Friday 10 April 2020

Psychobiology

"The Big Rain," VI.

Kemal Ataturk is discussed in Poul Anderson's Shield (see here) and also in "The Big Rain." The UN Inspectorate studies Ataturk to learn how to prevent the abuse of its own power.

Hollister says that both psychodynamic equations and "'...an elementary reading of history...'" show that:

"'...once a group gets power, it never gives it up freely.'" (p. 200)

Ataturk is cited as an exception. In this case, at least, the psychodynamic equations sound unnecessary? (If, indeed, possible.)

Hollister argues that the Venusian government will not be an exception and cites an interesting principle:

"'By the time this hell-hole is fit for human life, the government will be unshakeably in the saddle. Basic principle of psychobiology: survival with least effort. In human society, one of the easiest ways to survive and grow fat is to rule your fellow men.'" (p. 201)

 - provided that you live in a society where coercive rule, as opposed to mere social or moral leadership, is possible.

A Venusian has been taught about Ataturk but probably not about the Soviet Union:

"'The state was supposed to wither away there, too.'" (ibid.)

"...the Bureaucratic State, against its own will, had done what it had long promised to do 'when the people were ready' - it had withered away."
-James Blish, Earthman, Come Home IN Blish, Cities In Flight (London, 1981), pp. 235-465 AT PROLOGUE, p. 240.

No. This is wrong. It was never a bureaucratic state that was supposed to wither away. A recently self-empowered majority exercising power over a recently dispossessed minority would cease to exercise such power when the minority had ceased to reproduce itself as a class but such conditions never existed in isolated, backward, besieged, bureaucratized Russia and Lenin certainly knew this.

27 comments:

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

And of course what Lenin did was precisely to set up a bureaucratic despotism.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,
Unintentionally. He wanted workers' democracy in Russia, Germany and other countries.
Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

Sorry, I have to disagree. The very LAST thing that monstrous and evil man wanted was any kind of democracy. Recall as well Stirling's merciless analysis of that tyrant.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,
I have read Lenin. He did want democracy in every aspect of life.
Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

I'm sorry, but I don't believe Lenin ever MEANT that. Otherwise he would not have been so cruel, vicious, tyrannical, cynical, full of seething hatred for all who opposed him. I don't care about his WORDS, what matters were his ACTS, and they were brutal and tyrannical.

Solzhenitsyn's LENIN IN ZURICH is a good study of the man, based on deep study of his life and works.

Ad astra! Sean

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

I should have also cited volume 1 of Solzhenitsyn's GULAG ARCHIPELAGO in which he narrated, from Lenin's own words and acts, how he planned, began, urged on, etc., the system of rule by terror, executions, and secret police government that was so characteristic of the USSR. So I don't believe Lenin ever intended Russia to have a real democracy.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

But read Lenin's STATE AND REVOLUTION on-line.

This lap top might stop functioning at any time.

Paul.

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

The computer keeps going off but I am grabbing a chance while I can.
I have started to reread THE STATE AND REVOLUTION and am convinced of its importance. It clearly differentiates between states that can "whither" and those that can't.
Sean, please remind me of Lenin's passages quoted in GULAG.

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Reading early 20th century history complements reading 20th century future histories set in the 21st century. I am pleased to have reread the Psychotechnic History as far as I have even if there is about to be a gap.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

But I don't care what Lenin wrote before he managed to seize power in Russia in November 1917. Whatever he CLAIMED before then was contradicted before and after his grabbing of power. His many enemies on the left accused Lenin of being despotic and autocratic in his behavior. And Lenin followed a policy of "two steps forward, one step backwards" to explain his erratic and cynical methods.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn's quotes extensively from Lenin in Volume 1 of THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO, Part I, Chapters 2, 8 thru 10. And he approved of terror and mass executions, discussed in Chapter 11.

It's time to dismiss lingering wistfulness about Lenin!

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

It does matter what he wrote! It refutes the accusation that he never wanted democracy and THE STATE AND REVOLUTION contains interesting ideas that you will not find elsewhere. I have read GULAG, Part I, so I must have read those passages but I will have to borrow a copy from the Library when I can or check whether the text is on-line.

Paul.

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

OK. I have found the text on-line.

