Mirkheim, XVI.
Henry Kittredge informs Adzel and Chee Lan that the Baburites:
"'...intend to mount a revolution on Hermes - from the top, though doubtless they expect to get support from the bottom. The whole scheme of law and property is to be revised, the aristocracy abolished, a "participatory republic" established, whatever that means.'" (pp. 224-225)
"Participatory republic" means a lot although what it can mean in these circumstances, under threat of Baburite missiles, is a very good question.
I thought that the phrase, "social revolution," had appeared somewhere in the text but now cannot find it. In any case, this is a proposed social revolution, changing not just the governing group but social relationships. The American Civil War was a social revolution because it transformed slaves into free workers. Slavery could be abolished by legislation although that would not happen if there were not more general moral revulsion against it.
In Miracleman, Alan Moore describes a global social revolution that is successful because it is implemented by overwhelming extraterrestrial superhuman power and because it is welcomed by massive active popular support. A Warpsmith, with the power of teleportation, informs the UN that all nuclear and bacteriological weapons are completely disorganized. When asked for clarification, she explains that the weapons are disorganized not on a political level but on a molecular level because they have just been teleported into the sun. Other super-powered beings rebuild the environment and abolish money, providing basic necessities for everyone on Earth. More than enough volunteers come forward to administer and support the new system while deposed dictators receive counseling.
I was reminded of the successful Miracleman revolution when rereading Henry Kittredge's account of the proposed Baburite revolution. Anything can happen in fiction but meanwhile, on Earth Real, we must solve global problems without any superhuman or extraterrestrial help.
7 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Like Henry Kittredge, I too dismiss with contempt jargon like "participatory republic." I've seen too much of that kind of bull twaddle, mostly from the left, to take it seriously. ALL we ever seem to get from such regimes are brutal and bloody tyrannies. At the time he was writing MIRKHEIM, I would not be surprised if Anderson had recent examples in mind like the brutal Marxist dictatorship in Ethiopia or the horrors perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
I'm utterly SICK of "social revolutions"! It's hard enough for any nation or society to not be too intolerably bad without fanatics demanding an impossible perfection as well. ENOUGH!!!
Happy New Year! Sean
Sean,
I think that the terms "participation" and "democracy" are unobjectionable and can be applied to the US system? It is the misuse of such terms by dictators like Strang to which you object.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Exactly! Your own reply demonstrates why I object to such pointless, canting jargon as "participatory republic." Just propagandagistic verbiage to cover up tyranny. And the men who wrote the US Constitution never even used the word "democracy," it's nowhere in the text. They were far more concerned with putting chains and restraints on the powers of the state.
Away with all political Utopians!
Happy New Year! Sean
Sean,
Without using the word, "democracy," the framers of the Constitution must have made some provision for elections?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Not in detail. That was left to the INDIVIDUAL states to handle, as they thought was best in usually slightly varying ways. I would absolutely oppose any "Federalizing" of elections, the US Congress forbidding all the states to do this or that. It would be just another power grab for centralizing yet more power in the national gov't. To say nothing of being unconstitutional, as intruding on the powers reserved to the states.
Happy New Year! Sean
There's an old German folk-saying: "Be my brother, or I'll bash your head in" that more or less sums up Strang's program.
Like most of his ilk, Strang actually has some good intentions (though his fundamental motivation is envy, spite and hate).
The problem is that when people don't embrace his objectives and go along with the program, he reaches for his gun.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Absolutely! And that was exactly how Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, et al, thought and behaved. Except in even more bloodily cruel and tyrannical ways.
I'm sick of "good intentions." We both know that is what the road to Hell is paved with!
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment