Notice how much better Anderson's The Shield Of Time is than Asimov's Foundation series at showing characters manipulating history. Second Foundationers manipulate events to shorten the interregnum between the First and Second Galactic Empires and also counteract psychohistorically unpredictable events. Time Patrollers guard medieval European history and counteract the effects of temporal randomness. Such summaries suggest structural similarities although Anderson's medieval history is immensely richer than Asimov's future history modelled on Roman Imperial history.
A quick thought in a breakfast post before walking to the gym. Birthday (not mine) meal out with friends this evening.
Love Lancaster.
22 comments:
Big empires are -generally- (not always(*) good things, because they restrain people from cutting the neighbors' throats, which is an inherent human tendency.
(*) The Assyrian empire wasn't a good thing -- see the Bible.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: Before I knew better, I was enthralled by Asimov's three original FOUNDATION books, possibly as early as 1967, when I was not even 13. But I was getting tired of Asimov by 1975.
Mr. Stirling: I think the best we can hope for in this Contending States era we are is for an Anglosphere evolving into something like Anderson/Dickson's United Commonwealths and unifying the world.
I do not want either Maoist China or a fanatical new Muslim caliphate doing that conquering of the world!
And it wasn't just the Jews who hated the Assyrians for amply good reasons. Jerry Pournelle quoted how non-Jewish annalists wrote bitterly of how the Assyrians brought nothing but "the death of the earth" with them.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I do not want the US dominating the world. It is a false choice to say that it must be the US or China or a caliphate. The people of the world can and should choose and build something better than any of those three.
Paul.
Paul: except that they don't have the power to do so.
Indeed. The world remains profoundly undemocratic. But surely people need to do something about that?
Paul: see above about power.
Kaor, Paul!
It does not matter what you want, or even what I want. What matters is hard, unflinching realism. To loosely paraphrase what Bodin Miyatovich said in A KNIGHT OF GHOSTS AND SHADOWS, if the only likely alternatives we have is the US/West, the tyranny of Maoist China, or the dead end of Islam, I'm picking the US/West.
Also, as Stirling said, that "people of the world" that you keep invoking don't have the power. And, given the tribal nature of human beings, people who think as you do will never have that power. So, pick the best "tribe" available, the West.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I am expressing hard, unflinching realism. IF those are the only likely alternatives... They are not. People whom I keep invoking should take power.
Workers as a class exercise more power than anyone else but usually use it only to keep the world going. We will end war when enough munitions workers and soldiers strike together. Can happen. And only needs to happen once. The working class could have prevented World War I but "fortunately," for their rulers, preferred division and slaughter to unity and peace. Refusal to fight any longer ended WWI in Germany.
The human race still faces exactly the same choices but might soon close down its own options. We need an Arab, and not just Arab, Summer.
Paul.
It does not matter what you or I want. It certainly matters what millions want. They can and sometimes do act.
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree, all I've been seeing from you are ideas I can only consider, at best, to be hopeless Utopian unrealism. The alternatives I listed are the most likely examples existing. I've seen nothing from you except vague talk about "people."
I don't believe at all in these mystical fantasies about "workers." They are just people like everybody else, no wiser or better than anybody else. Their chief goal is getting by as best they can and supporting their families. I also point out how many of these "workers" will not agree with you in many political matters. Whether you like it or not the nation or the "tribe" matters more to them than nonsense about "international solidarity of workers."
WW I ended because the exerting of the power of the US in 1918 finally made the costs of the war too much for Germany.
You are not going to get the kind of Arab you want as long as so many of them cling to the Koran.
More often than not those "millions" you keep invoking are not going to "act" as you would like them to.
Ad astra! Sean
Paul: most people are nationalists, when they're not tribalists for something smaller, just to start with.
Sean,
Of course you disagree! Please understand that we are not trying to agree here. Each time, I reply to show that I can, not to try to get you to agree. That would obviously be hopeless and it is not what I am trying to do although you still seem to think that it is the the object of the exercise.
People are not "vague." Workers are not "mystical fantasies." Ludicrous language. People and workers are very large numbers of living, breathing, material human beings who work for a living, who do the work that feeds and sustains society and that are capable of taking action in their collective interests to topple regimes and to change systems of government. More democratic social structures can involve much larger numbers in making decisions but such structures have to be built from below. They will not be granted by our present rulers whose aim is to maintain their own wealth and power literally at any cost to the rest of us. These millions that I keep invoking do take action all the time. There are massive worldwide protests against what is being done in Gaza and the West Bank and there have been general strikes on this particular issue in Italy and Greece. I am not commenting on the basis of no knowledge about what is going on in the world.
