I had forgotten what a prig the Savage was. Also, in high school, I think they taught it as a cautionary tale about Socialism (scary!) But it also satirizes capitalism, consumerism, materialism, and utilitarianism.
On philosophy:
“Moral education, which ought never, in any circumstances, to be rational.”
He was a philosopher, if you know what that was.” “A man who dreams of fewer things than there are in heaven and earth,” said the Savage promptly.
“You remind me of another of those old fellows called Bradley. He defined philosophy as the finding of bad reason for what one believes by instinct. As if one believed anything by instinct! One believes things because one has been conditioned to believe them. Finding bad reasons for what one believes for other bad reasons—that’s philosophy.
On Utopia:
She looked at Bernard with an expression of rapture, but of rapture in which there was no trace of agitation or excitement—for to be excited is still to be unsatisfied. Hers was the calm ecstasy of achieved consummation, the peace, not of mere vacant satiety and nothingness, but of balanced life, of energies at rest and in equilibrium. A rich and living peace. For the Solidarity Service had given as well as taken, drawn off only to replenish. She was full, she was made perfect, she was still more than merely herself.
the social body persists although the component cells may change.”
Meanwhile, on the “savage reservation” you can find:
families . . . no conditioning . . . monstrous superstitions . . . Christianity and totemism and ancestor worship . . . extinct languages, such as Zuñi and Spanish and Athapascan . . . pumas, porcupines and other ferocious animals . . . infectious diseases . . . priests . . . venomous lizards . . .”
The final summing up in the book is done by one of the World leaders; they are allowed to know history and understand how the world really works:
“Of course it does. Actual happiness always looks pretty squalid in comparison with the overcompensations for misery. And, of course, stability isn’t nearly so spectacular as instability. And being contented has none of the glamour of a good fight against misfortune, none of the picturesqueness of a struggle with temptation, or a fatal overthrow by passion or doubt. Happiness is never grand.”
“My dear young friend,” said Mustapha Mond, “civilization has absolutely no need of nobility or heroism. These things are symptoms of political inefficiency. In a properly organized society like ours, nobody has any opportunities for being noble or heroic. Conditions have got to be thoroughly unstable before the occasion can arise. Where there are wars, where there are divided allegiances, where there are temptations to be resisted, objects of love to be fought for or defended—there, obviously, nobility and heroism have some sense. But there aren’t any wars nowadays. The greatest care is taken to prevent you from loving any one too much.
I don't think you realize the full extent of many of the subjects in these readings. It is after all an impossible task to understand without a thorough education in socialism which few receive.
The term Capitalism is a biased definition of an exchange society based upon the distribution of labor. The definition was defined by Socialists, and accepting such terms is an implicit acceptance of socialism.
Socialism was and remains feared because it cannot ever fulfill the promises it makes, and the rational structural problems which were thoroughly documented in detail by Ludwig von Mises in the 50s, have been and remain ignored by the people supporting this ideology.
Those same people for the most part use every possible means to deceitfully convince and mislead others into supporting what amounts to a lie, and they do this under many conflicting names to obscure the source because the source is not credible.
For example the definition of classical liberalism is the polar opposite of what we consider liberalism and the left today. Like/similar names have been adopted and associated, such as social democracy, etc, thus corrupted and this has been happening regularly ever since the Fabian's and other branches of socialism became organized in the late 1890s.
The fundamental problems of shortage, economic calculation, distribution, and corruption all remain open intractable problems which are the same problems in any bureaucratic system. This is not a coincidence because the systems used for administering these purposes are bureaucracies and bureaucrats (at nearly every level).
Most people fail to recognize socialism, and because the problems with it are not immediately obvious they don't have the schooling to know why its terrible.
Regarding Utilitarianism, consumerism and others, you should compare what Marx and Engels consider to be the pillars of socialism with what we have today in the US, and the structures described in those ideologies. Its written in his Manifesto.
Names are not important, only the elements of the structures involved. Upon inspection, you'll find those referenced in this context all mostly share the same or similar critical elements and structures, and incidentally also have the same underlying problems discussed by Mises under forms of socialism (when taking fiat currency into account). His essays were aggregated and printed in book form under the title "Socialism" back in the 1970s.
You would be surprised, and probably a little angered if you were allowed to know and accept the truth of what socialism promotes, but its not about truth, its about the dream which never comes, and any failure is blamed on there being not enough socialism, which is completely irrational behavior, failing logic.
Mises had it right in calling the many forms of socialism we see today, destructionism, and often lamented the common abuse of the contrast principle by the people supporting it.
Socialism is very scary, especially, when youths promote it through critical theory without knowing, or business/academia promotes it through equity initiatives, or Mao struggle sessions are enforced via cancel culture. Its really not something to joke about.
The outcome of embracing irrationality is a decent into madness, and the insane eventually destroy the systems they depend on. After that, Malthus' law of Population is pretty clear about what happens at the end. Of course almost none of this type of reflection is capable when your younger (6th or 7th Grade was usually when this was required reading as a Gen Xer.
In fact boredom was heavily promoted in classes as an associated punishment, and these readings were always made to be extremely boring.