All idiocracy needed to do was drop the fucking eugenics crap. It would have been gold.
this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2026
22 points (89.3% liked)
Chapotraphouse
14263 readers
680 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Wasn't one of the producers Israeli or something? Asking them to not believe in eugenics would be a tall order.
I've been meaning to rewatch the movie as my partner hasn't seen it, but yeah, that was the biggest issue I remember. Along with a bunch of the r-slur, but to me it makes perfect sense that they would be using it.
And to make matters worse is a much better (and more poignant) premise was right there and could be used. The ruling class creates a culture that rewards stupidity and actively kills the spark of curiosity or intellectualism in the public as “lame”.
So the people in the future aren’t ontologically that way, but victims of macro-level social engineering. Boom, being a chud is mocked as being foolish and conformist and you don’t end up carrying water for chuds by implying intelligence comes down to getting lucky in genetics.
Someone else pointed out the opening sequence and that gave me the thought that all you'd have to do is pull that out and now the movie is no longer eugenics but materialist.
If I'm reimagining it to that degree is it still the same movie? Valid question, but that's where I'm with you: it was gold except for the eugenics crap.
think of it as an unreliable narrator. after all, it's some american telling you all this happened cos stupid people had too many kids. and it makes total sense that the descendant of americans would believe some eugenicist nonsense reason for things going to shit.
Iaaways found that beginning as very classist
Idiocracy is pro-eugenics garbage, though.
How so?
Seriously? It opens with a segment explaining that everything has gone wrong because stupid people are breeding too much.
Yes I remember that. That's definitely not "pro-eugenics". There's a strong correlation between women's access to education and birth rate (they are inversely related), which is also not eugenics.
I don't know how to tell you that something is eugenics, if you don't see how a scenario in which stupids breeding too much and the smarts not breeding results in an apocalyptic dystopia in which the human race is not smart enough to operate a society is related to eugenics.
It also essentializes intelligence/education as something that is not dependent on policy or material reality. Only way to be smart is if your parents are smart. If your parents are dumb, sorry, you're dumb.
Not to mention the idea that only intelligent people are valuable to society is basically a right-wing talking point. The bell curve and books like that have made it popular.
Do you think that the US has been engaged in a program of eugenics between 2006 and now? Cuz we are a lot closer to Idiocracy now than when it came out.
Do you think we're "a lot closer to idiocracy now" because "stupid people" are breeding too much so there aren't enough "smart people"? How can you keep missing that that is what is eugenicist, not the portrayal of Americans? If you really think that is the problem with the US, you are a eugenicist. And that is how the movie frames the problem, explicitly from the very opening.
Yes, I think we are closer to idiocracy now (Bush II vs. Trump), but not because of "breeding". Nobody is "breeding" humans, lol. That's disgusting framing.
There was also the cultural aspect of anti-intellectualism where people displaying any hint of intelligence are abused, physically and/or verbally, which cultivates further anti-intellectualism. Also in the intro scene the 2 groups juxtaposed were one that live in a trailer park (symbolizing the poors) and one that live in a mansion (symbolizing the wealthy). The movie takes place in the US so we know access is drawn exactly along those lines. I saw it as more of a materialistic framing, and backed by the well established relationship between education and birth rate, but I guess that’s art, right? People walk away with different ideas after seeing the same thing.
Also, on another note, no need to be angry among comrades :) it's all good, we're all on the same side
They only took the concepts that back eugenics theories, that "stupid people" are poor people and breed more, and created an entire future dystopia from that framing. But of course it wasn't a movie supporting eugenics.
”Stupid people shouldn't breed/should breed less” is basically the definition of eugenics.
No, it's not. Eugenics is using selective breeding and/or forced sterilization to produce a human population with specific traits.
Idiocracy essentially makes the argument that we should use selective breeding and/or forced sterilization to produce a human population with specific (liberal intelligentsia) traits
Really? That must have gone totally over my head. Huh. Well, it's been 20 years lol. I don't remember there being any policy suggestions in the movie.
Eugenics is the policy proscription for dysgenics, which is what Idiocracy is about.
Yes, and in the movie "smart" is a specific trait that is only influenced by your parents. It might not be arguing for a eugenics program, but it is saying that underlying idea of eugenics is correct, when it is not.
only influenced by your parents
Huh? I didn't get that from the movie. There was also the cultural aspect of anti-intellectualism where people displaying any hint of intelligence are abused, physically and/or verbally, which cultivates further anti-intellectualism. Also in the intro scene the 2 groups juxtaposed were one that live in a trailer park (symbolizing the poors) and one that live in a mansion (symbolizing the wealthy). The movie takes place in the US so we know access is drawn exactly along those lines. I saw it as more of a materialistic framing, and backed by the well established relationship between education and birth rate, but I guess that's art, right? People walk away with different ideas after seeing the same thing.
