"'...the [Gorrazanian] rebels are known, to everybody except our journalists and academics, to have Merseian inspiration and help. Trouble at our backs. I'd instigate the identical thing behind Merseia if I could.'" (p. 323)
Despite his just-stated disapproval of the loss of lives and wealth caused by revolutions, Flandry would cynically instigate such events in order to discomfit the Merseians? As James Blish argued in Cities In Flight, antagonists in major conflicts come to resemble one another.
But all Imperial journalists and academics have a blind spot when it comes to acknowledging Merseian involvement in anything? And everybody, not just people with special sources of information like Flandry, knows better? This sounds like a sweeping generalization by Flandry. Investigative journalists in media with different political perspectives are bound to expose what is happening on Gorrazan and elsewhere and not all academics live in ivory towers. The flow of ideas and information through society is more complex and dynamic than Flandry allows for in this exchange with Miriam.
14 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And I agree more with Flandry than with you. Why shouldn't Flandry stir up for Merseia in ways analogous to what the Roidhunate was doing in Gorrazan, to alarm and distract the Empire? Given that the Empire would have been willing to live in peace with Merseia if possible, it was simple self defense to weaken a hostile Merseia. And the US is doing precisely that now, in the real world, by sending arms to Ukraine in the war with Russia.
Lastly, from the end of WW II to the disintegration of the unlamented USSR, there were many leftist or left leaning "intellectuals" or academics in the West who defended the Soviets, praised its "noble dream," or minimized or denied the hostile designs of the regime in Moscow. They were the creatures scornfully called "useful idiots" by the Soviets.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
There were such academics, unfortunately, and there were also both academics and political activists who presented a left critique of both "Washington and Moscow."
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I dismiss that "...left critique of both Washington and Moscow" because it was not the dominant view of leftists in the West. Moreover I deny the truth of any claims asserting there was no moral difference between the US/West and the USSR. For all their faults the US and the NATO alliance was vastly preferable!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
You can't dismiss something just because it was not dominant! If I have what I think are good reasons to accept a point of view, then I accept it even if I am in a minority of one!
Paul.
Fighters in a boxing match "resemble" each other, because there are optimum moves and if you don't use them you're going to end up on the ground bleeding.
Kaor, Paul!
But even if Person A holds a view no one else agrees with, I don't have to agree with A if I believe him to be wrong. That's no different from "dismissing" it.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course not but this is circular! Some people made a systematic critique of both US and USSR. You don't agree with that critique but it exists. Pro-US and pro-USSR are not the only options.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I know, but I would still deny any evils done by the US/West matched or surpassed the horrors perpetrated by the USSR.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
So one was worse than the other. That doesn't get us very far either.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I dissent because I say it does matter which side in a conflict at least fumblingly tries not to be too terrible.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But nevertheless we can criticize both. You are not allowing for that third independent position.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I wonder if that "third" view was merely a desperate attempt by some leftists to salvage their socialist ideas from their crashing failure when total control of an economy by the state was attempted in the USSR and elsewhere.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I disagree.
Paul.
I will say more than that, of course.
The analysis was:
the US is a permanent arms economy;
the USSR is state capitalist;
China and some Third World countries are nationalist.
Plenty to criticize and disagree with, across the board.
I am not here and now asking anyone to agree with any of this - just asking that it be acknowledged that this was a "Neither Washington nor Moscow" analysis backed up by economic research.
Post a Comment