"'Get off that guilt trip. What are you, some kind of liberal or something?'"
-Poul Anderson, "Star Of The Sea" IN Anderson, Time Patrol (Riverdale, NY, 2010), pp. 467-640 AT 15, p. 597.
Download Guthrie:
"''...neither will I rush into what might be a socialism-sized blunder.'"
-The Fleet Of Stars, 19, p. 244.
Fortunately, political disagreements between Poul Anderson and me do not come to the surface very often but I strongly dislike these uses of the words "liberal" and "socialism."
One of Heinlein's characters describes socialism as a disease and another describes a hit-and-run thief as a "free-lance socialist" but I am not about to search through his later works to find the references.
I find it obvious first that human labor using advanced technology can produce abundant wealth, secondly that that wealth should be shared, not hoarded, and thirdly that human beings are capable of more than either being obliged to work for a living or atrophying. However, all of this is open to debate, as ever.
It has been a fascinating morning blogging but other obligations call.
39 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And, again, as so often, I agree with Anderson's views, and not with those of genuinely moderate leftists like you. MY view is that the once honorable word "liberal" has been corrupted and debased in the US since at least 1912. Before then "liberal" meant more like what we now call "libertarian." And I agree with Heinlein's view of socialism, which has never worked and always led to, at the very least, the centralizing of more and more power in the state.
And exactly HOW is wealth to be "shared"? How is that going to be done, PRACTICALLY speaking? People with views similar to yours never seem able to answer such questions. Nor is the value of anything based on labor, but on the value placed by OTHERS on whatever is being valued.
And, even if a post scarcity economy someday becomes possible, my view is that we will then have to grapple with the problem of what people are going to DO. We may well see problems as those shown in "Quixote and the Windmill," or the boredom and frustration of humans on Earth in THE FLEET OF STARS. Or non series works like GENESIS.
It's not enough to optimistically assume humans in a post scarcity economy (if that is possible) can be or will be "educated" to develop whatever capabilities they have, to become artists, philosophers, aesthetes, etc. MY view remains that most humans will not be inclined to be like that, preferring in fact to make a living they can take pride in, esp. if that means being able to support families. Permanent, life long idleness will lead only to despair, anger, frustration, etc.
I have suggested in other comboxes that one solution to such problems would be the opening of new frontiers off Earth for the human race. People who were unhappy and embittered on Earth could leave and settle on other worlds where they could live as they liked. Also, since such settlements would very likely be less technologically advanced than Earth, for a greater or longer period, malcontents who settled there would be able to do work in ways that were no longer economically feasible on Earth.
The opening of new frontiers would act as a safety valve, easing pressures and strains on Earth which would otherwise have become very dangerous. It would not matter if the first such colonies off Earth would be small and precarious, the precedent and example is what matters. Which is another reason why I hope Elon Musk manages to found his Mars colony!
Ad astra! Sean
Poul was a libertarian, which I consider "the dumb ideology for smart people".
(I'm a blood-and-iron, bishop-and-king hereditary Tory, more or less.)
However, given the history of the 20th century, I'd say he had a fair bit of evidence for the attitude behind those remarks.
Basically, those philosophies rely on a profoundly inaccurate view of what human beings are and what they're capable of. At best they're grossly overoptimistic, veering into deranged overestimates of human malleability.
The fact that something would be desirable, if possible, does not mean it's possible.
Hence the results of trying to implement them run from "gradually increasing badness" to "catastrophe".
"From the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing can be made."
I don't believe in God. But Original Sin? Oh, yeah, definitely.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree with your view of libertarianism. I would argue, however, that Anderson was not WHOLLY a libertarian. He did admit the need for the state to exist, and he agreed with me (in private correspondence) on how flawed and imperfect human beings are. I would say Anderson was a libertarian, moderated by conservative realism.
And I respect Tories like you! If I had been British, I think I would have views like your. As an American, conservatives have to argue for the need of the state being limited and respect for the Constitution.
Absolutely, what you said that something being desirable does not mean it will be POSSIBLE.
