So my raging lib professor made us write satirical essays and the entire two weeks we spent on the project I had to hear about how satire was so effective at bringing down terrible dictators like Mao and Stalin. So I wrote a satire that satirizes satire and free speech. Here it is.

An Immodest Proposal

What if I told you that something you probably have in your purse, or the center console of your car could have saved millions of lives? Something that could change history. Would you believe that a pen is the most powerful tool in shaping our world? Or that a few carefully chosen and pointed words could change the course of human events? Most people have heard the maxim the pen is mightier than the sword, but do we understand the power of that phrase?

For as long as human beings have been able to transmute their thoughts into words we have used those words as a cudgel against oppressive power structures. Human history is rife with examples of the power of the pen to topple dictators, change regimes, and free oppressed peoples. For example, famous satirist Jonathan Swift penned his famous piece, “A Modest Proposal” in 1729, critiquing the plight of the Irish people whose island had been colonized by the British. By 1949 the Irish people had mostly gained their independence from the United Kingdom, save a small coastal port region which is likely to be repatriated soon. Without Swift’s biting wit it’s doubtful Sinn Fein and the Irish Republican Army would have had the wherewithal to campaign over 200 years for their freedom.

The history of twentieth century is a perfect example of the power of words. Oppressive regimes are notorious for their censorship and suppression of any criticism and there is no better illustration of an oppressive regime than the Soviet Union. There are precious few examples of satirical pieces originating from the USSR and it shows in their very bloody history. The USSR under Stalin lost nearly ten million soldiers while defeating Adolph Hitler during World War II. Imagine if the Soviets encouraged dissent and discourse and, instead of the Red Army, had been able to wage a war of words against the Nazi Wehrmacht. Stalin, in his effort to quell any criticism of the Soviet party and of communism needlessly wasted nearly ten million souls. One may argue that the USSR achieved great things; transforming a feudal, disparate territory spread across two continents into a technological superpower in just 30 years, doubling life expectancy, putting the first human being and the first woman in space, but at what cost? The collapse of the USSR and communism in eastern Europe, and consequently, the return of free speech, has led to many years of peace and stability in the region.

Another notorious communist dictator, Mao Zedong, was quoted as saying “political power grows from the barrel of a gun”. While there is no doubt that Chairman Mao was successful in liberating the Chinese masses from another backward feudal society, rife with poverty and constantly under threat from the Japanese empire, it again came with a bloody price. Mao is probably best known for the institution of Chinese land reform. Thousands of landlords were either killed or dispossessed of their holdings to create a more equitable distribution of cultivatable land. And while this redistribution dramatically reduced poverty and hunger and persists to this day with China holding the top spot for percentage of homeownership in the world, one could argue that a campaign of strongly worded letters and acerbic dialogue could have accomplished the same result without resorting to violence.

Conversely, liberal western countries often do promote the free exchange of ideas. For example, the United States has this tenet enshrined in its Constitution. Western newspapers are replete with pundits penning op-eds critical of both their own and other governments. It is by no accident that the bastion of free speech, the United States of America, is the leading exporter of democracy in the world. Throughout the 60s and 70s, by the power of words, the US was able to stem the expansion of socialism in Central and South America and establish stable governments which persist to this very day. This benevolent spirit continues through to the modern era, with the US joining forces with other western democracies to extoll the values of free speech and independent thought to the Middle East. Through the power of the pen, the western world has been able to transmit these unassailable values to every continent on the planet, resulting in a more equitable and just world.

The power of words, and more importantly the freedom to share these words, even when they are critical of power structures, has been a positive force shaping the world we live in. Without a doubt, the values of the west have proven that to effect real political change power does not indeed flow from the barrel of a gun, but from the tip of a pen.

  • half_giraffe [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 years ago

    satire was so effective at bringing down terrible dictators like Mao and Stalin

    bintch how where either of them “taken down by satire”? They both died as the leader of their country lmao.

    Excellent post comrade :stalin-heart:

  • plov_mix [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 years ago

    This is pure gold. On the sentence level, paragraph level, overall level, plus of course the absolutely savage satire. Just :chefs-kiss:

    I work in higher ed and I wish I could receive something as good and REAL as this in my grading grind.

  • furryanarchy [comrade/them,they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 years ago

    Pretty good. Main critique I would make is that it seems a tad unfocused. There is a consistent train of thought for the point you are actually making, but the point you are pretending to make is unfocused.

    For instance, in the “One may argue… …but at what cost?” part, you don’t really make it super clear what the cost is. Or make a consistent argument before and after that makes it super clear what the cost is. The straight reading of this has the author say a lot about why no free speech is bad, but they don’t really say why free speech is good.

    If both your satirical voice and your straight voice are focused the essay reads a lot easier, takes less effort to understand.