liberal capitalist;
state socialist;
high-tech but semi-feudal;
or imperialist.
(We all know that interstellar empires are unlikely and that Poul Anderson wrote them well.)
"State socialist" could mean:
(i) like Russia during the Cold War, dictatorial, exploiting industrial workers in order to stockpile instruments of genocide for military competition against the other Great Power;
(ii) such a system conquering the planet, or the known universe, and therefore ceasing to have a competitor.
I call (i) "state capitalist" because of its exploitation and competition and (ii) a return to ancient despotism because of its lack of a competitor. (ii) would indeed be horrific (1984) but hopefully is unlikely and, if it did occur, would soon stagnate, then collapse under its own weight.
2 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I'm a little confused by this blog piece of yours. I saw a "(i)" and a "(iii)" but not a "(ii)." Your last paragraph mentions a "(ii)" I did not see in the main body of this text. So, I'm not quite sure what you meant.
In "The High Ones" and "The Pugilist" we see Poul Anderson's speculations about how a centralized, bureaucratic socialism indeed conquered all Earth. Except "The Pugilist" shows us a world reminding me of what we see in Orwell's 1984, rival Soviet and Chinese despotisms, with a conquered US the vassal of the Soviets.
And I don't think interstellar empires, federations, or confederations are necessarily impossible. What would be needed for such things to be possible is a FTL drive. And the reasons why such realms might arise, in the works of Anderson and Pournelle (to name two), would be to restore order after a time of chaos and defend against outside aggressors or barbarians, is also plausible.
Sean
Sean,
Thanks. I have corrected the (i)-(iii) error.
Paul.
Post a Comment