(ii) Dominic Flandry says, "'I'm against revolutions...'" (p.320). Because here he refers to a mere insurrection, death and destruction just to change who sits on the throne, I agree with him. There are other meanings of "revolution":
a mass movement sweeping aside a corrupt regime;
a "social revolution," which changes not just the government but economic relationships.
The American Civil War was a social revolution because, as a direct result of that War, slaves became free workers, no longer owned but owning their own labor power, able to sell it in return for a wage or salary, thus able to own, save and borrow money, thus in some cases able to start businesses and employ others, thus also (although further struggles remained necessary) able to vote and run for office. A revolutionary transformation, indeed. European history is a series of social revolutions in which lords and serfs were eventually replaced by merchants, bankers, factory workers, office workers, motor mechanics, computer technicians etc. And, of course, Flandry would not say that this history should not have happened, but we really are talking about different kinds of "revolution" here.
(iii) Novels often have happy endings. Thus, at the end of A Stone In Heaven, the Empire had agreed to modify the Ramnuan climate, preventing the recurrent Ice Ages. It is good, in a future history series, to be able to read a sequel in which the planetary climate modification project is under way - and tragic that it is suspended during the emergency of the insurrection.
10 comments:
Hi, Paul!
A few brief comments. I share Dominic Flandry's skepticism and distaste for "revolutions." Even if we define it fairly narrowly to mean your "a mass movement sweeping aside a corrupt regime." MY observation has been that many, many times the new regime was worse than its predecessor. Often, VASTLY worse. I can easily list examples beginning as long ago as the gov't of the kindly, well meaning Louis XVI of France being replaced by the blood drenched tyranny of the Jacobins to Nicholas II of Russia being replaced by monsters like Lenin and Stalin, the Weimar Republic of Germany succeeded by Hitler's National Socialism, et cetera. So, yes, I agree with Flandry's skepticism that any violent (or even non violent major) change of regime will bring much of an improvement.
Also, this may be a nit picky, but I object to concepts like "labor power." Rather, it's my belief that a person's labor is worth what employers are willing to pay for it. For example, a skilled heart surgeon gets paid more than a store clerk because of the higher value placed on the surgeon's work. Here, I'm following the insights on econcomics developed by the Austrian School. But, yes, the US Civil War did destroy the old slave based plantation system.
Many, perhaps most, novels have happy endings? Or, at least reasonably hopeful ones? Well, that's no surprise! Most of us don't want to read only grimly depressing dystopian fictions like Orwell's 1984 or Shute's ON THE BEACH. I can recall Poul Anderson trying his hand at such fictions in stories like "The Martyr," "Welcome," "Murphy's Hall." And I've seen comments by some, not always in commendation, that Anderson's novels or series tend to become "darker" in tone. A point Sandra Miesel discussed in her monograph AGAINST TIME'S ARROW: THE HIGH CRUSADE OF POUL ANDERSON.
Sean
Sean,
Thank you as ever for your historical perspective which is always welcome and just right for assessing Anderson's future histories.
I don't think that you and I are in fundamental disagreement on labor. I think that, in a market, commodities, including what I call "labor power" (ability to work), are bought and sold at their value. A commodity that needed more time and effort to produce it is of greater value than an item that was produced quickly and easily. Thus, a heart surgeon required years of training, far more than the store clerk (shop assistant).
I think that we can agree that Magnusson's insurrection and a mass movement are qualitatively different phenomena even if we then agree on opposing the former but sometimes disagree about whether to support the latter.
Paul.
Meanwhile, though, have I found a contradiction in point (i) of this post?
Hi, Paul!
Hmmm, if by "labor power" you simply meant a person's willingness and ability to work in return for an agreed upon salary, then I see nothing objectionable per se in the term. I would then suggest that, at first appearances, "labor power" seems an unclear term to use for indicating a person's ability and willingness to work.
And I certainly agree that in skilled professions like medicine a heart surgeon needs to undergo years of costly study and training to acquire that skill. Which then rightly commands a higher rate of return than a shop assistant would obtain.
I have some doubts about your comments about Magnusson and mass insurrectionary movements. Mostly because I don't know of any truly spontaneous mass rebellions which SUCCEEDED. The nearest example I can think of being the Taiping Rebellion in China (1860-1864). But even the Taipings had leaders and a system of ideas and beliefs with which to inspire and organize their followers. At their height, I think the Taipings controlled nearly half of the Chinese Empire before the Ch'ing loyalists gradually began to wear down and then defeat the Taipings. The devastation and destruction caused by this civil war would not be matched or surpassed till the bloody upheavals of the 20th century.
Incidentally, Aycharaych mentioned in THE DAY OF THEIR RETURN how the Taiping Rebellion was an example of a mass movement inspired by political or religious ideas that might topple old and still strong regimes.
Last, I'm not sure I understand how there was a contradiction in point 1 of your note. Do you mean my suggested historical examples or your comments about economics?
Sean
Drat! I made an error in my third paragraph above. The Taiping civil war in China lasted from 1850 to 1864, not from 1860.
Sean
Sean,
I have obviously crammed too many points into one post and we are getting mixed up! My point (i) was that Anderson refers to Ramnu as Niku IV, having previously said that Ramnu was the only planet in the Nikuan system. I thought that this was a contradiction in Anderson's texts.
Paul.
Sean,
I see now that "labor power" was a technical term that I used without explanation. It simply means ability to work. I am able to work but lack the "labor power" of a brain surgeon because I cannot do what he does. The term is used in the "labor theory of value." A commodity is a product made to be exchanged or sold, not immediately consumed. A commodity has higher value if more labor has been necessary to produce it. "Labor power" is produced by upbringing, education and training and is then sold in the market place so it is in this sense a commodity - although, of course, the persons owning the labor power are not commodities. That would reduce them to slavery.
Paul.
Hi, Paul!
Yes, Poul Anderson seems to have made a small mistake in describing the Ramnuan System. It has only one planet, which has three moons. Using "Ramnu 1 to 4" can cause confusion, where it's tradtional to number planets outward from the sun but not their moons. Maybe "Ramnu a,b,c" would (the lower case letters standing for the moons of Ramnu, "a" being closest to the planet).
Thanks for your explanation of the technical term "labor power." But I think the terminology used by the Austrian School is clearer and less prone to confusion. The Austrians argue that the "value" of goods and services is determined by how much buyers and employers are willing to offer for those goods and services (prices which in turn need to be accepted by the possessors of those goods and services).
Sean
Sean,
In existing terminology, Niku IV would mean the fourth planet of the star Niku whereas Ramnu I-III would mean the three moons of the planet Ramnu.
Paul.
Hi, Paul!
Yes, I forgot, it's the custom to number planets by the name of their star. Moons of a planet would be numbered by the planet's name.
Sean
Post a Comment