Well, I believe in both God and Original Sin!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Human beings are capable of organizing their common affairs. It is not impossible. Enough houses can be built for everyone to live in. Enough food can be produced for everyone to eat. That is a start. Many more minds than mine can address the practical questions of how to address all human needs now that it has become technologically possible.
You continue to think of people as they are now, not as how they can be with a completely different upbringing and education in a completely different culture. Human beings are both plastic and dynamic, not static. We would not be as we are now if not for fundamental evolutionary, then social, changes in the past.
But society right now is heading in a disastrous direction with the cop-out of COP 26. The intermediate option of business as usual is being closed off.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Your first paragraph: but not all forms of "organizing" will WORK. Socialism has been a CATASTROPHIC failure every time it's been tried. The sooner people jettison such nonsense, the better. And, where it has been allowed to work, free enterprise economics has always resulted in more housing and food becoming available than socialism ever managed to achieve.
Second paragraph: And I will continue to think like that. I see NOTHING in REAL human beings to make me think they will be somehow "different," because of some magical "wholly different upbringing and education in a completely different culture." You are advocating what I consider sheer fantasy!
Not that long ago, I read a book on archaeolgical anthropology called FOSSIL MEN. And the evidence discovered by scientists like Tim White does not support your views. Dr. White and his team discovered evidence showing that millions of years ago hominins and humans were as competitive and violent as they are today.
And the only REALISTIC alternative for fossil fuels, if we want the energy needed for a high tech society, is nuclear power. As long as people like you propose nothing that WORKS, then nothing will change.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Things are changing. Right now, civilization is destroying itself. Whatever else happens, business as usual will not continue. Of course,what we mean by "socialism" differs. I do not accept every kind of bureaucratic state control as something that I would support. We can build enough houses now. No one should be homeless.
Differences in upbringing etc are not magical. We see all around us different upbringings with different outcomes.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
You are still not addressing my point: I see nothing CONCRETE and workable from your side of the political spectrum. I have advocated nuclear energy, a space based solar power system, plain old RUST for sopping up carbon dioxide from the ocean, and now, even the new technology being developed by Tesla for storing energy gained from using power gained from the sun and wind.*
My view is that you cannot have socialism without a bureaucratic, centralized state using harsh and coercive police state methods. You disagree? Fine! But UNTIL an actual socialist regime arises which is not harsh, oppressively centralized, heavily bureaucratic, etc., I won't believe in such a thing.
I agree there are differences in upbringing and cultures among all human nations. I do not agree that any of them are what I would call, in the theological sense, un-Fallen. I still see crime, foolishness, folly, sheer wickedness, etc., in all nations and cultures.
Ad astra! Sean
*The caveat I have with Tesla's new technology is that, if I understood Stirling correctly, you need CONTINENTAL sized power grids for collecting usable amounts of energy from the sun and wind. I don't see how that will be practical if such grids gets in the way of agriculture and ranching. So, for the foreseeable future, I still advocate nuclear power.
Sean,
I will try to be as clear as possible on every point.
Nuclear energy: Many knowledgeable people say that it is too dangerous to use. Others say the opposite. I don't know. I am not an expert. It doesn't matter what I think about it. Experts have to advise governments who have to act either way and it is a major problem that this is not being done.
Solar power stations: I agree but how soon can they be in place? It is a major problem that this has not been done already.
Rust: Again I don't know technically although it sounds like a techno-fix which could have unforeseeable consequences. Better not to have too much carbon dioxide, than to have to sop it up.
If by "socialism" (we can't just keep using words without clarifying them) I mean a fully democratized economy and society, then it cannot be implemented by bureaucracy or a police state. Finally, I agree that, until the kind of society that I am talking about exists, then many people will see no possibility of it but then Roman slave-owners or feudal barons could not see any possibility of our global capitalist economy either. So those of us who do believe that a better world is possible just have to keep trying to bring it about.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Nuclear energy: at last as many, if more, equally knowledgeable experts don't agree with the antinuclear faction. And I would count Poul Anderson as one of those pro-nuclear persons, from his book THERMONUCLEAR WARFARE. And it's my view that the pro-nuclear people, some of them left leaning themselves, have the better arguments.
