"'Never was Anson Guthrie a man who'd draw to an inside straight.'
"She didn't catch the ancient Anglo reference." (p. 244)
Neither do I.
To compare "Anglo" with "Anglish," "Anglic" and "Angelic," see Multiverse: A Linguistic Detail. Such minor details and divergences can remind readers that the various stories or novels are set in alternative fictional futures. See Luna City. An early reference to Pope Martin Luther in Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials informs us that this narrative is set in a divergent history where there was no Protestant Reformation.
Guthrie says that he will not:
"'...rush into what may prove to be a socialism-sized blunder.'" (ibid.)
This is one of the few places in Anderson's works where some of us as readers grit our teeth. Other examples are:
"'Get off that guilt trip. What are you, some kind of liberal or something?'"
-Poul Anderson, "Star of the Sea" IN Anderson, Time Patrol (Riverdale, NY, December 2010), pp. 467-640 AT 15, p. 597.
"'The next stage that we contemplate is likely to be still more dangerous and taxing.' He sketched a smile. 'Or, on the basis of what I have heard of your political views, perhaps I should say "dangerous and demanding."'"
-Poul Anderson, The Shield Of Time (New York, July 1991), PART TWO, 1987 A. D., pp. 67-68.
It is clear that the abundant common wealth produced in the inner Solar System in The Fleet Of Stars makes market economics redundant and therefore also makes "socialism" not a blunder but a necessity - but we cannot even agree on the meaning of that word. And meanwhile, in this novel at least, technology has taken a path that does not realize human potentials but makes humanity itself redundant. (Not socialism.)
13 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
A poker player like Flandry would understand that "inside straight."
It would have been vastly better for the Church and the world if Martin Luther had remained a faithful Catholic.
I absolutely agree with Guthie's "...socialism-sized blunder." That catastrophic nonsense has never worked and never will work.
Again, I agree with Guthrie, what he said about "liberal" (that is, leftist) guilt tripping. One of the many things that sickens/disgusts me with US "liberals" is their endless whining and demeaning of everything that has made Western civilization in general (and the US in particular) great. And I'm not forgetting/forgiving how many of them are now nakedly anti-Semitic.
The "demands" so many states make today would be less "taxing" If they weren't so often imposed by futile, counterproductive, and oppressive policies based on disastrous leftist ideas.
I absolutely disagree with what you wrote: "It is clear that the abundant common wealth produced in the inner Solar System in THE FLEET OF STARS makes market economics redundant and therefor also makes "socialism" not a blunder but a necessity - but we 'cannot' even agree on the meaning of that word..."
What is even meant by "common wealth"? There has never been any such thing unless the State has somehow been involved. Nor can you even have abundant wealth unless created because of free enterprise economics, and the latter will continue to be necessary if you want to avoid technological/economic stagnation.
The most accurate definition of socialism is this: a command economy wherein politicians try to run an economy from the top down thru a bureaucracy incompetently trying to determine what services and goods to provide in whatever quantity. I care nothing for definitions which does not fit the actual facts of real life, real history. All we have ever seen from socialist attempts has been failure, poverty, tyranny.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Utter nonsense.
Common wealth means abundant wealth that can be held in common.
Competition has been necessary for economic development and can make itself redundant. Obviously there is no longer any economic competition in THE FLEET OF STARS but the abundant wealth is not controlled by human beings for human ends. That is one big problem.
Don't tell socialists what "socialism" means! Be prepared to discuss different understandings. These ideological confrontations get us nowhere.
Paul.
As the saying goes, capitalism has many problems. Socialism has only one: it doesn't work, because it's contrary to human nature.
Disagree. When technology produces abundance, the wealth can be either shared equally or destroyed. It will be at least possible for a majority to see the sense of the first option and to take action to bring it about.
I apologize for that abrupt "Disagree"! I have picked up the habit of these telegrammic rejoinders in these comboxes.
Oh, no problem.
The thing is, it isn't -material goods- that people in the upper echelons contend over.
Eg., Elon Musk parlayed about $5,000 in cash into the world's largest fortune.
Where does he live when he's at Starbase? In a mobile home that cost $30,000. He bought a lot of houses when he was first rich, then sold them because they bored him.
What he's concerned with is AI and interplanetary colonization.
In other words, it isn't material goods at all -- it's -power-. The power to do great things.
We ordinary folks are concerned with what money can buy for us in the way of goods.
What the very rich are concerned with is power.
And power can never be abundant, because it's a positional good.
If you have more, I have less -- and vice versa.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: Common ownership of everything is an impossibility, a fantasy which has never even been approximately achieved outside of Benedictine and Trappist monasteries. By definition monasteries are very specialized things limited to small groups.
You are overlooking how that absence of competition was achieved in THE FLEET OF STARS, by the Teramind reducing mankind to being powerless, idle, bored, frustrated, and increasingly angry pets of the sophotects. Once the Teramind's grip on power was broken we see many humans eagerly and willingly becoming competitive again.
