Nicholas van Rijn gives a Borthudian hijacker the opportunity to:
"'...at least arrange that your ruling class loses power only, in an orderly way, and not their lives. Take your choice.'"
-Poul Anderson, "Margin of Profit" IN Anderson, The Van Rijn Method (Riverdale, NY, 2009), pp. 135-173 AT p. 173.
On Ivanhoe, Martin Schuster introduces Newtonian astronomy and the Kaballah, knowing that these intellectual upheavals will:
"'...break up the Sanctuary and let some fresh air into Larsum.'"
-Poul Anderson, "The Three-Cornered Wheel" IN The Van Rijn Method, pp. 199-261 AT VI, p. 257 -
- even though:
"'...the process will be bloody...'" (ibid.)
But Schuster's apprentice, David Falkayn, does even more. An Ivanhoan opponent of the Consecrates tells Falkayn:
"'...peaceful or no, you have done more harm to them than I ever could. The world will not be the same again. So simple a thing as wagons - less toil, more goods moving faster, the age-old balance upset.'" (VII, p. 259)
And on Neuheim, Falkayn says:
"'Neuheim can keep any social order it wants. Why not? If you try to maintain this wretched autarchy, you'll be depriving yourselves of so much that inside of ten years your people will throw out the Landholders and yell for us.'"
-"A Sun Invisible," VII, p. 313.
Fortunately, the League has no Prime Directive.
Unfortunately, the League does not fund change on planets where it cannot make a profit and this causes a conflict between van Rijn and Falkayn.
19 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I remembered one bit from "The Three-Cornered Wheel" which I think could also have been quoted, the Chief Consecrate of Larsum, Sketulo, speaking: "You are reported to have said that it might, be mathematically true, but this does not make it philosophically true." Sketulo leaned forward. Fiercely: "You must have known, however, that the question would soon arise whether there can be two kinds of truth, and that in any such contest, those whose lives are spent with observations and numbers will decide in the end that the mathematical truth is the only one" (THE TROUBLE TWISTERS, Doubleday 1966, page 36).
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
There might be some basis for the idea of two levels of truth. The world as seen by us comprises discrete objects separated by empty spaces whereas the world as revealed by physics is a continuum and each single object is many particles.
The sun sets although it is the Earth that moves.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But physics and mathematics can describe both sets of phenomena without needing to call one or the other false.
Ad astra! Sean
We use Newtonian physics to calculate the launch of spacecraft - the Webb Space Telescope for example.
Even though we know Newtonian physics has been superseded by relativistic; Newton's equations give the same results for those velocities and scales, and they're simpler to use.
But the Webb telescope will cover distances, masses and velocities which can only be explained or comprehended using Einstein's equations... and may well lead to new basic physics and cosmologies.
Likewise, things like "the sun rose" are perfectly adequate for our everyday earthly existence, and easier and more convenient because they're the natural produce of our sensory perceptions.
Newtonian and relativistic physics is a better example of what I was trying to say.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree. And I hope we live long enough to see some of the discoveries the James Webb Telescope might make!
Ad astra! Sean
On social revolution: capitalism is itself the most revolutionary of economic systems, because it pushes for a purely -economic- efficiency so strongly.
Market competition exerts a society-wide individualizing pressure on every inhabitant that even the most ruthless governments find it hard to match.
As the saying went, "You can buy a Model T in any color you want -- as long as it's black."
Or as Marx puts it: "All that was sacred is profaned, all that was solid melts into air."
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Even more simply, free enterprise economics WORKS because people BENEFIT from it, and without needing the terror and ruthless coercion seen in the USSR.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: well, "works" depends on what you mean by that.
Capitalism certainly works to maximize the efficiency and mobility of the factors of production.
But it may well prevent other things from working -- for example, the decay of family and kinship bonds in Western Civ. is largely due to the individualizing pressures of the market.
Market economics effectively rewards one set of attitudes, ways of seeing the world, and concepts of the self and other.
And it punishes other attitudes and concepts with economic failure.
