Robert Heinlein's Second American Revolution is led by the Cabal. Poul Anderson's anti-Humanist counterrevolution is led by a "cabal." (p. 55)
The exposition is obviously for the benefit of the readers, not of the characters. Captain Crane starts to tell his story but is immediately interrupted by Professor Freylinghausen who tells the others what they already know. The revolutionary Humanist government of Earth became dictatorial, therefore came under pressure from Mars and Venus, therefore pulled Earth-Luna out of the Solar Union, thus precipitating interplanetary war and extra-planetary support for the cabal.
Heinlein's Prophets pulled the US out of the Federation and caused a hiatus in space travel but the Federation did not intervene to support the Cabal. We still view some of the events of the Psychotechnic History through the lens of the Future History.
14 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And the crucial factor was Admiral K'ung, whose loyalty to the Humanist gov't, along with his shrewd grasp of strategy meant the Humanists would not be overthrown while he lived.
Ad astra! Sean
Power rapidly becomes an end in itself. Contrast Robespierre and Napoleon.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
A big reason why I don't believe in hopeless Utopian fantasies.
Ad astra! Sean
No one believes in what they themselves regard as hopeless Utopian fantasies.
Kaor, Paul!
Until often bloodily catastrophic failure disillusions at least some Utopians.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
And our current world order is catastrophically failing. Change is necessary.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
The best "solution," IMO, remains the limited State and free enterprise economics. With something like an alliance of civilized nations starting out as an Anglosphere which gradually extended worldwide.
Fat chance of that happening! (Snorts)
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I have replied about the limited State and free enterprise ad nauseam. I could again write: "Free enterprise will be redundant when..."
However, I think that the only point to be made at the moment is that some change is necessary. Therefore, alternatives should be considered, not dismissed as Utopian. I need hardly point out that our present level of technology would have seemed impossible and Utopian relatively recently.
I think that an extreme, polarized, all-or-nothing way of discussing such issues does not help, in fact only reinforces existing preconceptions.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
With respect, no. All I have seen from your arguments were merely hopes, expectations, unproven and unverifiable assumptions, etc., about what you think will happen in the future. And, I suspect, at best a remote future. That is simply not good enough for actual people living in the here and now.
You argue a post scarcity economy will somehow make free enterprise economics redundant. I don't understand why that should be so--if free enterprise works now why shouldn't it work 500 years from now? Even a post scarcity economy will still need demand and supply, economies of scale, financial analysis, etc., for determining how best to allocate resources of all kinds, material and human. I recall how Hanno and the ruling Intellects of a far future Earth discussed precisely that in one of the last parts of THE BOAT OF A MILLION YEARS.
Last, I simply don't buy your insistence that in a post scarcity economy human beings will no longer be so prone to being violent, quarrelsome, aggressive, ambitious, etc. I don't believe mere prosperity will somehow remove flaws, drives, urges which has been parts of human beings for millions of years.
So I stand by my belief that the limited State and free enterprise economics, when both are given a chance to work, is the optimum possible for mankind.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But I have answered all these points. People will no longer need to buy or sell when they have equal access to a common store. No finance so no need for financial analysis. Everything that is needed will be supplied so no need for "demand and supply." AI technology will be used to find the most efficient means of production. That was not free enterprise in THE BOAT OF A MILLION YEARS. It was socially agreed allocation of vast (not scarce) resources. An economic system that has worked in circumstances of scarcity is no longer relevant with production of abundance.
People are violent in some circumstances but not in others. There are many circumstances in which they are not violent and do not arbitrarily attack each other for no reason whatsoever. They have to be deprived, provoked, attacked etc and their attackers have to have some reason for making the attack in the first place. No one has any reason to steal from anyone else when everyone has more than they need. People brought up in such conditions will have no inner urges making them suddenly lynch their neighbours or attack strangers on the street. Or, if a few aberrant individuals do still do this, they will be easily restrained.
But I see no point in repeating all this.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Then we are going to have to agree to disagree, because I don't believe in the plausibility of what you wrote above. For reasons discussed both here and elsewhere.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
And I have replied to every point.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I still disagree and remain unconvinced.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Well, of course you disagree. The purpose here is never agreement.
Those ruling intellects in BOAT do not coerce, let alone exploit, oppress or wage war. They confer, consult and decision-make. Every word, like "ruling," that we use, will have different connotations in a different context.
Post a Comment