I must correct a mistake before anyone else does it for me. Dowling's wife, Bonnie, writes to him at:
"...John Reed AFB, Willits, California 95491..." (p. 90)
"AFB" means "Air Force Base."
The political officer, Mannix, tells Dowling:
"'You're slated for Commander here at Reed, once the mutiny begins.'" (p. 100)
Thus, "John Reed" is part of Dowling's postal address, not a pseudonym.
Poul Anderson's political fiction becomes more complex, and thus more authentic, with every page. Russia, described even in the US as the Motherland, is on the verge of civil war between Vasiliev and Kunin factions. Mannix categorizes these factions as:
"'Party versus army.'" (p. 99)
He elaborates:
"'The essential struggle is between those who are loyal to the principles of the party, and those who would substitute military dictatorship.'" (ibid.)
Mannix includes Dowling in the latter group and indeed Dowling reflects that he and his fellow Decarutists have said:
"'...better government by colonels than commissioners." (ibid.)
Better government by neither but what do we make of Mannix's formulation? Who speaks of "the principles of the party"? If a Stalinist says it, then it is anti-democratic. But, when John Reed and many others say it, it means greater and indeed genuine democracy, people discussing, debating and deciding, not billionaires funding TV ads. Yes to the principles of the party!
12 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I think Anderson meant "slated," not "slanted." Another misprint.
Yes, better rule by colonels than Marxist fanatics or puppets.
It will not do, trying to pin the blame for the horrors of Marxism on Stalin alone. All he did was to extend and complete the dictatorial regime Lenin founded. All Stalin's crime were also committed by Lenin. Stalin was as "principled" a Marxist as any others of Lenin's gang.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
"Slated." I have corrected it.
Not better rule by colonels. Marxists are not all fanatics. Anyone who rules as a puppet of a bureaucracy is not encouraging or leading workers' self-emancipation and therefore is not a Marxist.
"...horrors of Marxism..." should be "...horrors of a brutal, bureaucratic state capitalist dictatorship not building a better society for all but extracting wealth from Russian labour in order to compete militarily against the Western powers and therefore needing to smash the last remnants of workers' democracy and to murder the old Bolsheviks, which they did."
I do not blame Stalin alone. I "blame" Russian backwardness and isolation which made the new form of democracy difficult, then impossible. What happened was not just the actions of individuals, Lenin, then Stalin. "Stalinism" and "state capitalism" have become terms to describe the monstrous state that emerged from all that conflict. And conflict involves endless lies, misrepresentations and misunderstandings. "State capitalism" is a very subtle analysis of how the exploitative and competitive dynamic of capitalist economic relationships continued with a state bureaucracy becoming the new ruling class. Yes, it will do to make this analysis.
Don't you get tired of saying the same things over and over again? I do. Surely we can discuss a story by Anderson which refers to "Communism" etc without ourselves having to be dragged back through these arguments every time?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I don't care about the "nice" Marxists, they either never come to power themselves or become brutal and fanatical if they do.
I meant exactly that, "horrors of Marxism." Nor do I care about those old Bolsheviks, they assisted Lenin in setting up his dictatorship. A regime meant to be monstrous from its start.
Your view of Russian history is simplistic. The last 30 years or so of Tsarist Russia showed the nation making tremendous advances in many ways. And there were truly drastic political reforms after 1905, esp. during the premiership of Peter Stolypin. A few more years of peace and revolution would have become almost inconceivable.
Rejected, what you said about "state capitalism," an oxymoron which has nothing to do with true free enterprise economics.
I repeat, Anderson's works inevitably invites these controversies. And when it comes to important principles/truths I don't get tired.
Ad astra! Seab
Sean,
Disagree and reject but I am trying to make this reply brief. I want to get back to writing a post.
In "state capitalism," bureaucrats extract (exploit) wealth from labour and use it to compete (in a military form) as I have explained. Therefore the two aspects of "capitalism" are present and this is not an oxymoron and I have explained it before. Of course it is not the same form of capitalism as free enterprise. That is why we call it something different.
Anderson's works do not invite endless repetition which does not serve any
important principles or truths.
We will not all become brutal or fanatical if we manage to lead a movement for social change. The movement itself, if it is not derailed as it was in Russia, will not allow that. Social organizations that make their representatives accountable will not give those representatives the ability to make arbitrary arrests, establish a new secret police etc.
Please try to care!