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

OK. Reading a bit. I already knew that things went very wrong soon after the Revolution, maybe sooner than I had thought. (In haste, in case the computer malfunctions again.)

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

I thought you had your own copy of GULAG.

And everything I learned about Lenin still leads me to conclude he never MEANT it, what he said about democracy. It was all propaganda, or tactical maneuvers and window dressing.

The November Revolution was BAD from the beginning. I never believed it did any good or that Lenin never intended to set up what he did, a brutal dictatorship.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

I am convinced that he and others meant what they said (I know such people now) and that events went badly against them. They were overwhelmed like the Psychotechnic Institute. Trotsky's THE REVOLUTION BETRAYED and Cliff's STATE CAPITALISM IN RUSSIA show what Russia became but it can be very difficult to discuss the issue. Asked whether I had read GULAG, I tried to give an answer that was true at the time: "No, but I have read Trotsky and Cliff," i.e., the works mentioned above. However, I was interrupted after saying, "No...," and shouted down on the assumption that I had no idea that there was anything wrong in Russia! I should have said, "Yes." That would not have been a lie in the circumstances because it would have addressed the issue.

Paul.

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

But the interesting phrase that was quoted in future histories by both Anderson and Blish was "the withering away of the state" and that came, via Lenin, from Engels.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

It seems we are not going to agree about Lenin. I continue to believe he never MEANT what he said about democracy. His words and acts after grabbing power from the Provisional Gov't proves that. And Trotsky was no better.

IF Lenin had MEANT what he falsely said about democracy, why did he take money from Germany and conspire to overthrow the Provisional Gov't as early as July 1917? He could have formed a peaceful, law abiding party and become a member of the State Duma. No, he despised rotten, bourgeois sentimentality and parliamentarianism.

I understand why your interlocutor was so angry, even tho he should not have behaved as described. Too many left wingers continue to try to defend monsters like Lenin, or even Stalin.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

Your question is answered in THE STATE AND REVOLUTION!

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

No, as Stirling pointed out, mere REAL humans were contemptible, fit only to be used as raw materials for Lenin to use while he tried, by whatever means he thought desirable, no matter how brutal, to create the ideal man. His ACTS after seizing power contradicts what he "said" about democracy.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

But the idea, not just his, was that workers' councils were far more democratic than the Duma.

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

I still disagree. First, Lenin HAD NO RIGHT to overthrow the legal gov't, the Provisional Gov't. Second, Lenin had no intention of letting those so called workers councils acting independently of, or in opposition to HIM.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

This computer is only sporadically usable.

This mutual misunderstanding is endless. It was Bolshevik-led workers' councils, not one man, that seized power. Lenin, in the book that I recommend, carefully explains that some changes to society have to be made decisively when they can whereas others will take time and cannot be forced. He displays a lot of knowledge and understanding, not a brutal insistence on remaking people to fit a model.

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

No, there is no misunderstanding. Lenin plotted and conspired to seize power. Which is exactly what happened. And he still set up a brutal and ruthless dictatorship.

I don't care about those "councils." They too had no right to presume to set themselves up against the Provisional Gov't. And, of course, Lenin soon emasculated them.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

I think that the government had lost legitimacy. People were treating the Soviets as governing bodies. Elections to Soviets were won on the basis of the slogan, "All power to the Soviets."

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

Here I have to agree. The blunders and mistakes of Alexander Kerensky played into the hands of Lenin, who used those "Soviets" as some of the tools he used for grabbing power. One mistake being the continued loyalty of the Provisional Gov't to the alliance with the Entente Powers. Making peace with the Central Allies for the bet best terms possible (when the army had not yet totally disintegrated) would have taken a lot of the wind out of Lenin's sails.

Either Prince George Lvov or his successor Kerensky should have shot Lenin and his chief hencemen as the traitors they were when they had the chance. The best time would have been in July 1917, after the failure of Lenin's attempted coup.

Ad astra! Sean

S.M. Stirling said...

Actually Ataturk handed power over to his chosen successor, and the movement he led ruled Turkey for three generations and was influential for two more.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Mr. Stirling!

Unfortunately, the Erdogan dictatorship has been slowly, cautiously, and quite cleverly reversing Ataturk's best policies. With the aim of going back to Sharia law and Islamic supremacism. What's next, will Erdogan proclaim himself sultan and caliph?

Ad astra! Sean