the Dominancy's treasury is low;
the new badge tax on the Kith is a precedent;
there will (have to) be further taxes on both subjects and Kith;
but the Dominancy does not want to force the Kith off Earth;
Kenri will be asked to advise policy-makers;
his special knowledge and connections will be useful;
he will be able to make things easier for his former people (how?) but not to annul the history that is currently against them (so how can he help them?).
Kenri refuses, breaks off his engagement to Nivala and stays with the Kith. What interests me here is the Colonel's consciously "class war" attitude:
the Star-Free are an entirely parasitic caste, aesthetic and ornamental;
their rule, enforced by the state-apparatus of the Dominancy, involves military suppression of rebellions;
the Dominancy is funded by heavy taxes on Terrestrial subjects and Kith traders;
there is not only military rule and heavy taxation but also extreme anti-Kith prejudice and overt oppression, e.g., a Star-Free who has bought a Kith merchant's debt can take his daughter under contract - the Colonel's response is not that this is wrong but merely that Kithfolk stick together and can be expected to raise money for the father.
My solutions would be:
to end Star-Free rule by general strike and armed insurrection/successful rebellion;
to establish Terrestrial Democracy as against Dominancy;
to respect the Kith;
to value their contribution to civilization.
The Colonel:
knows exactly what is at stake;
opts to wage this same war from the other side, even at the expense of social tranquility;
does not pretend that the Dominancy serves everyone's interests;
is not socially prejudiced;
recognizes that the Kith are demonstrably the genetic equals of Star families and may sometimes be superior as individuals;
admires Kenri's spirit;
expects Kenri, if he marries Nivala, to renounce his Kith allegience;
frankly acknowledges that Kenri's refusal makes Kenri and himself "enemies";
respects Kenri more for this than if they had become allies;
wishes him luck.
Well, you couldn't find a nicer guy to go to war against!
Meanwhile, this chapter informs us that the Kith are in any case declining. I thought that the chapter also indicated economic reasons for this but have not found those on looking back through it. Maybe someone who has recently reread both "Ghetto" and Chapter 21 will be able to tell us more?
I think that the Colonel would agree with the two opening sentences of The Communist Manifesto:
"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.
"Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journey-man, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes."
-Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, 1985), 1, p. 79.
(The text begins on p. 79 because there is an Introduction by A.J.P. Taylor and there are also seven Prefaces to earlier editions.)
Lastly, both George Orwell and SM Stirling show us a future society in which the ruling group not only acknowledges that it oppresses the population below it but also intends to maintain that oppression for as long as there is a human society.
I posted about the Colonel before. See Class Warrior.
9 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Whatever the Colonel might have thought about Marx and Engels (assuming their works were still known thousands of years from now), I emphatically disagree with Marx/Engels. All human societies, even the Dominancy, were far more complex than the crude and simplistic description given at the beginning of THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO. Even as a callow college student I did not in the least believe it. Upper classes are RARELY so oppressive as Marx and Engels like to claim. Nor are lower classes to be automatically assumed to be hostile to their rulers. Certainly not if they believe those rulers to both hold power LEGITIMATELY and governs in such a way that at least sometimes everyone benefits from it. If only to the extent that some kind of law, order, and peace is maintained--so that ordinary people can go about their ordinary fairly peacefully, most of the time.
Sean
Sean,
I agree with Marx and with you. Both are true. Society is indeed complicated. Most people most of the time accept the status quo and we must work within it. Only during periodic crises are there the equal and opposite possibilities of "reconstitution" or "common ruin." British Republicans do not spend much time campaigning against the monarchy because there are many more pressing concerns. I think that we can move beyond periodic crises but (i) this remains to be demonstrated, (ii) I can be wrong, (iii) there is no guarantee - either of success or of failure.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But even during those "periodic crises" (however they are defined) the situation will still be far more complex than what Marx/Engels claimed. Civil wars, for example, happen because an allegedly bad "old order" still has many defenders and supporters who back it for both good and bad reasons. And those supporters will come from all "classes." At least as many commoners must have backed Charles I during the English Civil War as supported the rebel Parliament and Roundheads.
I do not in the least believe it will be possible to PERMANENTLY move beyond "periodic crises," because human beings are so different from each other and so quarrelsome. I agree with your point (iii), there is no guarantee.
Sean
Sean,
Oh, yes. Members of each "class" fight on the other side. And the fight is sometimes "hidden." A conflict of economic interests remains even in periods of social peace.
Theory is grey. Life is green.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And if life is not too bad for most people sensible persons would prefer not to try to "fix" something which is not broken.
Sean
Sean,
That is indeed what happens most of the time but particular struggles continue. A union steward has to represent workers who have grievances and also to restrain those who would want to be out on strike all the time.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
The example you gave would be an example of an official or manager trying to handle fairly small problems before they might become far bigger and worse problems. I was thinking more of things like the quarrel between Charles I and Parliament. I recall reading of how the king arguing that he had done which Parliament objected to that past statutes and precedents lawfully allowed him to do. But those statutes and precedents came from times when Parliament was not assertive as it was in Charles' time. A wiser king would have understood that times had changed and a more conciliatory Parliament would have conceded the king had a good case.
Sean
Sean,
I think that then the class conflict was between land-holding aristocracy and rising bourgeoisie. Thus, more people were involved than just Charles and a few Members of Parliament. It would be good if such transitions were always handled with wisdom and conciliation on both sides.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Certainly, there were economic factors involved, such as a new and assertive bourgeoisie (whose wealth came from commerce and finance, rather than the land). But the aristocracy/gentry and some members of Parliament acted as leaders for people in these broad groupings.
I'm annoyed with my earlier comment. On rereading, I saw how I should have edited it to prevent it from being partly garbled.
Sean
Post a Comment