We need to critique not only ideas that we oppose but also our own but that kind of reflection requires a lifetime, not just another argument here! But here are some questions that all sf readers can and should ask -
How would twentieth and early twenty-first century conflicts be perceived and understood by:
alien observers as in Poul Anderson's "Details"?
future historians like Chunderban Desai in Anderson's Technic History?
our post-human descendants, the Danellians, in Anderson's Time Patrol series?
post-human AIs as in later future histories by Anderson?
Do not assume that all of these beings would agree with you or me!
Asked about a superhuman being's politics, an Alan Moore character responds:
VEIDT: ...which do you prefer, red ants or black ants?
-Alan Moore, Watchmen (London, 1987), CHAPTER XI, p. 10, column 2.
27 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
It's my view that, even before Lenin's seizure of power in Russia, intellectually alert persons could and sometimes did see what a DANGEROUS thing the Party was.
Of course we should not all of the beings you listed here would agree with either or both of us. It was a part of Anderson's skills as a writer that he was able to depict and present such widely differing persons. I think I would find myself agreeing most with Chunderban Desai.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
As a philosopher, I partly share the perspective of Doctor Manhattan, the Alan Moore character to whom human political differences might seem like the difference between red and black ants.
Neil Gaiman's character, Destiny, is similar. He sees all that was, is and will be. But Delirium (that was Delight) says that she knows things that even Destiny does not.
Paul.
Sean,
Intellectually alert persons hold all sorts of contradictory views. If all intelletually alert persons agreed on such issues, then the world would be a very different place.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I have to disagree with the first paragraph of your first comment above. The differences between a conservative who believes in free enterprise and the limited state (in whatever form) and one who supports the centralized autocracy and command economy of the USSR are enormous.
As for your second comment, I like to think if more people agreed with me, Anderson, and Stirling, the world would be a better place! (Smiles)
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Oh, yes. That difference is enormous. But I am talking about distance and perspective. A galaxy seen from within is many points of light. From far away, it is a single point.
And there are more than two points of view on the issue summarized in your first paragraph above.
If we do not fully appreciate that we are disagreed with by intelligent and informed people, then I think that we fail to grasp the complexity of the issues.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul! But I believe I do grasp the kind of "complexity" you mentioned. But I also believe some ideas are just so plainly bad there can be no legitimate justification for believing in them. I tried, above, to present a starkly clear example of that phenomenon. Others, I agree, may or will not be so clear. Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Centralized autocracy and command economy bad. That at least you and I agree on but unfortunately others disagree. The problem remains the number and extent of the disagreements.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul! I agree. And thanks for resurrecting my disappeared comment. Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Paul! Trying again. I agree. Thanks for dredging up my lost comment. Ad astra! Sean
Comment disappearances are getting to be a nuisance.
Kaor, Paul! And I'm sorry about that. About all I can think of would be to consult an expert. Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Hey, it's not your fault! The problem is with either the computer or the blog. So far I am coping by continually checking. It helps when you draw attention to it.
Paul.
No. It has to be the blog, doesn't it?
The phrase " *dictatorship* of the proletariat " should have raised red flags ;) for anyone who cared about freedom.
Jim,
Even that is not as straightforward as it looks. In ancient Rome, a "dictator" was a chief magistrate with absolute power but appointed by the Senate and only in an emergency. Of course, the meaning changed.
The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is meant to mean measures taken by a majority (the proletariat) to prevent a recently deposed economic ruling class from regaining power. Of course such a phrase can easily be misused to mean a single party suppressing any opposition to its own continued rule.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
What you said was not quite correct. Lenin, in his frustration with how the ACTUAL "proletariat" behaved* worked out the despotic theory that an elite "vanguard" in the Party, armed with the correct understanding of "scientific Marxism," had the right and duty of speaking and acting for all the "proletariat," no matter how many of them disagreed with the Bolsheviks. That could and did lead to the kind of brutal dictatorship set up by Lenin.
Ad astra! Sean
*Not all "proletarians" in 1917 Russia were Bolsheviks, some supported the rival Mensheviks, still others backed other brands of socialists. AND others still were not even socialists, but even monarchists!
Sean,
Of course proletarians(wage workers) differ in their political views! But the dictatorship of the proletariat would be that class as a whole democratically controlling the means of production while continuing to disagree among themselves on all sorts of issues.
Paul.
The role of a vanguard party is to give a lead which is not necessarily followed. If Party members call for a strike but workers vote against strike, then there is no strike. However, if there is a strike, then all union members are expected to support it. Can't have it both ways.
Paul: Lenin's idea of a vanguard party was that the vanguard alone would make the decisions, and where practicable suppress all non-Party objections by violent coercion. He said this in so many words rather frequently.
The ideological ancestry of this goes back to Rousseau's conception of the "general will", which was also known to an elite with superior knowledge of what the masses actually wanted/should want.
In Russia in 1917, the Social Revolutionaries were overwhelmingly more popular than any other faction, and vastly more so than the Bolsheviks, because they had majority support from the peasantry, who were over 80% of the Russian population.
The Bolsheviks responded by dismissing the Constituent Assembly and a campaign of state terrorism against all other organizations, aimed at breaking them up. This was their intention from the beginning.
Note that you "are what you do". Words lie, but actions reveal the truth of an individual or organization's actual nature.
I have read some Lenin. I would be interested in some quotations from where he says that the vanguard alone should make the decisions and that disagreement should be suppressed by violent coercion.
Apart from disagreeing with exclusive decision-making and violent coercion, I cannot see that any good ends could possibly be achieved by such bad means in any case so a political program based on such principles seems, indeed is, pointless.
I agree with some ideas about workers' democracy that have been attributed to Lenin. It can be argued: (i)that these ideas have been wrongly attributed to Lenin; (ii) that these ideas are wrong in themselves anyway! My first concern is at least to disentangle the two arguments.
Kaor, Paul!
And I still disagree with you, on both Lenin's view of "the dictatorship of the proletariat" and workers "...democratically controlling the means of production." Lenin's brutal and tyrannical ACTS shows what lies his blather about democracy was.
And you still seem to at least wistfully favor some kind of POLITICAL control of the economy. It is IMPOSSIBLE for any kind of group of politicians and bureaucrats to accurately determine how much, and in what quantity, all the multitudes of good and services humans could or might need or desire. That is why socialism will always fail.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course you still disagree. In this comment, I was merely trying to differentiate between two different lines of argument, not to reply to either of them. Indeed, we have had such arguments before.
(As far as I can see, this comment of yours appeared in the combox on the blog although I did not receive notification of it. It is becoming more difficult to respond adequately to every comment.)
Paul.
OK. I did receive notification. I missed it when scanning through comments.
The main points of this post were:
well-informed, well-intentioned people frequently and fundamentally disagree on crucial issues (all the intelligent people are not on the same side in any argument!);
later generations and hypothetical other observers will have very different perspectives on current conflicts.
I now think that:
these points are worthy of contemplation;
that contemplation is lost if we just get drawn back into rehearsing familiar disagreements.
(We will, of course, get back to the disagreements as and when appropriate.)
Kaor, Paul!
But, you did say "...the dictatorship of the proletariat would be that class as a whole democratically controlling the means of production." Setting aside arguments about the ominous word "dictatorship," it still boils down to state control of the economy, to politicians and bureaucrats trying to figure out what goods and services to produce, and in at what quantity and at what prices, etc. A centralized state and command economy!
So, I think it's sometimes necessary to repeat objections.
My most recent comments SEEM to be showing up and STAYING in the comboxes, which is good! (Fingers crossed).
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I was only trying to show Jim that even a word like "dictatorship" does not have a single and straightforward meaning.
Workers are not politicians or bureaucrats. I think that we need to think outside the box. Either the human race destroys itself soon (very possible) or it survives for a long time. In the latter case, past and present experience should not be allowed to place limits on what can be done with automated production, nanotech, solar energy from space and information and communications technology as facilitating collective discussion and decision-making. Sf readers should be open to the possibilities of higher civilizations transcending ours the way ours transcends animality. This is an attempt not at agreement but at clarification.
But we do need to stop repeating the same points over and over.
Paul.
Post a Comment