Daniel Coffin has to tell George Stein what the proletariat is!
Coffin explains:
"'Not everybody on High America succeeded in becoming an independent farmer, a technical expert, or an entrepreneur. There are also those who, however worthy, have no special talents.'" (p. 131)
Let us pause for a moment. Do "technical experts" include teachers, doctors and nurses? And maybe some others that I cannot think of right now that would also be necessary on Rustum? I am trying to identify those who have "special talents." So who does not? Coffin continues:
"'Laborers, clerks, servants, routine maintenance men, et cetera. Those who have jobs, whatever jobs they happen to get, rather than careers.'" (ibid.)
The unskilled and semiskilled - who are employed by farmers or entrepreneurs. OK, so far.
Coffin continues:
"'Those whose jobs are automated out from under them when employees acquire the means to build machinery - unless they accept low wages and sink to the bottom of the social pyramid.'" (ibid.)
(Should "employees" read "employers"?)
Does Coffin think that, if everyone had "special talents," then everyone would succeed in becoming a farmer, expert or entrepreneur and that no one would become a labourer, clerk, servant or maintenance worker? Surely it is instead the case that only a minority are able to succeed and that they are able to do this only because they are members of a society where it is possible for them to employ others as labourers etc?
Coffin patronizes those labourers etc. First, he says, "...however worthy...," then he goes further:
"'Mind you, I'm not scoffing at the people I'm talking about. Mostly they're perfectly decent, conscientious human beings. They were absolutely vital in the early days.'" (ibid.)
Absolutely vital. Yes, not everyone could have "succeeded" even if everyone had had "special talents." I would have been one of those "human beings," probably seeking employment as a clerk while hoping that social advances would open up possibilities of higher education or at least of public libraries.
Coffin continues:
"'If something isn't done, Rustum will repeat Earth's miserable history..." (p. 132)
We have discussed this before. I quoted Coffin's litany of that miserable history in The Future Of Rustum. He regards the majority of the human race as a problem instead of as a potential future. We can have not only "demagogues" (ibid.) but also new leaders. Why should upheavals "'...only lead to tyranny'"? (ibid.) We are discussing humanity which is ourselves. Can we not trust ourselves to solve the problems that we ourselves have created?
11 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Unsurprising that George Stein did not know what a proletariat was--and why should he have been? Up till then the colony on Rustum was too small and everyone had been too busy to think about such things.
Technical experts have to mean many different kinds of technicians, in which I would skilled tradesmen like plumbers, masons, carpenters, electricians, accountants, lawyers, physicians, and not just laboratory technicians.
I checked page 131 of my copy of NEW AMERICA, it too had "employees" rather than "employers," which better fits the context. Obviously, that was a misprint.
Daniel Coffin was right many people are simply not going to have any particular talents or skills. An observable fact.
I do not think Daniel Coffin believed that if everyone had special talents they would all be farmers, entrepreneurs, tradesmen/technicians, etc. Because the vast majority of human beings don't have the talents or inclinations for such things. Nor do I agree he was being "patronizing" about such people.
Humans being what we are, flawed, imperfect, strife prone, etc., I fully expect Rustum to eventually have the problems Coffin feared would come. Social strains, stresses, conflicts would come--to be manipulated by power hungry demagogues striving to become tyrants.
No, I do not trust even myself, never mind mankind in general when it comes to politics and power. The best Rustum can hope for as it becomes a fully colonized planet in future centuries is a NTTB limited state which creaks along tolerably well. I believe in realism, not Utopian impossibilities.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
If everyone had special talents, they would still not all succeed because they do not all have special talents?
I believe in the demonstrated ability of human beings to change their environment and themselves, not in Utopian impossibilities. There is nothing impossible about realizing that an economic system is outmoded and replacing it with a more appropriate one.
Coffin envisages the maintenance of a system in which on the one hand it is necessary that most people are employed by someone else if they are to survive and on the other hand it is impossible that they are employed by anyone else! A massive contradiction that would indeed spawn conflicts of all kinds, not least xenophobia against the new immigrants from Earth.
But increased technological resources make possible a different kind of economy in which everyone is neither an employer nor an employee but an equal shareholder. We have changed society from hunting and gathering to a high tech global economy and can change it even further.
