And here are two from a single day during the Empire period. First, Dominic Flandry's superior, Admiral Fenross, says:
"'If I didn't oblige the peerage,...I'd be begging my bread in Underground and someone would be in this office who'd never tell them no.'" (Sir Dominic Flandry, p. 192)
And:
"...rhododendrons bloomed like cool fire in Terra's parks, and the laughing youth of Terra's aristocracy flew past on their way to some newly opened pleasure house." (p. 197)
Other Anderson sf novels, e.g., The Long Way Home and The Corridors Of Time, present high tech futures in which a large percentage of the population is permanently unemployed and either impoverished or minimally subsidized. This single reference to "...Underground..." implies a similar lowest social stratum in the Terran Empire although it does not tell us how many Undergrounders there are. Are they literally underground or does "Underground" just mean "the under-class"?
We are used to societies in which wealth is unequally distributed but this does seem to be an extreme case. An able individual like Fenross could be impoverished at the whim of a "peer" while at the same time youths who have done nothing to generate any wealth fly to a pleasure house even though Terra is now at war on two fronts.
Flandry reflects:
"...when the bombs finally roared out of space, when the barbarians howled among smashed buildings and the smoke of burning books hid dead men in tattered bright uniforms - when the Long Night came, as it would, a century or a millennium hence, what difference? - something of beauty and gallantry would have departed the universe." (p. 190)
Maybe, but the Long Day will last much longer if more people have a stake in defending it. How many Undergrounders will join with extraterrestrial barbarians in smashing buildings, burning books and killing anyone wearing a uniform?
6 comments:
Hi, Paul!
I remember the incidents you mentioned here as well! And I would understand what Admiral Fenross' comment to mean is that if he seriously irritated powerful persons, he would be cashiered and join the latterday equivalent of what we now "street people." I would put some stress as well on how Fenross said that if he obliged these influential persons in minor ways he remained able to say "No" to bad ideas or plans at least sometimes, when it mattered.
And the bit about the laughing youth of Terra's aristocracy is really no different from what we see in any Western nation like the US, UK, France, Germany, etc. That is, there will always, alas, be some who care nothing about the future, and only about current pleasures and amusements. The problem we are seeing in the Flandry stories is that far too many suffer from a sense of despair, that nothing matters, so why not have some fun? This bit from Prince Cerdic's biased, but shrewd comments about the Empire from Anderson's revised version of "Tiger by the Tail" is apt: "strength sapped by a despair too pervasive for you to realize what it is."
And, I agree, if more people CARE about the Empire then it would survive longer. AND be governed better. And we do see quite a fair number of such persons, even during the reign of the unworthy Josip: Flandry himself, Captain Abrams, Admiral Kheraskov, Chunderban Desai, the widow of Emperor Georgios, etc., to name only a few to be found even in the higher ranks of society.
And I assure you, "Undergrounders" will suffer even more than persons in the upper classes if barbarians or hostile civilized powers like Merseia ever managed to attack, bomb, and invade Terra.
Sean
Hi, Paul!
I should have added to my previous note mention of how impatient I get when people complain about how "unequally" wealth is distributed. I fail to see how ANYTHING else is possible when all human beings themselves are "unequal" in ability, talents, intelligence, wishes, ethical maturity, etc. I fail to see how wealth WON'T be "unequally" distributed when so many who can (I'm not including those who genuinely cannot) simply refuse to save and invest, to think ahead even just a little. My view is that the best way people of ordinary or humble means have of materially bettering their lives is by starting to save and invest when young, say ages 18 or 20. And it doesn't have to be a lot, even just a little patiently and steadily added to both savings and sound investments can really mount up over thirty or forty years. Because that is exactly what I have done and seen!
So I DREAD it when politicians and pundits talk about how something needs to be done about "unequal" distribution of wealth. FAR too often the only idea they have of what to do is yet MORE welfare/dole plans and the ever higher taxes to pay for it and the increased bureaucracy needed for managing welfare. Such things merely makes matters worse, by increasing dependency on the state and strangling the economy.
I realize you are at least a moderate leftist, so I'm sure you don't wholly agree with my pro free enterprise views.
Sean
Sean,
No, I don't wholly agree! But I carefully avoid too much disputation on this blog especially since (i) such disputation would have to be very lengthy to address the issues adequately and (ii) we have the ever-fascinating works of Poul Anderson to discuss instead. However, his works seriously address every important issue, including how best to organize society, so we should, as we do, allow these issues to arise when appropriate in discussing his works.
I do agree that those on my side of the argument, politically speaking, need to do more to demonstrate their ideas in practice.
Paul.
Hi, Paul!
Yes, I agree that a forum like this is not really a satisfactory location for lengthy and detailed economic/sociological debates. On my side of the spectrum I would need to cite such classic but massive texts as Ludwig von Mises HUMAN ACTION. And I certainly agree on both how fascinating the works of Poul Anderson are and how he addresses practically all the most impotant issues and problems of human life.
For instance, in the Psychotechnic History stories we see early examples of Anderson speculating that drastic and radical advances in technology created so much wealth that even persons who lost their jobs due to technological changes were able to live reasonably well ("citizen's relief"). But the problem arose of how to solve the problem of many, many people feeling useless because the new, technologically advanced society had no place for them. As we saw, the anger, frustration, and despair this caused led to disasters like the Humanist Revolt (see also "Quixote and the Windmill").
It's my belief that what became Technic Civilization avoided suffering a similar fate due to the invention of a FTL drive in the 2100's. The opening up of vast new frontiers acted as a safety valve for Earth, giving those who felt helpless and powerless an outlet. And, on many of the new colonial worlds the most modern technology simply wouldn't be practical for many years for a variety of reasons. Which means the technologically displaced could still do useful and necessary work. AND giving time for most humans in Technic Civilization to adapt to technological changes.
And, yes, even so, we still see mention of regions inhabited by people who, for one reason or another, still failed. Such as the "sub-Lucifer" Aaron Snelund escaped from on Venus or the "Underground" mentioned by Admiral Fenross.
I have seen you advocating what you call a "cooperative" economy or society. It's my view that a free enterprise system moderated by tort law is the closest we can get to what you mean by "cooperative." I know free enterprise is not your preference, but I fail to see how any kind of control by the state can avoid the evils and abuses arising from socialism. Unless mankind basically abdicates from running his own affairs and lets an Artificial Intelligence systemrun matters (as we see in THE HARVEST OF STARS books and GENESIS). And THEN suffering from despair and a sense of powerless uselessness.
Sean
Sean,
I am thinking of rereading Anderson's GENESIS soon. There is a great deal in there that I have not summarized/discussed/reflected on as yet.
Paul.
Hi, Paul!
GENESIS is a fascinating book! It shows how, even in his old age and failing health, Poul Anderson could still write excellent, carefully thought out books. I look forward to any comments you care to make about GENESIS. And those comments may well inspire remarks by me!
Sean
Post a Comment