The only definition of "socialism" that matters are the facts that accurately describes it in the real, actual world. Not mere dreams and hopes. The definition I gave is accurate, because that is exactly what we have seen in real history. As Stirling said: "Capitalism has many problems. Socialism has only one: it doesn't work, because it's contrary to human nature."
Mr. Stirling: Exactly, it is power that the very wealthy desire, in two ways. Power to govern/rule or using wealth to have the power and ability to do great things. And I love how Musk strives to use his power to do truly great and admirable things!
Agree, after a certain point simple wealth in itself sort of becomes meaningless--then he will likely turn to using power in the two ways you described. We ordinary folks have to be more concerned with how we use money for the ordinary goods of life.
I agree, power is a limited, positional good. Never going to be enough for everybody. To say nothing of how not everyone craves power!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I completely disagree with all of that but we have said it all before. It is repeated as if it has been forgotten. I am not overlooking anything, just disagreeing about it. What has not been achieved in the past or the present CAN be achieved in different conditions in the future just as we now achieve many things that had not been achieved before. This is not a mere dream or hope and calling it that does not make it so.
The definition of any word that matters is the definition that people mean when they use it and we should not get bogged down on the meaning of a word. I could use some other word to mean exactly the same thing. When abundance exists, there will be no need to compete or hoard and social wealth will be communal ("common wealth" is exactly what it means), not just private or individual. This is not guaranteed to happen but is certainly possible even if there has to be a lot of upheaval first. There will certainly be a lot of upheaval first. That is happening now. Wealth is destroyed in the form of missiles, drones, bombs etc but there are always lots of people who rightly protest against all that continued waste and destruction whether perpetrated by Putin, Netanyahu or Trump.
Communally controlled wealth does not mean more cash in individual wallets or bank accounts but agreed deployment of vast social resources.
I contrasted Guthrie's phrase "...socialism-sized blunder..." with the simultaneous existence in the inner Solar System of vast wealth that could have been controlled by human beings for human ends. Surely my drawing attention to this contrast should not have led to us repeating everything that we have said before, including the demonstrable falsehood that what has not been achieved in the past can therefore never be achieved - ever - in an indefinite future?
Surely we both know by now that neither of us will be convinced by mere repetition? Yet you seem to think that mere repetition is sufficient to settle the matter.
Paul.
People can only be economically uncompetitive if made idle, bored etc by some outside force? No. They can also be uncompetitive if the need for competition no longer exists. And they can be actively (not passively) peaceful in favourable social conditions. In fact, they demonstrate this ability all the time but you consistently deny this obvious feature of humanity. Are some of us peaceful now? Yes. Can the conditions in which we are peaceful be reproduced among greater numbers? Yes. This is all possible.
Kaor, Paul!
We cannot agree because I don't believe in those "different conditions" you keep insisting on, and looks more like mere hopes and speculations.
I will never agree to any definition of "socialism" which contradicts what has happened whenever that catastrophic idea has been tried.
Abundance has been possible because of free enterprise economics--and will remain possible only because of it. No economic competition means eventual stagnation, stasis, poverty. I dismiss fantasies like common ownership of everything.
We have weapons, drones, wars, etc., because human beings are innately imperfect, flawed, prone to strife and conflict, both non-violent and violent. And is far more likely than not to continue to exist no matter how much prosperity we have.
I "repeat" because you also repeat. Every so often you defend what I believe to be hopeless futilities like socialism or belief in the innate perfection of human nature.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We are not trying to agree. (There is a basic misunderstanding here.)
How can you not believe in "different conditions"? In current conditions in Lancaster, I can walk into town unmolested and without fear of bombs or missiles. In conditions elsewhere, not. I do not insist on this. I point it out. It is not mere hope or speculation. It is fact.
Abundance has become possible only because of free economics but will not remain possible only because of it. High tech automation will make economic competition no longer necessary and therefore redundant. That CAN mean the basis for the fullest development of human potential, not stagnation, stasis or poverty. Abundance is the opposite of poverty! Common ownership was impossible in the past only because the surplus of wealth was not yet large enough and therefore HAD to be monopolized by a minority. This point is so basic that I have not highlighted it sufficiently. Common ownership not of every single manufactured item but of the means of production and distribution is not a fantasy but the only viable way to deal with technological abundance. Abundance makes a qualitative difference. Quantity becomes quality. (Hegel.) I dismiss all talk of "fantasies."
Human beings are not innately imperfect, flawed, prone to strife and conflict. We have weapons, drones, wars etc because the competitive economy that you defend produces military conflict for resources like oil with the US arming and funding the Zionist state and arms manufacturers making huge profits. That will not continue if even more abundance is produced and is controlled for need, not profit.
You "repeat" merely by saying again what I have already replied to and I have just done it again. This is pointless. I have clearly demonstrated that socialism and human perfectibility are practical propositions just as the technological civilization that we now enjoy (including blogs and comboxes!) would have been inconceivable throughout most of the past.
Look forward, not backward.
Paul.
3rd para, 1st sentence, above:
"...only because of free enterprise economics..."
Either we abandon this argument altogether or we examine some basic assumptions instead of just continuing to make the same assumptions.
Post a Comment