Please don't identify your view with "realism." We can do all do that and it establishes nothing.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Even if everybody had special talents/abilities, they would not all either be successful or equally successful because life is so variable and unpredictable. Some would still fail.
I do not believe human beings are infinitely plastic. Denied, what you said about economics, if you mean free enterprise, which is not outmoded. I reject the failed alternative you cling to, socialism.
Nonsense, what you said about Daniel Coffin's views about economics and politics. And he was trying to prevent hostility to those new emigrants exiled by Earth's Federation.
That increase in technological resources will only be possible because of free enterprise, and will continue to need free enterprise to avoid stagnation, stasis, cartelization, a centralized autocratic State, etc. And because human beings are not equal in abilities, talents, virtues (or vices!) there's never going to be a society where everyone is an "equal shareholder." And that will be an even more of an impossibility if mankind gets off this rock and different groups scatters in all directions to live as they choose. What you hope for is a Utopian impossibility
I believe the views of conservatives and the more moderate libertarians, believing as they do in human weakness and fallibility, that only the limited State, in whatever form, and free enterprise economics, to be demonstrably realistic. Here I'm recalling Daniel Coffin's reflections about the FEDERALIST PAPERS, which expounded the classic American view of these issues.
Ad astra! Sean
Here is something related to the worries portrayed in the story.
https://www.zmescience.com/future/anthropic-economy-us-forecast/
Sean,
I published this post in order to respond to Poul Anderson's text, not so that we could go back through the whole issue about "free enterprise" yet again. (BTW, it will be redundant when wealth is abundant.)
Of course, even if everyone had "special talents," everyone would not "succeed" because those who do "succeed" are able to do so only because they are able to employ others. That is my point. Coffin started out by implying that those do not "succeed" fail to "succeed" only because they lack "special talents."
We have not found any end to human plasticity yet. Denied what you said about economics. (Can we stop expressing ourselves by "denying"?)
Perfect sense what I said about Coffin's views.
I have acknowledged innumerable times that economic competition HAS BEEN necessary for technological advance. We merely repeat ourselves.
We can build a fully democratic society instead of a centralized autocracy. We just need to do it - and to overcome resistance to it.
When technologically produced and democratically controlled wealth is so abundant that it can be distributed equally, then it will cease to matter that individuals differ in abilities, talents etc and it will be possible for everyone to be an equal share-holder. What I hope for is a realistic possibility, not a Utopian impossibility, but why do we keep repeating this?
I know you believe in conservatism and moderate libertarianism! I do not. Do we have to keep repeating this?
Why repeat "limited State, and free enterprise economics"? I have replied to this. The State will be very limited when there is no longer any need to use means and instruments of coercion to protect private property, shops, warehouses, second and third homes of the rich etc. Free enterprise will be redundant when... I keep saying it.
You are unable to give any serious consideration to propositions that contradict your world-view. Such propositions are summarily dismissed/denied without any adequate discussion or exchange of views. I do not envy your unwavering certainty which fails to acknowledge that conditions and circumstances have changed and do change and that we CAN change with them.
But I really do not want to keep saying all this over and over yet again.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But you were commenting on what Anderson's characters said and believed--which means I felt free to comment on what I believe to be your errors and mistakes. Nor can we even think of having "abundant wealth" unless some basic system of economics made the creation of that wealth possible. You seem to come close to believing in some kind of magical perpetual motion economy where humans don't have to decided or do anything. Which is absurd.
There is nothing wrong per se in some people being "employers" and others being "employees." It is also an observable fact many people don't have any particular talents/abilities. It's simply what we human beings are like.
Disagree, what you said about human "plasticity."
Economic competition will always be necessary if we want to avoid stagnation, stasis, cartelization, etc. You have failed to prove otherwise, offering only wishful thinking or speculations about "ideal" societies in an ever more receding future.
I reject impossibilities like perfect ideal democracy, for the simple reason that human beings are too quarrelsome, competitive, and strife prone for any such fantasy to work. Only the limited State, in whatever form, has worked, however creakily. That is, a State in which power is checked/restrained by power, factions by opposing factions, etc. In the US the lower House of Congress can pass laws, but the upper House, the Senate, can revise or reject them, and the President can either approve laws sent to him or veto them. Finally, the courts, ending with the Supreme Court, can rule that many laws are illegal/unconstitutional and thus void them. A system designed to prevent radicalism and force on everyone the need for consensus and compromise.