The problem has been the POLITICS, and the anti-nuclear hysteria whipped up by Luddite demagogues, some of whom must know better, and are thus acting in bad faith. See, e.g., Anderson's "Commentary" in SPACE FOLK.
Before a space based solar power system can be practical, we first need to get OFF this rock in a major way. And that still might take decades to achieve. Which brings me back to me advocating nuclear power for the foreseeable future.
Like it or not, we are going to have to use the oft maligned "techno fixes" to get things DONE. Again, I go back to Robert Zubrin's discussion of how stunningly successful a modest use of rust for sopping up carbon dioxide from the ocean was in his book THE CASE FOR SPACE.
And the kind of socialism you wishfully continue to hope for has NEVER occurred in real life and history, outside of Christian or Buddhist monasteries. The problem with socialism is that, for anything bigger than a small monastery, is that a really big socialist system cannot solve the problems of what to make and offer in goods or service, in what quantity, or at what prices. UNLESS a socialist system sets up giant bureaucracies to clumsily and laboriously collect information, amass raw resource, and assign so much labor to this or that product, etc.
Socialism of the democratic kind you dream of cannot work because it still amounts, necessarily, to the state determining what goods and services to make and offer, at prices fixed by the state. And it would still have to SUPPRESS those who don't agree with those policies. Socialism simply can't even try to "work" without coercion.
All socialist systems have boasted of being how noble and "democratic" they were, no matter how tyrannical they actually were. And that includes the latest failed "noble experiment" in socialism, Venezuela. All we have seen from Hugo Chavez and his successor Nicolas Maduro is chaos, poverty, corruption, tyranny, etc.
Enough with socialism! We should stick with what has been shown to WORK, when given a chance, the limited state, the rule of law, and free enterprise economics.
I have to disagree with what you said about Roman and Medieval times. Esp. about the Roman Empire. Even if, in economic THEORY, understanding of economics was primitive, in practical terms the Empire had a mostly free enterprise and market system. Romans in Britannia, for example, could import marble from Greece, olive oil from Syria, or papyrus from Egypt, paying for those things using cash based on goods sold within or exported from Britannia. And so on for all other parts of the Empire.
The Feudal Era in Europe is best understood as a recovery from the chaos resulting from the fall of the Western Empire. A restoring of order and, quite unintentionally, the rise of a new civilization, Western. I refer to Anderson's discussion of that era in IS THERE LIFE ON OTHER WORLDS?
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I knew what you were going to say because we have said all this before. It ought to be possible to resume an earlier argument in a different place, remembering how far we had got with it the previous time. What has not happened yet is no guarantee of what cannot happen in future. Things change as we know from reading sf. Even our current limited democracy with large populations literate enough at least to read tabloid newspapers would have been regarded as impossible until very recently.
If - and I have no strong opinions either way - nuclear power and technofixes are necessary to address the current emergency, then governments are at fault for not adopting these emergency measures now. That is my main point on this issue. I do not insist on any particular solution as the only way forward because I am not sure about it and I am not a government adviser.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I apologize if I have caused you offense. I can only that we have been discussing issues I feel strongly about. I hope the fact Anderson raises many of these ideas in his works gives some justification for my own remarks.
While "What has not happened yet is no guarantee of what cannot happen in the future" is technically true, I am not convinced that is applicable here. If you try an experiment a hundred (or a thousand) times and still get only failure from all of them, shouldn't that tell you the hypothesis is defective?
Stirling likes to sometimes quote this saying: "From the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing can be made." So, to me, it's irrelevant if most people in Western/Westernized nations are at least somewhat literate. Because that is no guarantee of any of us being wise or sensible. If any nation somehow manages to be at least not too terribly bad, I consider that a HUGE achievement.
Your second paragraph: the fault here, again, goes back to the POLITICS. And to my conviction that many of those who oppose ideas/solutions I believe to be workable do so for cynical and opportunistic reasons. That can only result in next to nothing REAL being done.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
No offense, just wondering how long to stay with a predictable exchange. I know what I can say in response about failed experiments but I also know, in very general terms of course, how you will reply to that. And it will come down to a difference of opinion about the ability of human beings to maintain genuinely democratic institutions. This is a matter of individual judgment and opinion now and will be tested in practice in future. Regarding the test of practice in future: I can be wrong - although obviously I don't think that I am or I wouldn't think what I think.
The main blame for the climate crisis impasse lies with the fossil-fuel industry, with politicians that will not challenge it, with India and China refusing to phase out coal and not with opponents of nuclear energy. Those opponents also believe that a climate crisis is happening now so what possible cynical or opportunistic reason could they have for blocking solutions while also knowing those solutions to be workable?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Even if these particular comments of mine are predictable, I believe they need to be said, if only because they may interest some combox readers. My view is that democracies can arise or survive only if the right ideas or institutions takes root. In this context I believe socialism is necessarily ANTI democratic, because I believe it's ideas and policies inevitably has to include things that undermines democracy: an autocratic, centralized, heavily bureaucratic state making use of harshly coercive measures. And that is exactly what we have seen in ALL socialist regimes. I conclude there is no reason to expect any different result in the future.
I do not blame the fossil fuels industry. Like it or not, we NEED energy. And if we are only allowed to get that energy from coal or oil, I do not blame those who simply fill that need. Moreover, nations like the UK and US have made great advances in the cleaner, more efficient use of fossil fuels, greatly lessening pollution.
And I do blame the opponents of nuclear energy. Because they are making it so needlessly hard and costly to switch from fossils to alternatives like nuclear. And I also believe SOME of those who oppose nuclear energy do so as a means at grabbing at power. Do you really think there are no cynical opportunists in politics, in all parties?
You are correct about the worse polluters, such as India and China. I do not know what can be done about them that will be EFFECTIVE if we are not going to war with them.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
My comments also are predictable. An exchange can continue as long as both or all of its participants want it to and the comments are all relevant because they arose from Poul Anderson's texts. I believe that socialism as many of us understand it is far more democratic than the profit system which can in fact coexist with and be supported and promoted by a military dictatorship but I will take a break from saying this now and again.
The fossil fuel industry pursues profits. It does not just address our needs. It is working against our need for a clean and safe environment.
Why should someone who believes that a catastrophe is happening and has to be stopped grab at power by preventing anyone from solving the catastrophe? That would not make any sense.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
My response is also predictable: EVERY socialist regime has been tyrannical. That is PROVEN fact. And I believe that is inevitable, for reasons already given. You believe otherwise? Fine! But that has yet to be proven, and I don't believe it will or can be.
I've never denied a market system can exist in a military dictatorship.
As for the fossil fuels industry, I stand by my earlier comments. If you want it to be otherwise, then we need to stop making it so hard to replace fossils with alternatives that WORKS.
As for your last comment, because there are cynical opportunists in any party who cares for nothing but power. They don't have to be rational, as you understand the word.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I do not accept that those regimes were socialist. If we use a word in opposite senses, then of course we can't agree. The present state of the world cries out for change and many changes are bad but we can try to make a good one for a change.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
The common definition of "socialism" is a regime in which the state, democratic or not, controls the means of producing and distributing goods and services. I'm willing to include that "democratic" despite my conviction such a regime won't STAY democratic.
I continue to argue the best way of obtaining beneficial changes is thru the limited state, free enterprise economics, and giving people like Elon Musk the freedom to innovate and act.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But I think that that state can be fully democratic and can remain democratic. We continue to disagree.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Because you are more optimistic about human beings than I am! I would remain deeply distrustful of anyone, including MYSELF, having that kind of power.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But we envisage a system in which any individual decision-making power or influence is democratically controlled and limited.
BTW, if a discussion begins to focus solely on the meaning of a word, then we just have to clarify the relevant meaning(s) of that word and move on, not get bogged down on it. Thus, since many people use the word "socialism" in a way that can include "undemocratic state control," I just have to say that I do not agree with that kind of "socialism" and that is the end of the matter at least as far as the meanings of words are concerned. The substantial issues remain to be discussed. But we can't keep changing the words that we use or we won't get anywhere.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I remain unconvinced. You are still insisting it's possible for a gov't to be democratic if it has complete control of the economy. I say that is an impossibility. I argue that you cannot have any gov't assuming such arbitrary and autocratic powers without it inevitably becoming less democratic.
HOW is it "democratic" for the state to forbid Tom Jones to open, say, a shoe factory? It's far more "democratic" for him to do exactly that and then see if he can succeed in making and selling shoes.
If many people use "socialism" to mean undemocratic control of the economy by the state, I argue that is a reasonable definition precisely because that is what has actually happened in REAL history.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But we are on different wavelengths all the time. I do not agree that for the class of producers to take control of production and to ensure that, among many other things, everyone has shoes on their feet is either arbitrary or autocratic. It is society addressing the needs of society: urgent needs now, not what did happen in past REAL history when productive capacity was much lower.
I am not trying to convince you of anything. The most that we can do here (and that will be a lot) will be to clarify some ideas, correct some misconceptions and maybe have a slightly better understanding of the issues about which we continue to disagree. When I try to get to such a summing up, the argument just continues - on the apparent assumption that I am trying to convince you, which I acknowledge is impossible.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Let me, in turn, try to clarify matters, a tiny bit. What you call "the class of producers" are simply people employed in different lines of work making or offering different kinds of goods and services. The value of those goods and services does not depend on those workers, but on the value placed on them by OTHERS, who might or might not buy those goods and services.
You seem to believe that this "class of producers," as they take control of the state, and thus become politicians and civil servants, will know what kinds of goods and services to make, and in what quantities and prices. I disagree, because you are advocating merging or morphing together two very different things: ordinary economic/manufacturing/commercial, etc. activities with those of whoever leads the state, in whatever form. It can't be done, because the knowledge, skills, etc., needed to succeed in one sphere or the other need to be practiced FULL time if they are to succeed in them. You are not going to get a baker, plumber, farmer, engineer, etc., after working full time at these jobs to also be full time members of Parliament or Congress.
You also argue that this "class of producers" as they become politicians, should determine what goods and services to be made and offered. I say that IS to have the state assuming arbitrary and autocratic powers, to no longer being democratic in any real sense. I don't believe any group of flawed, fallible, corruptible, imperfect humans will remain uncorrupted by the powers they have assumed in such a system. I do not believe they will know how to run an economy. They WILL make blunders, perpetrate ghastly mistakes, become stubbornly unwilling to admit error, maliciously strike out at those who criticize them, etc.
I stress the need for a knowledge of real history because it can guide us, in general ways, on how real people are more likely than not to behave. I do not believe a socialist system of the kind you hope for, with this "class of producers" taking over the state can avoid NOT becoming arbitrary and autocratic, to no longer being democratic. To somehow think it will be different in the future, with NO evidence to back up such a hope, does not seem realistic.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
So we continue to disagree. The object has not been to convince anyone.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Maybe a clarifying of the issues involved was the best to be hoped for.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But there is an underlying and urgent problem. The present economic system has pushed us to the brink of climate catastrophe and is about to push us over that brink. I get the impression (correct me if I am wrong) that you expect life to continue as normal even though the global temperature is rapidly climbing way too high. Whatever else happens, what I understand is that life as normal is no longer an option. Either some very drastic changes are made to economic activities without any further delay or we all face a catastrophe. I get the impression that, when you have defended the system and criticized its critics, you think that that is the end of the matter, that the system will continue to function as before. Or maybe, remembering everything that has been said, you think that, unless your favored solutions are applied, then we face an imminent catastrophe? Either way, we do face an imminent catastrophe. The urgency of that seems to drop out of the discussion. The present system is defended and there the matter rests.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I still disagree, it is not an economic system which is the problem. It is POLITICAL factors which are preventing entrepreneurs from applying practical solutions that might at least have a chance of working. Fifty years ago there were efforts being made to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels via nuclear energy. It was politically motivated hysteria and demagoguery which aborted that movement.
