Admiral Cajal reflects:
"...Intelligence...the whole navy, the whole Empire, was spread too thin across a reach too vast, inhuman, hostile; in the end, perhaps all striving to keep the Peace of Man was barren." (p. 546)
Poul Anderson readers are bound to remember the Time Patrol guarding all of history - although in a different timeline. We must accept that it is an unstated premise that time travel is as impossible in the Technic History timeline as faster-than-light space travel is in Poul Anderson's Genesis. Massive narratives are built on different fundamental premises.
A question for Cajal: is there a difference between Peace and Power?
Cajal prays to Christ and saints and then:
"Before everyone, you, Elena who in Heaven must love me yet, since none were ever too lowly for your love, Elena, watch over me. Hold my hand." (p. 547)
I suspect that the earliest prayers were to the dead, then to gods, then to God. In Hindu myths, the first man who died became god of the dead. It was thought that the dead survived because human beings seemed to enter another world temporarily in dreams, then permanently at death.
We have noticed before that Dominic Flandry was the first person to pray to St. Kossara. He asked his murdered fiancee to give him a sign...
21 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
You cannot have peace, in this world, without power. That is, without someone, institutionalized in no matter what form as the State, holding a monopoly of force and coercion. Whatever peace we have exists because the State enforces that peace by using violence if necessary.
And when the State fails that crucially basic duty it runs the risk of losing its legitimacy and being replaced by a successor tough enough to do its job!
To think it's possible to have peace without that background threat of the institutionalized use of force/coercion against internal or external threats to that peace is naive and a catastrophically impossible Utopian fantasy!
Ad astra! Sean
There's a consistent archaeological fact, often overlooked: in a 'state of nature' (no State level of organization) the commonest cause of death for adult male humans is to be killed by another adult male human.
I think we can have a more civilized society with no violence. Competition for resources can surely be made redundant by production of abundance. But for that to happen society will have to be reorganized and with majority agreement, not by a minority dictatorship. Systems that give power to individuals like Putin or Trump are clearly counterproductive but more people will have to realize this and act on it. I am not setting myself up as the alternative to either of them!
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree because what you hope for is an impossibility. You persist in overlooking people don't need to compete over "resources" to be quarrelsome and aggressive. People are, like it or not, going to fight over POWER and status in democracies as well as despotisms.
As for Trump, what we have been seeing are fanatical hate crazed Democrats warping and twisting the law in their frantic attempts to "get" him. Right now they are trumping up trivial misdemeanors involving payments to a porn star. (Snorts!)
I would far rather someone like Ron DeSantis, Gov. of Florida, ran against the bungling, corrupt, and senescent "Josip" and his woke puppet masters next year!
As for Russia and that thug Putin, a BIG problem is that Russia has not truly come to grips with the hideous legacy of the monstrous USSR. That is why people like Putin, raised and indoctrinated in Marxism-Leninism, can still rule there. There has been no Russian Nuremberg trials judging the crimes of Lenin, Stalin, their successors, and the nomenklatura. No firm and unrelenting rejection of the USSR and all its works.
I'm reading Solzhenitsyn's MARCH 1917, and in almost every possible way Tsarist Russia, for all its muddleheadedness, was vastly better than the USSR!!!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But you assume that relationships of POWER will always exist. If and when people are well fed, well educated and informed and living in a harmonious society, will they still fight to the death over differences of opinion or just discuss those differences as is possible even now?
There are far more serious charges pending against Trump: instigating an attempted coup; instigating a riot in which people died for which perps have been imprisoned; denying an election result with no evidence; attempting to overturn the election result. The evidence for all of this is in the public domain.
There are many dictatorships whether descended from nominally Marxist regimes or not.
Paul.
Are the people investigating Trump fanatical, hate-filled, warping, twisting and frantic? Is there nothing in his behaviour to warrant investigation? Might Trump and many of his supporters not be describable in similar terms? It seems to me that some of his actions warrant investigation and prosecution, not anyone "getting" him. Should the Republican Party not expel from membership someone who has tried to subvert democracy? How about a joint statement from both parties upholding democracy like that video made by former Presidents? It must be possible to discuss these issues more dispassionately. We will have to hear what charges are brought tomorrow. Wasn't a "fixer" already successfully prosecuted about these payments? So many people already have their minds fixed that it must be very difficult to get at any facts.
Hopefully.
I am currently reading "Enlightenment Now" by Steven Pinker. In that and in his previous book "Better Angels of Our Nature", he documents how violence & other evils have been reduced over the centuries, especially since the Enlightenment. I certainly don't believe in some sudden Utopia, but cautious experimentation to see what works has improved the world & gives hope for continued improvement.
That is at least partly my point. Improvements are at least possible.
Kaor, Paul!
Exactly! You are persistently clinging to the impossible Utopian fantasy that "...relationships of POWER" will not always exist. Wrong, the brute fact remains that as long as human beings are HUMAN they will contend and fight for power and status. This is not a problem to be "solved," it can only be managed. And the best way of managing this has been the limited state, in whatever form, the rule of law, including those who seek power respecting those limits, etc. And there can be no guarantee that any such "constitutional" regime will last forever.
Which is why I am so furious at fanatical woke leftists (NOT including you). For DECADES they have been undermining that rule of law in the US with their never ending lust for concentrating more and more power in the state, their cynicism, corruption, dishonest demonizing of all who dare to oppose them and their lunatic fantasies (like the transsexual nonsense), etc. The inevitable result has been that someone finally arose among their opponents ALMOST as bad as they are.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
There will always be leadership but someone who gives a lead, sets an example or suggests a way forward does not coerce anyone. If persuaded or convinced, others will follow the lead that has been given. Otherwise, not.
Paul.
We can't blame Trump on the left! He is responsible for himself and a large section of the Republican Party is responsible for encouraging and supporting him.
Kaor, Paul!
What you advocate in your "5 April 2023 at 16:52" comment is simply NOT POSSIBLE in anything more than a brief, temporary, minor, small scale way. For anything more than that you will need an organization, chains of command, BUREAUCRACY, etc. And you cannot run a complex large scale society in such an ad hoc way. I'll quote words of wisdom from an unlikely, OBNOXIOUS source, Aaron Snelund, speaking to Admiral Pickens, from Chapter X of THE REBEL WORLDS: "But think what an army of bureaucrats and functionaries compose the foundation of any government. It's no difference whether they are paid by the state or by some nominally private organization. They still do the day-to-day work. They operate the spaceports and traffic lanes, they deliver the mail, they keep the electronic communications channels unsnarled, they collect and supply essential data, they oversee public health, they hold crime in check, they arbitrate disputes, they allocate scarce resources...Need I go on?"
The kind of "leadership" you dream of cannot operate airports, collect trash, run police forces or courts, etc. Only the STATE, it doesn't matter what form it has, commanding a monopoly of force and coercion, can do such things.
You are still missing my point, DECADES of arrogant fanaticism, bigoted intolerance, abetting of left wing violence, etc., inevitably wore out the patience of many who disagree with them. That is why many, wearying of respectable conservatives who seemed unable or unwilling to forcefully oppose the lunacies of the left, turned to Trump, flawed as he is.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
A state can be democratic and cooperative and not give some power over others.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
No, that is an impossibility, a self-contradictory impossibility. A state, no matter what form it has, cannot command a monopoly of force and coercion without its leaders doing precisely THAT, holding "...power over others."
Considering how I am a conservative who favors the LIMITED state, this argument seems strange to me! I'm sounding more autocratic than I want to be. (Smiles)
But that was necessary, to state the issues under discussion as clearly as possible.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
States are indeed instruments of coercion but I think that leaders of a state can be representatives who coerce only a minority that tries to act undemocratically.
I think we need to identify basic disagreements and leave it there. If the kind of society with which we are familiar persists indefinitely, then, yes, some of its fundamental characteristics will persist indefinitely. I think that this society is more likely to destroy itself. Failing that, it will continue to change chaotically and unpredictably and therefore MIGHT change into something qualitatively different as hunting and gathering societies have eventually been replaced by the present global economy.
If a massive imbalance in the distribution of wealth and in the possession of property continues, then, yes, there will continue to be laws to protect property and a coercive apparatus of police, courts and prisons to enforce those laws. In such an economy, there will continue to be either armed nation nation states or, which would probably be worse, an armed world state. (The arms industry is a big part of the current economy.)
