Friday 27 September 2019

Kinds Of Time Criminals

Poul Anderson's Time Patrol recognizes only two kinds of antagonists: well-meaning fanatics or self-serving desperadoes. What is lacking is a revolutionary time travel organization with a serious project for a better timeline.

We can all imagine a better twentieth century and identify turning points where the worst evils could have been averted. We do not know what would have happened in an altered timeline but maybe a time travel group would be able to guide - rather than to control - events? Decision-makers would still decision-make. Populations would still interact. But some people believe that there are guardian angels so maybe such "angels" could be time travelers?

I heard that a guy in the USSR was alerted by his instruments that the US had launched a nuclear strike but, not believing it, did not signal for a retaliation. If that is so, then that guy saved all our lives. This is the sort of moment when time travelers might helpfully intervene without interfering elsewhere. If the guy is about to retaliate, then incapacitate him. Otherwise, just observe. There is something like this in Heinlein's " - All You Zombies -," which I will quote when I have access to my copy of the relevant collection.

Imagine a Time Patroller who finds himself in a much improved timeline. He thinks that it is his duty to restore the World Wars, the Holocaust, the Cold War, all the lesser wars and acts of terrorism and global warming. Now imagine a dialogue between him and one of the "guardian angels."

The Time Patrol series has untapped potentials. (Meanwhile, will global warming sabotage a future of either the Polesotechnic League or the Danellians?)

13 comments:

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

I have ZERO use for practically all revolutionaries. The most notorious revolutionaries, such as the Nazis and the Communists, have been brutal fanatics. And we both know too well of the harm they have done!

My view is that of Edmund Burke. REAL reform is cautious, patient, and based on consensus, and built on what already exists.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,
But could someone take that cautious approach to altering the timeline? (I do not look on the Nazis as revolutionaries.)
Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

Problem is, assuming it is possible to change a timeline, I don't see how any change, no matter how cautiously implemented, could avoid the high risk of divergences arising and going in almost any direction. Most of them probably bad!

What is a revolution? A time when a group of people, small or large, take control of a nation and begin introducing drastic changes, usually accompanied by violence. And I argue that fits the Nazis as well as the Communists.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,
That is not my idea of revolution! I should have avoided the adjective "revolutionary" when describing my hypothetical "guardian angel" time travel group because it has opened this discussion about how to change society yet again. Remember I said that they should guide, not control.
Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

And revolutionaries, by DEFINITION, don't guide or persuade. They force and compel people do what the new regime wants them to do. If necessary by terror and the ruthless use of force. And revolutionaries won't much care about the body count!

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,
Our definitions differ. Mine:

revolution is not a minority taking control but the majority overthrowing the previous form of control - the exact opposite;

revolutionary groups (people with ideas about how society can be transformed) should give a lead, not try to seize control;

most "revolutionaries" spend their entire lives not giving a lead to a social transformation but campaigning, e.g., against racism, poverty and war and for reforms like higher wages and better working conditions.

I should have avoided the adjective, "revolutionary," when describing my time traveling "guardian angels" because it started us on this debate again but, ok, we can discuss it. It is helpful to clarify the ideas or, at least, clarify where the disagreements are.

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

The first very seldom happens because most people, most of the time, accept the regimes they live under, good or bad. The violent overthrow of the justly hated Romanian Communists in 1989 comes closest to your definition.

I agree with your second case, while insisting on my own right to oppose what I might well consider very bad ideas. Iow, political action via political parties, running for office, etc.

Your third case is the same, nonviolent, non illegal political action. But I would prefer things like wages to be settled by agreements between employers and their employees, not coercion by the state.

To me, a revolution is a violent seizure of power by a conspiratorial group within a nation. And then taking ruthless measures to cement their grip on power and brutally enforcing their ideas of how society should be remolded. Which is exactly what Lenin did in Russia!

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

Most people most of the time accept the status quo good or bad, agreed. Wages to be settled between employers and employees, agreed - but I want the employees to be united, organized and strong!

If, by "revolution," you mean violent seizure of power by conspirators, then we agree in opposing that.

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

Good, I'm glad we can mostly agree, just for once! I would add that I would employees and workers to have more than just one "organization," because workers will be as varied as anybody else. Which means they won't always agree with one another.

To me, a violent seizure of power by conspirators motivated by a fanatical ideology is far worse than a mere coup. But I think we mostly agree on this point.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,
Of course workers disagree but I want them to do it democratically within a single trade union. If I lost a vote, which I did, I would not split and form a breakaway union.
Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

I still disagree. Because any economy like that of the UK or the US will be large and varied enough that no single union can or even should try to represent all employees. Different kinds of jobs and professions will have needs and problems. A bakers unions cannot truly represent a police union, or a nurses union, or lawyers.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,
Misunderstanding. I meant one union for each kind of work.
Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

That clarifies matters. Different unions or trade associations for different kinds of jobs and professions.

Ad astra! Sean