The original absolutely was, but if you pull out the intro sequence, now it's historical materialism (everyone's an idiot because capitalism left them that way and nukes prevented liberation). Wouldn't be the first retcon in history.
Seems like a socialist world would not let millions of people suffer like that. A much better sequel would be about their liberation once the nukes were disabled, and showing how it wasn't some half-baked notion of breeding pedigree that failed them, but a cultural and educational issue. Re-education would be the main theme of the movie, chronicling the path of former President Camacho to becoming a fully rehabilitated, well-read and compassionate individual. Notsure would be the person who does the actual deactivation of the nukes, but he would also struggle the hardest with accepting the world as socialist.
Seems like a socialist world would not let millions of people suffer like that
IMO not only it would, it should. I don't see a way you can peacefully reeducate countries composed of anticommunist right wing nationalists from the outside. I don't think you can bring communism to the USA, Poland or the Baltics (just a few examples) from the outside without it generating strong reactionary far-right nationalist sentiment.
I think that what's needed is to isolate and sanction said countries the way Cuba has been. Let the rest of the world thrive and when they feel the pain they inflict on themselves, they may try to join through grassroots local revolutions, but not backwards.
Communism will not be achievable until it is a global project. You also are treating "countries" as a monolith, with the entirety of the "country" being the problem rather than its ruling class. That is liberal idealism and totally lacking class consciousness. We're talking about class conflict here, are all the working class people within a country responsible for what their bourgeoisie does to keep them oppressed? In a world where socialism is thriving and capitalism is on its back foot, it would not be materialist let alone Marxist to just leave capitalist oppressed nations to their own devices, even if it's true what you say (and I don't think it is) that you can't peacefully address the rotten superstructure even though you can solve the base by putting the means of production in the hands of the working class.
In a sense the premise I laid out is that most of the world is communist and therefore a global project, but self-determination is a part of that. Its ideal and most peaceful process is a voluntary union, perhaps a confederation, leading to the withering away of the state.
Comically, this is almost exactly the debate about socialist self-determination that I had in mind.
Communism is absolutely a global project, but revolution won't happen simultaneously overnight, it historically sprung within states and then expanded through influence, support for socialists abroad, and militarily. I do treat the history and superstructure of certain countries as a hurdle that will delay the arrival and propagation of communism.
you can solve the base by putting the means of production in the hands of the working class
You cannot do this without grassroots communist revolutions, you can at best support preexisting movements, but you need a regional vanguard party for this to happen, and this will likely come later in some countries very biased against communism by nationalism and racism. Working class people in Poland and Estonia were given the means of production and yet never overcame the anti-Russian racism despite 5 decades without a local owning class creating such propaganda. A revolution imposed from abroad is ill-equipped to deal with such tensions and issues, and the opposite strategy of letting people come to "their own conclusions" under world where Socialism dominates the global geopolitics, economy and propaganda apparatus, is much more likely to bring the conditions for revolution in such countries.
Working class people in Poland and Estonia were given the means of production and yet never overcame the anti-Russian racism despite 5 decades without a local owning class creating such propaganda.
And yet Estonia was made part of the USSR. Should it not have been? Should the Soviets not sought to unionize more countries like the one you're using as an example of a country with a racist and reactionary working class? Should any country that doesn't have a sufficient amount of the populous amenable to socialism be "isolate[d] and sanction[ed] said countries the way Cuba has been"? Which brings up another question, what is enough support, where do you draw the line as to how much of the population and by what metric is enough to warrant struggling to expand the revolution there rather than leaving their working class to keep suffering?
you can at best support preexisting movements, but you need a regional vanguard party for this to happen
In a world dominated by socialism, it is ridiculous to think no such parties would exist in every country, and where they don't, it would not be from a lack of trying, but from their immediate destruction by their state (as what happens in the US, most famously with the Black Panthers).
The comment you were responding to was "Seems like a socialist world would not let millions of people suffer like that" and it is absolutely true. No one is saying revolution will "happen spontaneously and overnight," but if a world where more countries operated like Cuba does today, or in a world where the Soviet Union spread throughout MENA and Europe, it makes no sense from a Marxist, materialist perspective, that they would simply leave any countries with a more highly propagandized public to simply suffer without any kind of intervention.
ye best start believing in Idiocracy sequels
just go outside
I'd love an optimistic revolutionary movie soon. After the dystopia, after the revolution, just to teach the libs a better world is possible.
so it's set in the same universe as mad max? the world is ok and communist, it's just the US and australia that have turned themselves into jokes?