But question the basic premise. What changes can be made by technology and by changing perceptions of how society should be run? Any major changes will encounter a lot of resistance and will involve a lot of struggle and might be successfully resisted by those who want to maintain the status quo, of course.
If we have identified which sides we would be on in that kind of struggle, then I don't think that there is a lot more to be said here and now.
Paul.
Too many nations.
Kaor, Paul!
I still disagree with much that you say. Humans naturally think of states as having heads, either heads of state or those who have both that and heads of gov't. The former can hold office for life or a fixed term of years. The latter generally needs to command a parliamentary majority. "Representatives" is too vague.
Yes, I believe the kinds of society we see now and that you so dislike ARE going to exist indefinitely into the future. And since I believe those societies/states spring from the un-changeably innate flaws, weaknesses, and strengths of real humans, it is dangerous and foolish to try changing them.
I don't really CARE about that "massive imbalance" in the possession of wealth and property. Ultimately, that is because of how DIFFERENT people are in talents, abilities, vice, virtues, circumstances of life, etc. I would oppose all attempts at coercively "evening" how much wealth people have. Such attempts have never worked.
True, corrupt, despotic, or incompetent gov'ts have gotten in the way of people improving their lives via free enterprise economics.
And we are going to continue to need police, courts, and prisons because some people are so aggressive they don't mind hurting others to get what they want. Drug and sex slave traffickers are two examples!
I am all for technological advances, but I don't share your faith in that somehow changing human beings. Nothing in real history and real life convinces me that will happen.
We are going to have many nations till somebody more or less forcibly changes that. Best case scenario might be an alliance led by, say, the US, dragooning the world into something like the Solar Commonwealth of Anderson's Technic stories. Or a halfway decent Napoleon type conquering the world and setting up a reasonably tolerable world empire. Worst of all would be a truly nasty state, like the current regime in China, conquering the world.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
My "too many nations" was just an acknowledgment that I repeated the word "nation" in the phrase "nation states."
Technology can produce so much wealth that no one any longer needs to hoard and defend it as Diana Crowfeather points out. That doesn't change people but it certainly changes the conditions under which they live. Modern states can afford to waste and destroy wealth on a massive scale, i.e., wage wars. We need a movement to change attitudes and power relationships on a global scale. Merely identifying one country or set of countries as "our enemies" is not enough any more. There is plenty to change at home as well as criticize abroad.
Paul.
BTW, I was trying to clarify disagreements, not to get agreement. (We seem to talk past each other a lot.)
Kaor, Paul!
Am I being too forceful? If so, I do apologize.
I don't think I am "talking past" you. I am trying to explain why I believe you to often be mistaken in discussions like this. E.g., people don't have to be "poor" to fight and quarrel. Simply put, ambition and a desire for power also drives many. Olaf Magnusson, putting aside for the moment how he was a deep cover Merseian sleeper agent, did not "need" to become Emperor, considering his successful career in the Navy. What drives many like him was a desire for status and power. And that kind of reasoning applies to nations as well. E.g., Russia does not NEED Ukraine, but many Russians still reset it loss. So wars can and will happen for reasons having more to do with pride and ambition, rather than "need."
I have no confidence or belief in the kind of "movement" you hope for. Mostly because I don't believe, considering how different people's ambitions, hopes, desires, etc., are, that there will ever be enough agreement for any such movement to exist.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
By "talking past," I meant that you said that you still disagreed as if I had been trying to get you to agree whereas instead I had been summarizing disagreements in an attempt to bring the exchange to a close. Otherwise, it continues indefinitely and becomes repetitive.
Of course, granted the continued existence of Empires, someone will want to become Emperor but we are trying to imagine the basis of a qualitatively different kind of society. To argue that a different kind of society is impossible, it is insufficient to cite an example from within a familiar kind of society. But this will lead to more fundamental arguments from "fallen human nature" which I completely disagree with. By now, we should each be able to anticipate what the other will say in response to any given argument so that it becomes unnecessary to repeat it all again.
After a busy weekend so far, I am not at my best this morning so it remains to be seen how much blogging there will be today.
Paul.
Post a Comment