Again, you are insisting on the impossibility of socialism with stuff like "When technologically produced and democratically controlled wealth is so abundant that it can be distributed equally...." that has ALWAYS boils down to bungling politicians and bureaucrats trying to incompetently run things from the top down. Your hopes are not realistic because you refuse to accept how flawed, imperfect, corruptible, varying in abilities, etc., all of us are. No, it's far wiser and vastly more efficient to leave the production and distribution of goods and services in private hands.
Conservatism/moderate libertarianism works whenever it's been given a chance. Socialism has never worked. We "repeat" because you also "repeat."
Because of what we human beings actually are, we are always going to need some form of State to preserve internal peace and defend against outside enemies. Which makes what you said about economics here irrelevant and not to the point. No State, even a bad one, and we get Haiti.
I disagree, I have considered your hopes/propositions and find them fatally flawed. I could turn your complaint against you and say you have refused to consider sober and factually the possibility your hopes are not realistic. And based on a false view of human nature.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Let's be quite clear. I think that you make errors and mistakes but I do not keep using those words. I just respond to the content of what is said. And you are still doing what I said: endlessly repeating what we have already said many times before. You do not seem to know when to stop.
Of course some system of economics is necessary to create wealth. I describe such a system: democratic control of advanced technology.
Socially and democratically controlled advanced technology, automation and AI is not magical perpetual motion. It would not mean human beings not having to decide or do anything. This characterization is absurd. It would free human beings to decide and to do many things that have been beyond our range before, things that we have not even dreamed of yet.
There is nothing wrong with human beings currently being employers and employees but we can go beyond that just as we have gone beyond hunting and gathering. You are not thinking about the implications of advanced technology but reacting in a completely anti-sf way when I point out that advanced technology CAN be used to make the future different from both the past and the present. Some people don't have any particular talents? Not denied. What does that establish?
Disagree what you said about human plasticity.
Economic competition will not always be necessary any more than slavery is. I am not obliged to prove anything to your satisfaction. Clearly that is impossible. I have offered evidence and arguments about changed conditions, social relationships, experiences and expectations, not mere wishful thinking or speculations. Some of these things CAN be done in a near future but a lot of resistance will have to be overcome first. That too is obvious.
Sean, I am only half way through your comment above but I want to break off here. This is getting to be too much. I certainly can and probably will return and reply to the rest of it. After all, it is all things that we have said before. WHY do you want to keep repeating this? Do you really think that, after all this time, one of us will suddenly accept the other's point of view? I have asked that before as well. Now I want to return to posting on the blog.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
You are still clinging to futilities like socialism with things like "democratic control of advanced technology." Iow, the State controls the economy and that has never worked in real and was certainly not democratic.
Best to terminate this discussion.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I am not clinging to anything. I am disagreeing with you. Your way of expressing this is always unacceptable. I have replied repeatedly about "the State, " about meanings of "socialism" and about "what has never worked." I have shown how the future can and should be different. You are clinging to futilities like the present economic system and the war-waging armed nation-states which are destroying our environment even now as we type this.
You cannot "terminate" the discussion with the blanket statement that I am "clinging" to something! My reply to the second half of your long comment above is still potentially on the agenda although I return to my question why all this has had to be repeated yet again. But, whenever the same "errors," as I see them, are repeated, I will show again that I can reply to them.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
We have irreconcilable views about human beings, belonging as we do a Fallen race. All other disagreements (about the State, society, economics, etc.) flows from that.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We have not Fallen from Paradise but risen from animality. All the evolutionary evidence shows this. You yet again just repeat the word, "Fallen."
If an entire population is technologically liberated from the struggle for survival/the need to earn a living, will the whole society stagnate? Surely not. Surely many will enjoy life, explore, create, learn, cooperate on long-term projects of all kinds etc? There will be a new natural selection: survival of those who find life worthwhile, fulfilling, of value, something to thank God for (if they believe in God) etc?
If we think otherwise, then why don't we just end life now? (We might very well be accelerating ourselves in that direction already, of course.)
Paul.
Post a Comment