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Still rejected, what you said about "state capitalism," which has nothing in common with true free enterprise economics. The latter is about free individuals of firms large and small seeing needs or promoting innovations filling new needs, in the hope of gaining a profit thereby. "State capitalism" is nothing but a Marxist regime clumsily commandeering resources to aggrandize the military power of the Party. It confuses matters to insist on calling that kind of commandeering "state capitalism." It's just another aspect of socialism as seen in the real world, as part of a command economy.
I do not believe Marxism, whenever it comes to power, can or will ever be anything but brutal/tyrannical--because that is exactly what we have seen every time it ruled/rules a nation. A one party regime, believing it has the most advanced and perfect ideology needed for setting up the Ideal Society, cannot be anything but dictatorial.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course you still reject it! I am explaining what I mean by "state capitalism" but I am not expecting you to accept it and am not even trying to get you to accept it. We seem to be talking right past each other here. "State capitalism" is not nothing but a Marxist regime... It is a state bureaucracy exploiting workers in order to compete militarily and therefore bears the two features of capitalism, exploitation and competition, but is run by a state, therefore is called "state capitalism." A Marxist regime would be a workers' democracy controlling production for need, not profit. Socialism is that kind of democracy and does not exist in the real world yet but CAN exist in the future just as interstellar travel can.
Of course you do not believe in Marxism! I do not believe what you believe. We do not need to keep saying this. I have replied to "...every time it has ruled before..." I do not support "A one party regime, believing it has the most advanced and perfect ideology needed for setting up the Ideal Society..." and I agree that such a regime would be dictatorial. We are talking right past each other again. You are replying to your preconceived and prejudiced idea of what I am saying, not to what I am in fact saying.
You think that your ideas, beliefs, opinions etc are not just your ideas but also "important principles and truths." This assumption prevents dialogue. Contrary beliefs are not seriously considered and discussed but "rejected" as "wrong" before they have even been expressed!
But please address the most basic issue here. Why do you want to keep pursuing this disagreement endlessly. What is the purpose? To convince me? To convince yourself? I cannot see any purpose.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Isn't it obvious why I "persist"? Not to convince you or any other well-meaning but wrongheaded Marxists in the West, but to point out to readers there are other, better alternatives to that dead end. Also, I admit to having anger at how some still cling to Marxism, a bloodily catastrophic failure.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
That is not obvious. I hope that some readers find in my comments arguments and perspectives that they had not known existed. Most readers will already be very familiar with the views that you expound!
"...wrongheaded...," "dead end." There is your assumption of rightness again. I will not call my opponents "wrongheaded." I have shown perfectly possible and plausible futures that are not dead ends.
Lose that anger which is all too evident. It is negative and counterproductive.
Paul.
A bloody, catastrophic failure? It has not even been properly tried yet!
You seem to want to eradicate a contrary view. You can't. Many people hold this view and act on it. It motivates, for example, our consistent opposition to growing racism and xenophobia.
Kaor, Paul!
Then you have to deny that every nation where self-avowed Marxists came to power were not Marxists. And that does not make sense, to so dismiss men who steeped themselves in the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, et al. No, I'm going to take them at their word, not yours.
I do not believe those "alternate futures" you argue to be plausible will ever come to pass. Mostly because I believe your view of what human beings are like to be just plain wrong.
I should never dare to compare myself to Christ, Who whipped the moneychangers from the Temple, but sometimes anger is right.
I see far more attempts at eradiating opposing views from leftists, ranging from mobs at universities shouting down conservatives to malicious censorship and distorting of what conservatives believe.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Really, does this exchange have to continue?
I have just returned home with a really good idea for a post to write and publish so I do not want to spend too much time in the combox.
Read Marx. He is about workers' self-emancipation, not about regimes calling themselves Marxist. I take him at his word, also the many people who NOW apply what he thought and wrote, people who are active in trade unions and in mass campaigns, not running bureaucracies. Apparently, Marx heard someone speak about Marxism and said, "If that is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist!"
I know you do not believe what I say! We do not have to keep saying this. I believe your view of what human beings are like to be just plain wrong.
Anger is not right in these contentious disagreements. Many intelligent, well-informed people (I am talking about people that I know and have met, not about myself) completely disagree with you. You cannot just dismiss what they think so easily.
That last sentence surely reduces this to a slanging match? I refer to your attempt to argue that an entire political philosophy about social emancipation has been evil and aimed at doctrinaire political dictatorship from the outset. Of course it has not.
But do we really have to keep on and on about this?
Paul.
I REFERRED to your attempt...
Post a Comment