"The means of sound social organization had not been used to liberate man, but to clamp the yoke more tightly..." (p. 58)
For means of social organization, see here.
What would liberation have been? This page of the novel refers once to "...the common man..." and twice to "..the ordinary man..."
Scientific and historical texts are all written for specialists. There is:
"'No popularization at all; guess nobody but the specialists care what makes things tick.'" (p. 57)
"Nothing for the common man, if that much misunderstood animal still existed." (p. 58)
Of course he does not still exist after five thousand years of change. Tempora mutantur nos et mutamur in illis." (Times change and we change with them.)
"It was, after all, logical that the strong and the intelligent should rule - the ordinary man was simply not capable of deciding issues in a day when whole planets could be wiped clean of life." (ibid.)
The ordinary man is perfectly capable of deciding that he does not want to be ruled by anyone, however strong or intelligent, who would want to wipe his planet clean of life! We have some criteria for measuring intelligence but who are "the strong"? If this just means those who currently wield power, then "the strong rule" is a tautology.
When selective breeding and psychological training produce an efficient and contented slave class:
"The ordinary man had not objected to such arrangements, indeed he had accepted them eagerly, because the concentration and centralization of authority which had by and large been increasing since the Industrial Revolution had inculcated him with a tradition of subservience. He wouldn't have known what to do with liberty if you gave it to him." (pp. 58-59)
Which returns us to the question: what would liberty be? The text continues:
"Langley wondered with a certain glumness whether any other outcome would have been possible in the long run." (p. 59)
Another outcome certainly would have been possible but this has become a very fundamental discussion. To be continued.
1 comment:
Kaor, Paul!
No, most "ordinary common men/women" don't really care that about politics. They are far more concerned about the problems and needs of their lives. All they really want from whoever is governing is that the State doesn't bungle too badly. It's when people believe matters are going badly that they become more interested in politics. E.g., the widespread anger in the US about the incompetence, corruption, and follies of "Josip" and his left wing radical Democrats.
I am glad you are doing well in retirement. I too am eligible for a similar pension and collecting what is laughably called "Social Security" in the US when I retire. But, I realized as long ago as 1978 that SS was a fraud, a Ponzi scam. Since then I've been building up personal, private investments to supplement, or even replace Social Security, if necessary.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment