is dune... anarchism ? [rich in spoilers]

[Torco]

like... hear me out: small recap, dune is about an aristocratic kid in a feudalistic society who is born into power, loses power as a result of an attack by his enemies, and then proceeds to accrue more and more power, at least at first, in order to survive and regain his former position and status: as a result of this, combined with various happenstances, he is so wildly successful that he becomes, quite literally, hitler times a million. it's not even funny, the atreides jihad that follows his big triumph at the end of the book (or second movie) ends up being the single biggest mass death even in the universe: this is all pretty much in the text. but like, I'm pretty sure it's also in the text that paul really didn't have a lot of a choice: sure, dune is explicitly about superhumanly competent people -mentats, psychic powers, its all framed as like this mind-enhancing techniques is what humanity has been sinking all of its technology points since at least the butlerian jihan, but the guy's not immortal: a knife to the gut -or no water in the desert- and he's dead, just like anyone else: at first, the prophecy is a necessity to get the fremen to take them in (what's the alternative, live in the desert alone? na he'd die), sure, he could have not used it out of, you know, wouldn't you make some moral allowances if the alternative is *death*, and plus, he doesn't fully grasp the future yet. then, challenging the emperor is basically his only choice once his existence becomes known to the wider empire. and by then, it is explicit in the text that he -magically prescient by now- estimates he can't stop it by now. it follows from this that his only other choice -if we trust his account of events, which is what we mostly get in the text- would have been to sacrifice his life in the effort to stop this dire event that would come to pass. the text doesn't explictly put it like this, but it's pretty strongly implied that he considers doing so, but elects not to. so, it's not a stretch to say that throughout the story *power itself*, the dynamics of it, its own shape and the way it bends and pushes and blabla as different powerful entities, the bene gesserit, the houses, whatever) is what causes the galactic genocide.

because it's not "fantasy" in the traditional sense we tend not to look at it as a morality tale, cause scifi is not supposed to be about that (except it very, very, veeery often is), it's easy not to: but if we look at it from the perspective of it being a tale about good and evil (and dune, as a work, certainly invites us to do so from time to time) then the point of it is that just by getting enough power you cause evil. that, power, itself, is evil. that's pretty breadpilled, innit ?

[Ares Land]

One of the themes is the danger of power, and perhaps more the perils of following young charismatic leaders, no matter how messianic they look. That morality play aspect is very much there.
I think Villeneuve's movie did a better job of this, btw. but that's not Herbert fault. Villeneuve can go for antiheroes and tragedy; I don't think SF readers, and more importantly editors of SF magazines, in the 60s just weren't interested in tragedy.

Some bits of Dune Messiah are very good -- Paul behaves very much like a failed, narcissistic leaders. Herbert used to work in politics and it works.

As for the actual politics behind this; I don't think you can call it anarchism or breadpilled. From hints in the books, and what we know of Herbert's politics (he worked for Republican congressmen in the 1950s, I think) -- his ideal system is probably close to libertarianism.

[xxx]

Dune's melange of inspirations includes criticism
of religion and politics mix to turn the table, with Islamic jihad as a model,
of the race for oil that led to world wars,
that led to decolonization with the rise of the Arab world
that led to the ecological bankruptcy of the planet,
of the technological manipulation of the human genome,
of cynical manipulators who play with fire to shape the future of humanity...

if this generates a certain anarchy, it's not certain that this is the moral of the story,
but rather a consequence of the flow of power and the dramatic destinies as greek classics that drive it...
what about democracy strangely absent there...

[Torco]

his ideal system is probably close to libertarianism.

man, heinlein *and* herbert?

and you're right that herbert was somewhat constrained: as I heard the story, the first book has the structure of a standard young-hero-boy-conquers-world because, well, that's what he had pitched to his editors. in a way, herbert is Paul, stuck with a plot that he wasn't the one he'd have wanted. the story is not explicitly anarchist, but it does have a strong 'beware power' vibe: power itself behaves here like the one ring in LoTR: it has its own agenda, and will pull you into it... then again, later the worm emperor embraces his role as powermonger for a millenium to save the species, and iirc there's no explicit evidence that he was epistemically wrong (?)

democracy is not that absent, but it is rich people's democracy like the original athenian one -or like ours. the power of the landsraad, which acts as galactic senate, is ultimately the reason paul gets to do his big move: without the threat of it getting angry at the emperor's extermination of one of the great houses what leverage did paul have?

[Ares Land]

then again, later the worm emperor embraces his role as powermonger for a millenium to save the species, and iirc there's no explicit evidence that he was epistemically wrong (?)

Oh, that one's interesting.
God-Emperor has that very strange, not fully explored, but still intriguing idea: Leto deliberately acts as an Orwellian tyrant so as to completely cure mankind of tyranny. I don't have the book here, but I'm pretty sure it's explicitly stated he's deliberately acting as evil as possible.

[Torco]

oh yeah, i think so... something along the lines of im trying to show them tyranny so that they may later learn about freedom.