So, yes, I will continue to defend free enterprise economics. When it has been allowed to FUNCTION, such a system of economic philosophy has ameliorated far more misery and solved far more problems than socialism has ever done or ever will.
And I don't understand what you MEAN saying "...some very drastic changes..." are needed in order to cope with environmental catastrophe. If you mean the gov'ts of the UK and US ordering immediate cessation of using oil and coal, forget about it, that's not going to happen. For both practical and political reasons. And why should they, if countries like the US are far less polluting than China or India?
I have at least offered specific, concrete proposals as alternatives to fossils: nuclear energy, a space based solar power satellite system, even the new technology being developed by Tesla for storing energy from the sun and wind (despite the doubts I have about its practicality). And using plain old RUST for other problems, such as sopping up carbon dioxide from the oceans. I've seen NOTHING from the left as specific as these. Only vague exhortations on the need to have "experts" advising the various gov'ts.
You are not going to get quick, drastic action because the world is not united, there are hundreds of independent nations. And if we exclude the minor ones, several dozen nations of real influence or power with their own views of what their interests are and the ability to stall, delay, hinder, or bollix up anything they don't like. And that is going to be esp. true of the really powerful nations. That is why I don't seem "urgent." I am being REALISTIC.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But, whatever the causes and the realistic solutions, can we at least agree that there is an imminent catastrophe and that this matter is urgent? (And how can an imminent catastrophe be addressed by any measures that are less than urgent?) No adequate action will be taken? Maybe. Probably. That is what it looks like. But can we at least agree that there is indeed in fact an imminent catastrophe?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I agree on the urgent need of replacing fossil fuels to avert that kind of catastrophe. But I don't expect the measures I advocate to be quickly implemented.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
So we agree (i) that there is an urgency and (ii) that there is little prospect of any adequate response to it.
This had felt like just another academic discussion. I had got the impression that the one-sided attributing of blame and the insistence on a single set of solutions had obscured the immediacy of the problem and the fact that life continuing as usual is ceasing to be an option. It has been a matter of emphasis.
However, (i) and (ii) look like about only two propositions on this issue that we can agree on. From here, we go different ways. But please lobby for what you think are the right solutions. The politicians need to hear it.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Your points "i" and "ii," yes.
Academic discussions are all we can do because neither of us are kings, presidents, prime ministers, or even cabinet ministers. At most I can email my House representative, a left wing Democrat who votes as Nancy Pelosi tells her to. So fat lot of good any of my emails will do!
Maybe, just maybe, if "Josip" and his bungling Democrats keep on mucking up, the Republicans will wrest control of Congress from them next year and a start made on bringing in better policies.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But you can campaign, petition, advertise (it costs), demonstrate, hold placards, organize groups of people to ring and write, throw rocks (No!) etc. I know all this takes time and effort and not everyone wants to do it but it is part of the way things get done.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Some of those things I can do, yes. But not others, because of the restrictions placed by the Hatch Act on the political activities employees of the US gov't are allowed to do.
Emphatically no rock throwing! (Smiles)
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Legal restrictions, sure. In Britain, police recruits have to resign any political party membership.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
That surprises me a bit. For a long, long time in the US, police unions tended to be pro Democrat. Altho the anti police rantings of the hard left seems to be alienating them from the Democrats.
I did know the UK Speaker for the House of Commons had to resign from his/her party on being elected to that office.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
In Britain, there were police strikes after WWI and police unions were banned. Police are represented by a Federation which is not a union.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Federation or "union," there is probably not that much difference, functionally speaking! I would need to check, but I think the law in the US forbids police strikes, but that they can have unions, often called "brotherhoods."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But that is the difference between a trade union and a professional organization. The Police Federation represents its members but cannot strike either legally or by its own rules.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
That clarifies matters. And I agree that people entrusted with the public safety should not strike.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment