Poul Anderson cannot describe future societies, whether on Earth or elsewhere, without raising fundamental issues about them but, this time, let us respond to the issues as they come at us instead of tackling them head on as we usually do.
In a city on Venus:
essentials are issued without payment;
the size of a ration depends on rank;
incentive bonuses are paid in money, not in increased rations;
however, money buys only amusements and trifles;
no one can buy a greater share of the scarce food, textiles or living space -
- unless the highest ranks get a greater share anyway? I am not sure about this. There are issues here but let us see how they pan out as the story proceeds.
Let us compare Anderson's Venusian (I prefer Venerian) city with James Blish's spacefaring Okie city, Scranton. (Volume II of Blish's Cities In Flight Tetralogy, A Life For The Stars, is a juvenile novel and an add-on to Blish's already complete Okie series but this extra volume does contribute a little extra about life in the cities, which had been somewhat lacking before.)
Scranton has adopted what Blish describes as:
"...the standard economy of all highly isolated nomad herdsmen..."
-James Blish, A Life For The Stars IN Blish, Cities In Flight (London, 1981), pp. 131-234 AT CHAPTER THREE, p. 154.
This is a commune where everyone takes what he needs subject only to the rules about the status of his job. An Okie who needs a cab ride gives the robotic Tin Cabby his social security number but, at the end of a fiscal year, might have to account for the number of such rides. The penalties for hoarding always scarce physical goods of any kind are drastic. Money, germanium-based Oc dollars, is used only for foreign trade.
The Venerian city reminded me of the Okie city.
23 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I'm skeptical about this kind of socio-economic working uncertain factors applies. One, this kind of statist/militarized setup might work, given the peculiar conditions on Venus. Second, the Venusians had what I can only call a religious devotion to the cause of terraforming the planet. That could make them tolerate the regimented police state setup on Venus.
Ad astra! Sean
That sort of arrangement can work... temporarily. During a major war, for example. If you try to prolong it, the "gum-up" factor kicks in and it becomes increasingly dysfunctional. The USSR is a long-term example.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
That's exactly what I was groping to say. I would also add it's impossible for communism to be democratic--because a centralized, autocratic, bureaucratic state trying to run everything from the top down cannot be democratic.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
And "communism" means everything in common which can only be administered cooperatively and democratically. Thus, centralized, autocratic, bureaucratic, top-down states are neither democratic nor communist - although, of course, because of history and ideology, the word "communism" has been turned on its head.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree, because humans are not communists. The kind of setup you dream of is impossible and cannot work for humans. All you are going to get is a top down, centralized bureaucratic despotism trying to run everything from the top down.
The only type of economics that is truly decentralized and has worked for mankind is free enterprise.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
You disagree with what? I have simply given a word its proper meaning. That meaning describes a kind of society that you think is impossible. But we already know that.
Free enterprise will be redundant when so much wealth is produced technologically that it will no longer be necessary for merchants to buy from producers and sell to consumers. That system will have to be managed cooperatively and democratically. And no one will any longer have any interest in hoarding a fraction of the wealth in order to deny it to others.
Paul.
Sean,
This is the real, original meaning of the word, not a Utopian fantasy! I am trying to clarify a word in itself before going on to discuss it further. Otherwise we get hopelessly lost in misunderstanding. Real history tells you how a word has been misused, not what it originally meant.
Of course the market economy has been part of the process that is leading to a better society in future. That is obvious. With abundant wealth, money, buying and selling will be redundant.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
If every time communism has been tried all we have seen were centralized, autocratic, bureaucratic despotisms incompetently trying to run things from the top down, then that is what the word truly means.
And I think people will still be buying and selling some goods and services in a post scarcity economy. If only in specialized niches.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
It has not been "communism" that has been tried all these times. You are being taken in by a word. You cannot take a word that many people use and tell them that it means something else. (Well, you can do that but then communication and understanding break down completely.)
But the specialized niches will not be the means by which human and social needs are met.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I believe what matters is a definition that fits the actual facts of the case.
Since we don't have a post scarcity economy I think it is premature and mere speculation to talk so confidently of what will happen in such a scenario. One thing I am absolutely sure of is that humans, being what we are, will manage to bollix it up.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I am sorry but you are taking a word out of someone's mouth and telling them that it means something different and this is completely unacceptable.
However, if I did accept a different meaning, I would just have to coin a new term for the original meaning so the substantial disagreement would remain.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I believe my definition is accurate and fits the facts of history.
What you call "communism" can work only in small voluntary associations like monasteries, not the entire human race.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
There are two different issues here which you seem to be confusing.
(i) What does a particular word mean? Obviously, one word acquires different meanings. A dictionary has to list several meanings for a single word. The original meaning of "communism" remains the original meaning of "communism." Therefore, it remains one of the meanings and appears as such in dictionaries. It should be the first in the list if they are listed in the order in which they were derived but I am not sure about that.
(ii) Does that original meaning of the word, "communism," describe a kind of society that can exist not just in small voluntary organizations but also for the entire human race? We already know that I think "Yes" and you think "No." Need we reiterate this?
But please do not insist that one word has only one accurate meaning and that one single meaning is bestowed not by the original users of the word or by the coiners of the term but by you yourself when you point out that that word has acquired another meaning in historical contexts. This does become a sterile dispute.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I can agree with your first point as long as other, later definitions of "communism" are included.
Correct, my answer to point 2 is "No." One problem is some still insist "Yes" is the true answer, which I feel bound to protest against.
I can agree with your last paragraph, about the need to keep in mind how many words can acquire later, additional meanings. I would add that sometimes these later definitions becomes dominant, pushing aside or making obsolete the original meanings.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Establishing world communism is no way on the current agenda. Resisting the many evils of the current global economic system is.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And communism should not be on anybody's agenda. All socio-economic systems are going to have evils because all humans are flawed, imperfect, and prone to being violent and quarrelsome.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Communism will certainly be on the agenda but do we need to keep repeating this?
All humans are not flawed, imperfect or prone to being violent and quarrelsome. That is, at most, only one side of the coin. There is also positive potential which has to be encouraged but which will not be if too many people keep saying, "Human beings are prone to being violent and quarrelsome." I have shown often enough that there are conditions in which people are not violent or quarrelsome. You experience this but then forget and deny it when you become doctrinaire.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Then we are going to have to agree to disagree, because I believe your hopes to be unrealistic.
As a conservative I believe in accepting the hard facts about what human beings are really like. And I believe in supporting goals/policies that has been shown to actually work, when given a chance. Not in grandiose schemes for somehow transforming the human race.
Over and over I've seen many of Anderson's characters making very similar statements in his stories. And in Stirling's works as well. And I agree with them!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
What human beings are really like is that they have changed their environments with hands and brains and have changed themselves into rational beings in the process, have revolutionized society several times over and are now making massive technological and environmental changes that necessitate radical social reorganization but massive vested interests and power structures resist this. Hence, the present desperate state of the world.
Paul.
Grandiose schemes for somehow transforming the human race? The human race is transforming itself all the time.
Things have changed, are changing, will continue to change. What has worked in the past is not what will work in the future. Slavery and feudalism worked for a while.
BTW, my purpose in these exchanges is never to change any of your ideas (obviously impossible) but to test in practice how long such an exchange can continue with exactly the same things being said repeatedly. We have demonstrated in practice that, other things being equal, such an exchange will continue literally forever. Obviously pointless. I have learned how to express my views as clearly as possible. I have not learned that we have an innate propensity for violence.
Kaor, Paul!
I feel bound to protest against what I believe to be dangerous and futile ideas if only to alert readers there are alternatives to what you hope for. That is why I "repeat."
Stirling and I have tried to explain why humans do have an innate propensity for being violent and quarrelsome. And why we need the State to keep that under some control.
Ad astra! Sean
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
You have explained that we have some biologically inherited motivations but those can be counteracted by society and understanding. We need the State now but not into an indefinite future. A lot of State functions are to do with maintaining present social inequalities and territorial divisions, not to do with controlling individual biological drives.
My "dangerous and futile ideas" (thanks) are not going to mislead many readers into doing anything disastrous! Your alternative is business as usual.
I think that you have invested emotionally in one world view and are psychologically unable either to concede a point or to acknowledge even a partial validity in any alternative view. Hence this total impasse approaching mutual incomprehension.
Paul.
Post a Comment