They are just people like everybody else? Of course they are! They ARE everybody else. Who said they weren't? No wiser or better than anybody else? Of course not. It is our level of wisdom and goodness that has to save the world from its present catastrophic course. Of course "workers" disagree with me politically. I engage in argument with them all the time. You seem to assume that my ideas are not based in practice.
Whether you like it or not, tribalism is primitive, international solidarity of workers is common sense and surely you do believe in some sort of brotherhood of man, as in the Good Samaritan? I feel as if I am reminding you of some of what you are supposed to believe.
You are hopelessly and unrealistically dystopian. (As long as the word, "Utopian," is repeated, the word, "dystopian," can be.) The truth is somewhere in between.
WWI ended because German workers and soldiers refused to keep fighting.
I do get the kind of Arab I want. I spoke to one today and will be a guest in another's house on Sunday. There are secularist Arabs and tolerant religious Arabs.
Can we stop this bickering which is what it now feels like? I keep trying to say things that will acknowledge that there is disagreement and that will also round off any current exchange and draw it to a close. You seem to want to keep it going indefinitely.
Paul.
Replying to Mr Stirling:
I am not sure about "most people." Over decades, we in Britain have been consistently able to mobilize larger numbers to counter-demonstrate against the National Front, The British National Party, the English Defence League etc and we are currently doing so outside immigrants' hotels at weekends despite the recent horrific experience of Tommy Robinson's very large numbers in London hearing Elon Musk on zoom urging them to fight.
Kaor, Paul!
I was not insisting we agree, only stating how I disagree with you.
No, most times most people will accept the rule of even tyrannical regimes, even if only passively. Many will even defend the tyrants, which is what happened in the USSR and National Socialist Germany.
Disagree, the "language" I've seen from leftists about "workers" struck me as absurd and laughable.
Tribalism/nationalism is innate, even necessary, for all humans. It's something that should be accommodated with, not denied or maligned.
It was the massive infusion of strength to the Entente Powers by the US which forced Germany to ask for an armistice. If the US had not entered the War, the Central Powers might have forced an end to the conflict on favorable terms.
The moderate Muslims you know can only speak for themselves, not the vast mass of Muslims in lands long dominated by Islam. The massacres of Christians in Nigeria and the brutalizing of women in Afghanistan by fanatic Muslims does not look "moderate."
I believe the limited state, in whatever form, is the optimum achievable by humans. Regimes acknowledging restraints on what it can rightly do and acknowledging the rights of their peoples.
I believe free enterprise economics, when allowed to function, has created and spread far more real wealth and technological advances than any other system of economics.
These are not dystopian because they have worked when given a chance. A big reason why they work is because they conform to what human beings are actually like, not insisting on an impossible perfection.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
People do not ALWAYS resist tyrants but can resist them and do overthrow them.
Please quote something about workers that you think is absurd and laughable. I will have to read it to see whether or not I agree with it and should defend it.
Tribalism is not innate.
If the US had not entered the war, more and more workers would have resisted the war if it had been prolonged too long.
Of course everyone can only speak for themselves! We have had this obvious point before. No massacres by anyone, including US-backed Israelis, look "moderate."
I have explained how the state can become redundant. Free enterprise has created wealth and has advanced technology but more advanced technology will make economic competition redundant.
Free enterprise is not dystopian.
I describe what human beings are actually like and do not insist on an impossible perfection.
Can we stop this?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
We can't really stop, because you often say things I don't believe in and disagree with. But I will discontinue this thread.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
If you look back, you will find that recent threads of this kind have resulted not from me saying something in a post but from you saying something in the combox. Thus, in "History And Myth" (Wednesday, 5 November 2025), I quoted Anderson/Everard comparing Charlemagne to Stalin. I did not myself say anything, either controversial or otherwise, about Stalin. However, you took the opportunity to comment not only on Stalin but also on Lenin and Marxism-Leninism. That set the ball rolling on that occasion. Blog excavation would reveal other examples but I want to move forward.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I also explained that was because Stalin is always going to remind me of the monstrous Lenin and Marxism-Leninism, for both of which I have only negative views of.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Yes, but it was not because of anything I had said in the post.
"...the monstrous Lenin..."! Negative views of Marxism! We are off again! Let's not go there.
Paul.
Well, those people are members of an ideological tribe. But the other side is much more numerous.
Kaor, Paul!
Stirling and I have tried to explain why we think as we do about Lenin/Marxism.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Are we starting the ball rolling again? I have tried to explain why I think as I do about Lenin/Marxism. If people continuing to think differently continues to be a problem, that can't be helped.
Paul.
Post a Comment