How does the author's reasoning about social developments stack up?
"In many ways, the Drak'honia were closer to the human norm than the Lannachska." (p. 55)
Why?
"Their master-serf culture was a natural consequence of economics..." (ibid.)
So what were their economics?
"...given only neolithic tools, a raft big enough to support several families represented an enormous capital investment." (ibid.)
So why did the Drak'honai make that investment instead of staying with the migratory life-cycle of other Diomedeans? (The answer to this question probably is in the text. I am following through the reasoning again.)
Given life on big rafts:
"It was simply not possible for disgruntled individuals to strike out on their own; they were at the mercy of the State." (ibid.)
OK.
"In such cases, power always concentrated in the hands of aristocratic warriors and intellectual priesthoods; among the Drak'honai, those two classes had merged into one." (pp. 55-56)
In the opening sentence of Chapter I, a single individual bears five titles:
13 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
The Drak'honai setup makes sense to me. If you want the advantages of the Fleet's equivalents of having an agricultural and urbanized society, the State will be necessary to keep both the peace internally and defense from external attack.
Migratory/nomadic cultures don't need something so "organized."
Happy New Year! Sean
This is analogous to what happened to humans after the invention of agriculture and then cities and the State. It enabled denser populations and more concentrated power, but actually meant more work and less freedom for most.
And we can now work towards regaining individual freedom while retaining the benefits of technology.
No, because a complex society requires hierarchies of power. It slags down without those.
I think that we can fully democratize society and have public office-holders who really are the servants of their electorates.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Exactly, complex societies simply can't function without those hierarchies of power. What needs to be done is to keep those hierarchies from becoming too oppressive, in whatever forms they take.
Happy New Year! Sean
Paul: my instinctive response to that is to offer to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge, with a discount for cash...
Poul did a story in which interstellar 'humans' arrived, and that was what the protagonist.
The fully democratic society that I envisage will require a fundamentally different economic basis but this leads to issues that have been irreconcilably contentious before, to say the least. We will just have to keep living these issues and conflicts. My hopes for a more peaceful 2026 have already gone out the window.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree, there's never going to be a perfect socioeconomic system or "fully democratic" state because human beings are not angels. Not too terribly bad is the best we can do.
Ad astra! Sean
Paul: human nature is largely genetic. Culture is a layer on top of that. And in human societies, as far back as we go, power was equivalent to successful reproduction.
The meaning of "power" seems to be the sticking point. To me this word means the ability to coerce and there was a time before there were any means or instruments of coercion or indeed a division of society into two groups one of which had a specific reason to coerce the other. The majority produced a surplus and a minority appropriated it. And there can be a different kind of social relationships in future when the surplus is so large that there is no longer any need for it to be controlled by a minority (billionaires, bureaucrats etc). But clearly "power" can also be used more widely to mean influence, prestige, leadership etc.
Kaor, Paul!
Coercion is always going to play a necessary role in the governing of complex societies--because the violent and criminal needs to be deterred/penalized. To say nothing of defense from rival states.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But I have replied to all before and am determined not to go through it again.
Paul.
Post a Comment