Hence the saying that you can have a Model T in any color you want, as long as it's black.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Actually, I agree that free enterprise economics comes with drawbacks, as well as benefits. One drawback being its atomizing effect on people. It's my belief that the single best way to counteract that social atomization would be from people believing strongly in a faith, such as Christianity, Judaism, or Zoroastrianism.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: yeah, but the atomizing effect is more subtle than conscious ideology. It operates as a sort of subterranean "pressure" or continuous "wind" at all levels.
Note the rise of "prosperity gospel" forms of Christianity, to take just one instance.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I've heard of the Prosperity Gospel movement among some Protestants, but I don't really know much about it. Sort of like if you are prosperous and doing well, that was a sign of divine favor? An attitude I would disagree with.
Ad astra! Sean
Christianity is politically adaptable:
St. Paul did not condemn slavery;
the Middle Ages had the divine right of kings;
a church notice I saw in the US referred to "property as a divine trust";
fascist leaders and military dictators can be Catholic;
there are also "Christian socialists" and pacifists.
Sean: roughly; but it's also that correct worship results in worldly success due to getting on God's good side. It's a rather primitive thing, theologically speaking.
Paul: St. Paul didn't condemn slavery, but he did try to impose restraints which would in fact alter the institution substantially, once Christians had political power (which took centuries).
The Divine Right of Kings was actually a Renaissance concept. What the Middle Ages had was a Germanic, pre-Christian concept of monarchy heavily modified by Church influence.
It was a -contractual- concept of kingship, not an absolutist one. Kings were "God's annointed", but only as long as they ruled in certain ways.
Strictly speaking, Christianity refers to all positions of authority as a divine trust.
Actual Fascists (particularly National Socialists) were -usually- in practice anti-Church, though there were exceptions (the Croatian fascists for instance).
That's not counting, for example, Francisco Franco, who was no more a fascist than he was a Methodist. He was a traditional right-wing caudillo, intelligent and ruthless, who used some fascist slogans and trappings when they were useful to him, but who carefully excluded the -actual- fascists in Spain (the Falange) from power, sent them off to die in Russia, and basically betrayed them.
Note that he eventually restored the Spanish monarchy, which was always his long-term aim.
So the medieval kingship concept was more like the Chinese "Mandate of Heaven"?
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: I can hardly improve on many of the comments Stirling made above, much of which I was going to say myself.
Christ and St. Paul did not condemn slavery, but the attitudes and restraints they imposed on it (e.g., see Paul's Letter to Philemon) would eventually undermine once Christians came to political power (which took centuries).
Ironically, a thought I had was that the libertarianism of the Solar Commonwealth, before it decayed, encouraged the re-emergence of slavery. An idea suggested to me by Anderson in one of his letters to me (parts of which I quoted in my "Crime and Punishment in the Terran Empire" article).
Ideas about "divine right of kings" actually came late in Western history, belonging more to the period 1500's to 1700's. Before then, as Stirling said, the Western concept of monarchy stressed more it's contractual aspect and the need for dynastic legitimacy.
As Stirling pointed out, REAL fascists, like Mussolini and Hitler, tended to be anti-Church/Christian. VICIOUSLY so on Hitler's part.
I agree with what Stirling said about Francisco Franco. And I had to admire how he outmaneuvered Hitler and managed to avoid Spain getting dragged into WW II. Yes, his long term goal was the restoration of the monarchy, which he also achieved. In another letter to me, Anderson gave Franco a "passing grade" as a statesman.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Wasn't Mussolini Catholic?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I missed a comment from you. The Western concept of monarchy differed from that of the Confucian Mandate of Heaven theory of legitimacy. The Western concept of dynastic legitimacy was stronger than that found in China. Ghosts of fallen dynasties continued to affright and alarm various regimes far into the 20th century. France exiled both the Bourbons and Bonapartes, Soviet Russia massacred as many of the Romanovs as Lenin could catch, etc.
Yes, Mussolini was born and baptized Catholic, but he was an atheist. Where he differed from Hitler was that he made his peace with the Church after becoming dictator and did not persecute Christians.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment