Orloff, who had come to the Asterite Republic from the Soviet colonies, asks whether the Astra cannot do better than "'...the extreme libertarianism...'" (p. 115) which had produced selfish, materialistic individuals unconcerned about society.
Lindgren responds:
"'I don't imagine we have room aboard for unregulated capitalism... But I'd hate to see an outright socialism evolve. Not simply because its stifling. I think it'd discourage the creativity this ship will need for long-range survival.'" (ibid.)
Lindgren says more which is worth reading but I try to limit the lengths of quotations. Phrases like "'...an outright socialism...'" should never be used without some explanation. If it were self-evident and if everyone were in agreement that something called "socialism" was stifling and discouraged creativity, then why would anyone call themselves "socialist" as many do in response to current crises? Because they're mad, of course... Let's not go down that road. Since many people argue that democratic (not bureaucratic) control of economic resources will not stifle but liberate, this argument should be engaged with, not treated as if it did not exist, which is what happens when the phrase, "outright socialism," is simply identified with "stifling" and discouragement of creativity. I imagine Astra crew members calling themselves "socialists" arguing for a greater degree of democratic decision-making in the ship and others replying that this is impractical, of course. That would be a more constructive debate.
1 comment:
Kaor, Paul!
My belief remains that you cannot have "democratic," political control of any economy without it inevitably becoming an oppressive, heavy-handed bureaucratic despotism. Real world history and experience have shown socialism to always be stifling.
All that the people on the "Astra" needs are the usual laws penalizing fraud, theft, corruption, and a few others, etc.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment