of more than 2,200 entire families (each family involving multiple members) and more than 5,070 families with only one survivor.
Notes of nuance:
-
There are questions about the reliability and transparency of some figures, as many come from agencies or authorities under Hamas influence.
-
Nevertheless, reports agree on the magnitude: civilian casualties are extremely high, suggesting that utopian political violence has real, immediate, and atrocious human costs.
How to Incorporate These Data into the Utopian Critique
With these empirical elements, the following arguments are strengthened:
-
Supporting the two-state theory without demanding the dismantling of the militant apparatus or renunciation of explicit goals of destruction (such as those of Hamas) is a naïve political utopia, as it ignores the incompatibility between Hamas’s founding ideology and peaceful coexistence.
-
The poverty figures in Argentina show that radical changes—whether statist or extreme libertarian—do not have uniform immediate effects: there are social victims in the most vulnerable sectors, especially children and households in extreme poverty. Utopias that promise unlimited welfare must answer how they will protect these groups during transitions.
-
The human data of the conflict (civilian casualties) demonstrate that the idealization of resistance or of the oppressed actor can conceal real violence, disproportionate collateral effects, and a constant feedback loop of suffering. This connects to Sargent’s warning: utopianisms that value the purity of the good can tolerate or justify atrocities in the name of their end.
No comments:
Post a Comment