"Pum was gone. Feet flying, kaftan flapping, the purple wharf rat sped to the destiny he would make for himself." (p. 331)
Pum is an Andersonian hero. Like Nicholas van Rijn, he alone makes his destiny. On the one hand, Pum cannot make a Time Patrol agent arrive in Tyre. On the other hand, he can begin to take advantage of a situation as soon as it arises and even before he knows what the situation is:
"'Master, it pleases you to pose as a rude tribesman, but from the very first I had a feeling there was far more to you. Of course you would not confide in a chance-met guttersnipe. So, without knowledge of you, how could I tell what use I might be?'" (p. 311)
So are the following propositions an adequate account of society? -
A minority of alert and active individuals, like van Rijn and Pum, makes things happen;
the initiative-lacking majority benefits from the leadership of that gifted minority;
social friction and dissatisfaction arise only from misplaced resentment of the successful and affluent minority, e.g., Eric Wace's hostility to van Rijn in The Man Who Counts.
No, that is a gross oversimplification. Social and economic systems are infinitely more complicated. For just two points, not every possessor of great wealth has acquired that wealth entirely by his own initiative and there is not always a level playing field for new initiatives. Poul Anderson shows us several causes of conflict in "Lodestar," "A Little Knowledge" and Mirkheim. In fact, he presents a considerably more detailed and plausible account of the decline of an interstellar civilization than does Isaac Asimov in his Foundation series.
Van Rijn and Falkayn operate correctly, in Anderson's view, but, at the historical turning point, there is conflict even between them.
4 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I believe there is some truth in the three propositions you listed. I also agree, that as they stand, it's oversimplified. Anderson was far better than Asimov at showing us the complexities and subtleties of personal, social, and political interactions.
Yes. as we see in "Lodestar," there was a conflict between Old Nick and Falkayn. BUT, Nicholas van Rijn forgave Falkayn that single breaking of his oath of fealty to him and were reconciled. Which is what we see in MIRKHEIM, among many other things.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
There is some truth in them.
Paul.
Poul wasn’t generally very favorably disposed towards -inherited- wealth, or to political elites.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
But we are always going to have "political elites," however they are defined or named: aristocracy, a political party, or an oligarchy, etc. Most people simply won't care that much about being politically active, as long as the political elites are not doing too terribly bad a job of running things. I personally know people who don't vote and have no intention of voting, for example.
And I have no objection to wealthy persons leaving wealth to their children, grand children, or other heirs. A PRIME motivation for many able and energetic entrepreneurs, investors, inventors, businessmen, etc., is to provide for their families--which I absolutely have no objection to!
Long tern, it doesn't matter if a billionaire leaves billions to his children and grandchildren. Because, the more heirs there are as time passes, the shares which are inherited gets smaller and smaller--until, as I would not be surprised to find out, we see descendants of Cornelius Vanderbilt flipping burgers at a McDonald's!
And that leads to another point: the descendants of Bill Gates are not likely to ALL of them having his abilities, leading to some of them wasting or squandering any wealth they inherited. Leading to the eventual dissolution of inherited wealth.
Last, I an hostile to the idea of using coercion by the state, any state, for seizing inherited wealth, because it's NO ONE'S business or right to arbitrarily determine how much wealth a man or his heirs can have, as long as this wealth was not gained by violent and criminal means.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment